Re: Y2K
MallarJ@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/30/99 10:23:17 AM Central Standard Time,
> galt@inconnu.isu.edu writes:
>
> > You forgot that Gnome and KDE aren't either (for you AOLamers out there,
> > neither is Info) :)
>
> If that's true, the programmers working on KDE and GNOME out to be noodle-
> whipped in public. These products are babies, and not having them Y2K
> compliant from the get-go is a HUGE mistake and shows lack of planning on the
> part of the developers.
>
> As for the AOLamers comment - ya know, I understand anyone's opinion of not
> liking AOL - but don't insult me for using it. I have my reasons as you have
> yours. I thought we gave up calling each other names in high-school - or
> maybe you haven't reached that point yet.
>
> Anyway, what does Info and AOL have to do with each other? Or did I miss
> something?
>
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> >
> > > In foo.debian-user, you wrote:
> > > > I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
> > > > If not which version is Y2K.
> > >
> > > Only Debian GNU/Linux is Y2K compliant (any version). All other distros
> > > will fail at the end of this year. Please reformat your Slackware system
> > > and install Debian as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Also, Emacs is NOT Y2K... you should use vi.
> >
>
> I can understand why a package is not Y2K compliant. But if I understand
> correctly, a package is nothing more than a compiled program. So, why would
> Debian be compliant on a given package but the same package not be compliant
> under Slackware? That doesn't make sense at all.
>
> And, if there are still Y2K problems with GNU packages, why in the hell aren't
> they fixing them before coming up with new features?
>
> -Jay
Mitch should have included the original poster's disclaimer that the info about
Slackware and Emacs was a tongue-in-cheek "hurray for Debian, boo for other
distributions" untuth. Mitch's comments are in a similar vein, along the lines of
"real Linux people don't use pretty GUIs".
BTW, certain language/words, while gaining acceptance in society, are still frowned
upon by the FCC, and those amateur radio operators (hams) who might be forwarding
these lists via packet radio are violating the FCC rules. And some people in society
still have sensitive ears to "rough" language. (Really, your wording was rather mild
compared to another post earlier this week, but I'd like to encourage everyone to not
alienate hams by forcing them to break the law in their other hobby. And I hope I
don't sound too much like a prude/sissy/whiner/whatever.)
Reply to: