Menu
▾
▴
sql-ledger-users
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-09-09 17:52:04
|
On 9/8/06, Tom Diehl <td...@ro...> wrote: > How come you insist on answering questions not asked? Unless my eyes > decieve me the question was addresses to Dieter wrt to SL. I did not see > anything asking about what you intend to do with LedgerSMB, yet you insist > on providing an advertisment to your fork. Has this list been turned into the > LedgerSMB mailing list. > > ALL OF THIS IS GETTING OLD. I'm not sure why you seem to be getting so upset. I was stating that the feature that this user seems to want will be added to our fork. Why is this a bad thing? Dieter (or anyone else on this list) is more than welcome to join the mailing lists of the fork as an active participant or as a lurker, and incorporate anything that we do into SL. This saves Dieter work, and can potentially give his users more features. I'm not sure why you seem to see this as a bad thing? Cheers, Chris |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-09 17:56:57
|
Please, get the f***k lost!!!! This is not the forked list this is the originial list. el on 9/9/06 7:52 PM Christopher Murtagh said the following: > On 9/8/06, Tom Diehl <td...@ro...> wrote: >> How come you insist on answering questions not asked? Unless my eyes >> decieve me the question was addresses to Dieter wrt to SL. I did not see >> anything asking about what you intend to do with LedgerSMB, yet you insist >> on providing an advertisment to your fork. Has this list been turned into the >> LedgerSMB mailing list. >> >> ALL OF THIS IS GETTING OLD. > > I'm not sure why you seem to be getting so upset. I was stating that > the feature that this user seems to want will be added to our fork. > Why is this a bad thing? Dieter (or anyone else on this list) is more > than welcome to join the mailing lists of the fork as an active > participant or as a lurker, and incorporate anything that we do into > SL. This saves Dieter work, and can potentially give his users more > features. I'm not sure why you seem to see this as a bad thing? > > Cheers, > > Chris -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el...@li... el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ to dns...@na... |
|
From: Dave S. <bou...@ya...> - 2006-09-09 23:35:24
|
I can barely believe it myself, but for the first time I actually agree with the good Doctor! You made it perfectly clear Christopher - you wanted nothing to do with Dieter and his software. So why the hell are you still here? Leave already! Cheers, Dave --- Dr Eberhard Lisse <el...@li...> wrote: > Please, get the f***k lost!!!! > > This is not the forked list this is the originial > list. > > el > > on 9/9/06 7:52 PM Christopher Murtagh said the > following: > > On 9/8/06, Tom Diehl <td...@ro...> wrote: > >> How come you insist on answering questions not > asked? Unless my eyes > >> decieve me the question was addresses to Dieter > wrt to SL. I did not see > >> anything asking about what you intend to do with > LedgerSMB, yet you insist > >> on providing an advertisment to your fork. Has > this list been turned into the > >> LedgerSMB mailing list. > >> > >> ALL OF THIS IS GETTING OLD. > > > > I'm not sure why you seem to be getting so upset. > I was stating that > > the feature that this user seems to want will be > added to our fork. > > Why is this a bad thing? Dieter (or anyone else on > this list) is more > > than welcome to join the mailing lists of the fork > as an active > > participant or as a lurker, and incorporate > anything that we do into > > SL. This saves Dieter work, and can potentially > give his users more > > features. I'm not sure why you seem to see this as > a bad thing? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > -- > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & > Gynaecologist (Saar) > el...@li... el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 > 81 124 6733 (cell) > PO Box 8421 \ / Please send > DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ to > dns...@na... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support > web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated > technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 > based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Gavin C. <ga...@op...> - 2006-09-09 22:55:38
|
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 08:59:16AM -0400, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > On 9/7/06, Gavin Carr <ga...@op...> wrote: > > Dieter, would it be difficult to (as an alternative) to support > > external authentication i.e. delegate the authentication to apache, > > and on the SL side just trust the REMOTE_USER environment variable, > > and bypass the SL authentication if this is set? > > One of our goals in LedgerSMB is to have a plugable authentication > scheme and probalby support LDAP and Kerberos (HTTP Basic Auth would > be fairly simple too). Note that this isn't quite what I'm asking for Chris. "Pluggable" authentication implies specific support by the appliation of auth scheme X. I'm after "external" authentication, meaning you do the auth at the apache level using any authentication module apache supports, and SL just accepts the authenticated user as given to it by apache. There's a place for both, but I'm specifically interested in the second. Cheers, Gavin |
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-09-09 23:09:39
|
On 9/9/06, Gavin Carr <ga...@op...> wrote: > Note that this isn't quite what I'm asking for Chris. "Pluggable" > authentication implies specific support by the appliation of auth > scheme X. I'm after "external" authentication, meaning you do the auth > at the apache level using any authentication module apache supports, > and SL just accepts the authenticated user as given to it by apache. > There's a place for both, but I'm specifically interested in the > second. The two things that you describe are one and the same. Pluggable authentication means that you create APIs for different authentication mechanisms, so that these mechanisms handle the authentication, and the application trusts it throught the API. 'auth scheme X' in this case is 'Basic HTTP authentication' which will definitely be one of the authentication schemes that we can support. Cheers, Chris |
|
From: Luke <sl...@li...> - 2006-09-10 01:37:22
|
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > On 9/9/06, Gavin Carr <ga...@op...> wrote: > > Note that this isn't quite what I'm asking for Chris. "Pluggable" > > authentication implies specific support by the appliation of auth > > scheme X. I'm after "external" authentication, meaning you do the auth > > at the apache level using any authentication module apache supports, > > and SL just accepts the authenticated user as given to it by apache. > > There's a place for both, but I'm specifically interested in the > > second. > > The two things that you describe are one and the same. Pluggable > authentication means that you create APIs for different authentication > mechanisms, so that these mechanisms handle the authentication, and > the application trusts it throught the API. 'auth scheme X' in this > case is 'Basic HTTP authentication' which will definitely be one of > the authentication schemes that we can support. I have to agree with Gavin here: the two are not really identical. ProFTPD, in order to authenticate against MySQL, if I recall correctly, uses a module of sorts. The user enters his information to the normal ProFTPD login system, at which point ProFTPD uses the pluggable module to authenticate, and receives back an answer and possibly other information. That seems analogous to the Pluggable or API based system you are describing. >From the prospective of a secured PHP application running under a .htaccess protected directory, however: Apache prompts for, and receives, authentication information. It then does what it needs to to verify that information. If it is valid for a user, it passes the user name on to the PHP application. The application did not have to be modified to permit new authentication schemes (internal or pluggable), it just receives a username if the user was valid, and never even runs if the user was not. The latter is external--the application is only involved when the authentication process is complete. The former is a plugin: the application uses something else to do the authenticating, but is still involved from the start, thereby limiting the available methods for authentication, or at least making each new method dependent on something being written for the application, so that it might handle them. I would favor the external, rather than the remote/internal/plugin method. Regards, Luke |
|
From: Gavin C. <ga...@op...> - 2006-09-09 23:54:58
|
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 07:07:48PM -0400, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > On 9/9/06, Gavin Carr <ga...@op...> wrote: > > Note that this isn't quite what I'm asking for Chris. "Pluggable" > > authentication implies specific support by the appliation of auth > > scheme X. I'm after "external" authentication, meaning you do the auth > > at the apache level using any authentication module apache supports, > > and SL just accepts the authenticated user as given to it by apache. > > There's a place for both, but I'm specifically interested in the > > second. > > The two things that you describe are one and the same. Pluggable > authentication means that you create APIs for different authentication > mechanisms, so that these mechanisms handle the authentication, and > the application trusts it throught the API. 'auth scheme X' in this > case is 'Basic HTTP authentication' which will definitely be one of > the authentication schemes that we can support. That's not really correct. The issue is who is doing the authentication. If the app does it (and uses an api to allow it swap different schemes in and out), that's pluggable; if apache does it and the app just accepts the results, that's external. 'Basic HTTP Authentication' is just a particular HTTP authentication method, and orthogonal to this point - either the app or apache could support Basic authentication, alongside any other scheme. But if you're planning to support external REMOTE_USER authentication, then that would be great. Cheers, Gavin |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-10 05:04:49
|
Leave it be. Or follow the vapor trail to the spoon-list. el on 9/10/06 1:54 AM Gavin Carr said the following: > That's not really correct. The issue is who is doing the authentication. > If the app does it (and uses an api to allow it swap different schemes in > and out), that's pluggable; if apache does it and the app just accepts > the results, that's external. > > 'Basic HTTP Authentication' is just a particular HTTP authentication > method, and orthogonal to this point - either the app or apache could > support Basic authentication, alongside any other scheme. > > But if you're planning to support external REMOTE_USER authentication, > then that would be great. |
|
From: GeorgeOsvald <geo...@ya...> - 2006-09-10 03:24:31
|
On Sunday 10 September 2006 03:52, Christopher Murtagh wrote:
> On 9/8/06, Tom Diehl <td...@ro...> wrote:
> > How come you insist on answering questions not asked? Unless my eyes
> > decieve me the question was addresses to Dieter wrt to SL. I did not see
> > anything asking about what you intend to do with LedgerSMB, yet you
> > insist on providing an advertisment to your fork. Has this list been
> > turned into the LedgerSMB mailing list.
> >
> > ALL OF THIS IS GETTING OLD.
>
> I'm not sure why you seem to be getting so upset. I was stating that
> the feature that this user seems to want will be added to our fork.
> Why is this a bad thing? Dieter (or anyone else on this list) is more
> than welcome to join the mailing lists of the fork as an active
> participant or as a lurker, and incorporate anything that we do into
> SL. This saves Dieter work, and can potentially give his users more
> features. I'm not sure why you seem to see this as a bad thing?
OK I did not want to say anything here but what the hell:
Because you are abusing this list to promote your product. Do you see anyone
here promoting MYOB or Quickbooks? That is what you're doing. How can Dieter
possibly benefit from that? You obviously do not have anyone interested in
"YOUR" software otherwise you would be preaching to them. Your fork might
resolve one problem though. Some time ago I suggested to Dieter that he
should have two mail lists. One for paying customers and another one for non
payers. Your spoon (sorry fork) can serve that purpose. And please do not
pretend to be mighty good doer ooooh blessed one.
Everybody here knows you only do this for one reason and that is profit. I
have nothing against profit or business in general. However I do not like
people who pretend they want only to help others while they only try to help
their own wallets. (like for example US government)
Definitions of Good Doer on the Web:
* a horse that thrives on a minimum amount of food
* An eager eater.
You take your pick mate !
|
|
From: David T. <ta...@ex...> - 2006-09-10 04:23:48
|
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 13:24 +1000, GeorgeOsvald wrote: > Because you are abusing this list to promote your product. 'using' yes, but 'Abusing'?? I think not, see below. > Do you see anyone > here promoting MYOB or Quickbooks? No but ... > That is what you're doing. How can Dieter > possibly benefit from that? .. he can benefit by people saying 'MYOB' has this really good feature ... I recommend it for that reason. That can benefit Dieter and SL and thus everyone, by starting discussion about if this is a. good or bad b. worth putting into SL c. catered for in SL in a different way, or not catered for for some perfectly (in)valid reason(s). etc etc > You obviously do not have anyone interested in > "YOUR" software otherwise you would be preaching to them. >From what I see that is not at all correct. > Your fork might > resolve one problem though. Some time ago I suggested to Dieter that he > should have two mail lists. One for paying customers and another one for non > payers. I see the value of that. > Your spoon (sorry fork) can serve that purpose. And please do not > pretend to be mighty good doer ooooh blessed one. > Everybody here knows you only do this for one reason and that is profit. George, the only thing 'everybody here' knows, I hope, is that you cannot possibly speak for what 'everybody knows' I guess profit is one reason. So what? I am also fairly sure he has other reasons. But I do not presume to know. Nor do I care. > However I do not like > people who pretend they want only to help others while they only try to help > their own wallets. (like for example US government) Nor do I really. FWIW ... which is <=0. But where did Chris say or make it clear that he wants 'only to help others'. > > Definitions of Good Doer on the Web: > > * a horse that thrives on a minimum amount of food > * An eager eater. > > You take your pick mate ! Where on the web ... no forget it, I really don't need to know this. The above did not help anything at all... seems like just a bit more unnecessary invective. Is Dr E's style starting to rub off onto you too George? |
|
From: GeorgeOsvald <geo...@ya...> - 2006-09-10 04:48:30
|
On Sunday 10 September 2006 14:23, David Tangye wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 13:24 +1000, GeorgeOsvald wrote:
>
> > Definitions of Good Doer on the Web:
> >
> > * a horse that thrives on a minimum amount of food
> > * An eager eater.
> >
> > You take your pick mate !
Definitions of "Good Doer" on the Web:
* a horse that thrives on a minimum amount of food
www.equinekingdom.com/data/horse_glossary/g_terms.htm
* An eager eater.
www.runhorse.com/popular_horse_racing_terms.htm
>
> Where on the web ... no forget it, I really don't need to know this. The
> above did not help anything at all... seems like just a bit more
> unnecessary invective. Is Dr E's style starting to rub off onto you too
> George?
No. I am just tired of:
- starting to read and then delete
- starting to read and then delete
- starting to read and then delete
- starting to read and then delete
- starting to read and then delete
- starting to read and then delete
- starting to read and then delete
...........Over and over again.
I was hoping to end the LedgerSMB vs SQL-LEDGER dabate. Posts from last few
day have been absolutely ridiculous.
Anyway version 2.6.18 is on the web and it's supposed to include a fix for the
session bug so I guess SMB mob can bugger off now until they find something
else to boast about.
|
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-10 05:02:48
|
Will be, can be, wanna be. Get the f***k of this list and peddle your vaporware elsewhere. on 9/10/06 1:07 AM Christopher Murtagh said the following: > The two things that you describe are one and the same. Pluggable > authentication means that you create APIs for different authentication > mechanisms, so that these mechanisms handle the authentication, and > the application trusts it throught the API. 'auth scheme X' in this > case is 'Basic HTTP authentication' which will definitely be one of > the authentication schemes that we can support. el |
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-09-10 06:25:55
|
George, your rant is silly. On 9/9/06, GeorgeOsvald <geo...@ya...> wrote: > Because you are abusing this list to promote your product. Do you see anyone > here promoting MYOB or Quickbooks? That is what you're doing. That's funny, I've never used MYOB or Quickbooks. > How can Dieter possibly benefit from that? Honestly, I'm not very interested in what Dieter can benefit from. I am far more interested in what users can benefit from. I also believe that if more users benefit from it, this will benefit Dieter and developers. Look around you, do a google search for open source accounting projects. There aren't a lot of products like SQL-Ledger... yet. However there are a lot that are getting very close and they are far slicker, html from this century even, have more developers and offer way more features (like payroll, EDI, integration with groupware suites, etc.). The only thing that most of them lack is maturity/stability which will come over time. If the development of SQL-Ledger does not pick up in a *serious* way, it will be gone. One person does not stand a chance against the teams that are developing these products. SQL-Ledger needs fixing. Dieter has done well to take it to this point, but he needs to realize that he can't do it alone. The code has structural problems, the security isn't even an after-thought - it's non-existent, the schema is not using any features of a modern RDMS and allows for data corruption, the output is non-standard compliant, etc.. We (as in everyone here) can fix this. We (as in the folks working on LedgerSMB) will fix this. Dieter can take any/all of what we do and benefit from the work of many instead of doing it all by himself. His clients and users will benefit too. Dieter is more than welcome to join on the development of LedgerSMB, the only thing he would have to give up is having to do all the work. Dieter is also welcome to take anything he wants from LedgerSMB and incorporate it into SQL-Ledger. How does this damage him exactly? > You obviously do not have anyone interested in "YOUR" software otherwise you > would be preaching to them. You're welcome to join our mailing lists and find out that you're wrong. >Your fork might > resolve one problem though. Some time ago I suggested to Dieter that he > should have two mail lists. One for paying customers and another one for non > payers. You show that you don't understand the benefits of open source. The benefit is in numbers and in community. Not only in a community of users, but in a community of developers and people providing feedback. Close that off and you might as well be selling binaries. > Your spoon (sorry fork) can serve that purpose. That's just silly, was that supposed to be a joke or a pun? > And please do not > pretend to be mighty good doer ooooh blessed one. > Everybody here knows you only do this for one reason and that is profit. I'm doing this as a last resort because my clients needed some software that worked and was secure. I was willing to put my work into SQL-Ledger, I offered Dieter my help and I had also planned on paying $900 for developer support. It became very clear that this wasn't going to happen and my only choice was a fork. This is the best option for my clients, and in that case I will profit because I will be providing them with what they need. However, I would much rather be a contributor in a large group than do it by myself. Fortunately, LedgerSMB is already a large group of developers compared to SQL-Ledger. So, again, this fork is beneficial to me, to my clients and to the other developers. > However I do not like > people who pretend they want only to help others while they only try to help > their own wallets. (like for example US government) I'm not sure why you're bringing this sort of politics into this, unless you're trying to insult Americans. Maybe you think I am one? I'm not btw, nor should that matter. This does not have to be a us VS them issue, but you seem to insist on making it that, which is a real shame. Cheers, Chris |
|
From: GeorgeOsvald <geo...@ya...> - 2006-09-10 07:15:38
|
On Sunday 10 September 2006 16:25, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > This does not have to be a us VS them issue, but you seem to insist > on making it that, which is a real shame. I am simply trying to end this discussion about LedgerSMB ON THIS LIST. You guys have been busy lately on blogs, mail lists, postgres forums promoting your spoon (fork - and yes it is a joke - I do not like that word) which is fine there. You should however have the decency not to do that on this list. You say you do not care what benefits Dieter and what doesn't. Well neither do I but I also am naive enough to believe in fair play and promoting your fork on this list looks a lot like back stabbing to me. If this was any other forum not SQL-LEDGER user list than I would not have a problem with that. You say you only want to provide better service for your customers. By posting advertising of LedgerSMB you give me the impression that all you're trying to do is to steel as many customers as possible from this list to yours. Actually if you were up-front about it and simply said: "Hey guys blow this mob. Come to my list. My software/service is better." I would have less of a problem. In conclusion I must say only future will show what happens. I have been using SL for about 4 years now. More than a half as a paying customer. I have seen forks come and go. I have seen on-line services based on SL come and go. We will see what happens with your software. Changing accounting software is like changing a dentist. I would not be too keen to do either. |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-10 08:03:22
|
And, of course the many Open Source Accounting packages that are so slick mainly exist in his imagination. on 9/10/06 9:15 AM GeorgeOsvald said the following: > On Sunday 10 September 2006 16:25, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > >> This does not have to be a us VS them issue, but you seem to insist >> on making it that, which is a real shame. > I have seen forks come and go. I have seen on-line services based > on SL come and go. We will see what happens with your software. |
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-09-10 15:04:23
|
On 9/10/06, GeorgeOsvald <geo...@ya...> wrote: > your spoon (fork - and yes it is a joke - I do not like that word) So, you say that you come to a 'spoon in the road', someone speaks with a 'spooned tongue', and eat your steak with a spoon and knife? Odd. > You say you do not care what benefits Dieter and what doesn't. Well neither > do I but I also am naive enough to believe in fair play and promoting your > fork on this list looks a lot like back stabbing to me. If this was any other > forum not SQL-LEDGER user list than I would not have a problem with that. So, what you're saying is that everyone else who doesn't currently use SQL-Ledger should know about the work we're doing, however, the people who are (and who could benefit from the changes) should remain in the dark? We are inviting Dieter and anyone else here to take, share, use our fixes. Since we have an public subversion repository, anyone can see the entire history of our changes. How is this back stabbing exactly? > You say you only want to provide better service for your customers. By posting > advertising of LedgerSMB you give me the impression that all you're trying to > do is to steel as many customers as possible from this list to yours. Steal? Customers? You seem to be confusing these 'products' with commercial software. I don't gain anything at all financially if LedgerSMB has hundreds of users. If anything, we want developers (and we're doing ok on that front at the moment, but the more the merrier). Since Dieter doesn't seem to be interested in having more SQL-Ledger developers, this seems like a good thing. He doesn't want them, we'll take them. > Actually if you were up-front about it and simply said: "Hey guys blow this > mob. Come to my list. My software/service is better." I would have less of a > problem. I don't want to do that. What I want to do is say 'Hey guys, look at these two software packages, right now they're very similar. We're adding fixes to ours, you can have them, we would welcome your feedback and input too. Lets work on these fixes together.' I'm not asking anyone to dump SQL-Ledger, to 'betray', 'backstab', whatever to Dieter. Keep SQL-Ledger if you want, that's cool. However, it would be in everyone's interest to at least keep track of what the two projects are doing, since they can both benefit from each other. Cheers, Chris |
|
From: Gavin C. <ga...@op...> - 2006-09-10 11:49:32
|
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 07:02:44AM +0200, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: > Will be, can be, wanna be. Get the f***k of this list and peddle your > vaporware elsewhere. Excuse me, but this is a legitimate technical discussion about a question I asked about SL. The technical points under discussion are general, and are as relevant to SL as they are to the fork. You may not like some of the contributors to the discussion, but as we are lead to believe this is an open list, I am happy to receive commentary and clarification from anyone providing it is on-topic and relevant to SL. It may be a forlorn request, but if we could all put aside the sniping for a little while we may actually produce some signal amidst all this noise. Regards, Gavin > on 9/10/06 1:07 AM Christopher Murtagh said the following: > > > The two things that you describe are one and the same. Pluggable > > authentication means that you create APIs for different authentication > > mechanisms, so that these mechanisms handle the authentication, and > > the application trusts it throught the API. 'auth scheme X' in this > > case is 'Basic HTTP authentication' which will definitely be one of > > the authentication schemes that we can support. -- Gavin Carr Open Fusion - Open Source Business Solutions [ Linux - Perl - Apache ] http://www.openfusion.com.au - Fashion is a variable, but style is a constant - Programming Perl |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-10 12:30:41
|
Believe it or not, I don't know these wannabes, I don't want to know them and I in general don't give a dead rat's fuzzy behind about them. However, the discussion about the spoon doesn't belong here. The vaporware doesn't belong here, nor do the features the vaporware might (or ) not have at some stage in the future. Nevermind that this is all pretext for their ulterior motives. el on 9/10/06 1:49 PM Gavin Carr said the following: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 07:02:44AM +0200, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: > You may not like some of the contributors to the discussion, but as > we are lead to believe this is an open list, I am happy to receive > commentary and clarification from anyone providing it is on-topic and > relevant to SL. > > It may be a forlorn request, but if we could all put aside the sniping > for a little while we may actually produce some signal amidst all this > noise. -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el...@li... el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ to dns...@na... |
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-09-08 00:01:45
|
On 9/7/06, Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...> wrote: > This is simply a lie. I looked at this and started on a bug fix the minute > it came to my attention. I told you to submit a patch so we could expedite > this but only after numerous attempts telling you to submit a patch you > finally did, actually it wasn't you but you left it up to Travers to do > the work for you. Right. Well, maybe you should get your water tested, or better yet, why not read the archives of this list. There are numerous folks there who state that they have told you about this *months* ago. Chris |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-08 04:40:46
|
What *IS* bullshit, now that you started using foul language, is the way you and your name sake are and have been going about it. Lying about alleged censoring, forging headers, whining about Simader's attitude towards Open Source (which is contrary to your politics), and now this FUD. Besides that nobody has a *RIGHT* to anything, "the application is" *NOT* "severely flawed". There are simple remedies, such as .httaccess and not so simple ones as SSL, and this wannabe fork. Speaking of which, would you mind taking it and yourself and your whiner buddies elsewhere? Preferrably where the sun don't shine, but at least to another list, I am quite willing to set up "SL-wannabes" for you. Mr Simader has fixed all bugs that I have reported within hours. el on 9/7/06 11:41 PM Christopher Murtagh said the following: > On 9/7/06, Trevor Hennion <tre...@th...> wrote: >> Undoubtedly the problem should be fixed - but it does NOT affect all >> SQL-Ledger users, so I think some proper reporting of the vulnerability >> is required - currently it sounds like scare mongering - or does it just >> happen to coincide with this fork? > > That is total BS. There are people who are using internet facing > installations of SL, this can be demonstrated by a google search for > 'SQL-Ledger version'. They have a right to know that their application > is severely flawed. Numerous attempts to get Dieter to fix this > problem have been ignored, only by going public with this did he start > to make noises about fixing it. While we were talking to him off list > about it, he kept on insisting that it wasn't a security problem. If > this is so, why is he fixing it now that it is public? It's either a > problem or it's not. -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el...@li... el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ to dns...@na... |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-08 04:58:15
|
on 9/8/06 1:46 AM Christopher Murtagh said the following: > Well, maybe you should get your water tested, or better yet, why not > read the archives of this list. Well, maybe you should tell us what weed you are smonking. > There are numerous folks there who state that they have told you > about this *months* ago. Ah, statements are so easy to make. But is it true? Or, does it matter? Get the f***k off the list, and wannabe your own. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el...@li... el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ to dns...@na... |
|
From: David J P. <dav...@sy...> - 2006-09-08 13:13:29
|
On 9/8/06, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el...@li...> wrote: > Get the f***k off the list, and wannabe your own. You, Dr E, are the most belligerent, obnoxious "contributor" to a mailing list that I have read in quite some time. If you think that your outbursts are championing Deiters fine work, or the open source process, you are dead wrong. What is happening, with regards to the fork, is natural and healthy, whether you like it or not, it is an outcome of Deiters stance and style, as lead developer, and will result in a) an improved SL or b) a better alternative. We are lucky to have the dissenters still offering ideas and help to users, on this list. Your abusive manner will scare away more average users, than it will banish those who dare to express their valid concerns. I'm sure that nothing that could be said here would reduce your regular injections of vitriol. It's a good thing that email filtering exists. nuff troll food ? djp -- dj...@li... www.linuxcaffe.ca/sfd geek chic and caffe cachet 326 Harbord Street, Toronto, M6G 3A5, (416) 534-2116 |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-08 17:36:40
|
Divad, Thank you very much, and I haven't even been trying. And, I have nothing against the fork, not at all, no problem. In fact just the opposite. But as others have said, why are they whining on this list? One of these days they'll actually have a list, and of course I'll subscribe to lurk. But I am quite happy with the software and mr Simader's support. So are my accountants and my auditors. And, I am always amazed how these whiners manage to get upset at my posts when they filter them out. Bu then they are being censored, banned and forge mail headers. And, if you had a clue what trolling means, I'd be bothered perhaps. And, the man's name is Dieter. el on 9/8/06 3:13 PM David J Patrick said the following: > On 9/8/06, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el...@li...> wrote: >> Get the f***k off the list, and wannabe your own. > > You, Dr E, are the most belligerent, obnoxious "contributor" to a > mailing list that I have read in quite some time. If you think that > your outbursts are championing Deiters fine work, or the open source > process, you are dead wrong. What is happening, with regards to the > fork, is natural and healthy, whether you like it or not, it is an > outcome of Deiters stance and style, as lead developer, and will > result in a) an improved SL or b) a better alternative. We are lucky > to have the dissenters still offering ideas and help to users, on this > list. Your abusive manner will scare away more average users, than it > will banish those who dare to express their valid concerns. I'm sure > that nothing that could be said here would reduce your regular > injections of vitriol. It's a good thing that email filtering exists. > > nuff troll food ? > djp > -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el...@li... el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ to dns...@na... |
|
From: David T. <ta...@ex...> - 2006-09-10 01:33:00
|
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 09:13 -0400, David J Patrick wrote: > You, Dr E, are the most belligerent, obnoxious "contributor" to a > mailing list that I have read in quite some time. I cannot agree with that statement, as Dr E is actually the most belligerent and obnoxious person I have EVER seen on any list anywhere. My, what I distinction, he has earned himself. Keep up the attitude, E, its only your own hole that you are digging. :-) |
|
From: Dr E. L. <el...@li...> - 2006-09-10 04:54:45
|
Your parents should let you out some more. on 9/10/06 3:32 AM David Tangye said the following: > On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 09:13 -0400, David J Patrick wrote: >> You, Dr E, are the most belligerent, obnoxious "contributor" to a >> mailing list that I have read in quite some time. > > I cannot agree with that statement, as Dr E is actually the most > belligerent and obnoxious person I have EVER seen on any list anywhere. > My, what I distinction, he has earned himself. Keep up the attitude, E, > its only your own hole that you are digging. :-) |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X