On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:06:18PM +0000,  Angles  Puglisi wrote:
> Michel Alexandre Salim (salimma1@yahoo.co.uk) wrote*:
> Limbo beta2 ? I'm running Limbo 7.3.92 with kernel 4.2.18-5.58, is what I am running
> an "older" version of the Limbo beta, it is it "the" limbo beta?
The current version of the Limbo beta is 7.3.93 (yeah, they should
have renamed it, but they didn't). It's in the same
redhat/linux/beta/limbo directory on the ftp servers. Just check the
redhat-release package to find out which version is on the server.
Looking at ftp.redhat.com, the current one is redhat-release-7.3.93-2.
If you're using GNOME2 from the beta, I'd upgrade as there were some
important bugfixes since the first beta. The only thing to watch out
for is that Limbo2 switched gcc to 3.2, which is once again
incompatible with the previous gcc (v3.1 shipped in Limbo1).
gary
_______________________________________________
RPM-List mailing list <RPM-List@freshrpms.net>
http://lists.freshrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Wed Sep 11 19:43:23 2002

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8E744177
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:39:05 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:39:06 +0100 (IST)
from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7CHZub27187 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:35:56 +0100
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 119FD2940AE; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
from mail.evergo.net (unknown [206.191.151.2]) by xent.com
    (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C9402940A3 for <fork@xent.com>; Mon,
    12 Aug 2002 10:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
From fork-admin@xent.com  Mon Aug 12 18:39:06 2002

The case against theft also acknowledges that the value to the thief is
often far less than the value to the victim.  Stealing my $1,000 sterio
and then fencing it for $50 does not result in 'no loss' the the economy
overall.  For the same reason that voluntary transactions increase
social value, involuntary ones decrease it.  If the sterio was worth as
much to the theif as it was to me he'd buy it ...
On the flip side of this, common law allows a breach of property law in
precisely the type of scenarios where a net social gain is recorded but
the owner's availability to make a contract was problematic.  Breaking
into your isolated cabin because I'm starving, for example, is
permissible if I later offer restitution for the damage I caused and the
food I ate.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
> Russell Turpin
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:25 AM
> To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
> Subject: Re: David Friedman: Mail Me the Money!
>
> R. A. Hettinga:
> >..which reminds me of my favorite David Friedman quote. "The direct
use
> of
> >physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited
resources
> >that it is commonly employed only by small children and great
nations."
>
> Is that relevent here? The spam problem, like
> the fraud and the robbery problem, is about people
> who will do whatever it takes to make a buck, no
> matter how much harm they do to others in the
> process.
>
> From an economist's viewpoint, the downside of
> theft is not that it transfers property from one
> person to another, which is no loss to the economy
> overall, but that defending against it is an
> additional expense simply to enjoy what you
> have already acquired.
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork