Thank you
ZXNet echo conference «real.speccy»
Friday September 02 1994 20:43, Andrey Lysenko wrote to Yuri Potapov:
YP>> do you also suggest sending software to the bourgeoisie in wheezing?
AL> If you give them wheezing in the source, then writing a revealer is nothing
AL> difficult - we still have to worry about the bourgeoisie....
Hmm. How narrowly you think...
And stupid...
Sincerely, Oleg. [ZX]
Friday September 02 1994 20:48, Andrey Lysenko wrote to Roman Milukov:
RM>> It’s a shame to send an unpacked file by mail.
AL> Well, write a zip - what’s the problem?
AL> I even send unpackaged soap on an offtopic site - I haven’t died of shame yet.
It’s a pity... (c) ?
On Thursday September 19 2002 Oleg Groskow wrote to Andrey Lysenko:
OG> Soap is always unpackaged. The conversation is not about soap. Are you sneaking around?
Not everything is unpacked. With binkley-style outbound, netmail is packaged in the same way as echomail. Once upon a time I had this on a ZXNet node, have I forgotten? :)
Bye, Oleg!
Megus/Brainwave^X-Project http://brainwave.fatal.ru ICQ: 162548473
RP> Not everything is unpacked. With binkley-style outbound, netmail is packaged in the same way
RP> as echomail.
No need to be lame.
Soap packaging has nothing to do with BSO or AMA... You can package
it in any case. And in any case, packaging
soap is a violation of standards (in particular, ZMH
will not accept it).
With respect, Evgeniy.
On Wednesday September 18 2002 Andrey Lysenko wrote to Yuri Potapov:
YP>> how much zip does he want?
YP>> his window is only 64 kb
YP>> by the way, no one compared .zip with the Amiga propacker?
AL> That’s right, only a 64k window, not to mention the buffer
AL> records, the Huffman table for recording, the program itself, etc.
AL> I haven’t compared it with the propacker, but I’m sure that zip is not particularly
AL> worse - I repeat - it has non-childish requirements.
Write them all down on a piece of paper, then sit down and think that you can’t _fundamentally_ do
this on the Spectrum
Bye, Andrey!
RP> Not everything is unpacked. With binkley-style outbound, netmail is packaged
RP> in the same way as echomail. Once upon a time I had this on a ZXNet node,
RP> have I forgotten? :)
Well, I remembered... This is still not the norm, usually without packaging. And you were all cunning. ;)
Best regards, Oleg. [ZX]
On Thursday September 19 2002 Oleg Groskow wrote to Roman Petrov:
RP>> is packaged in the same way as echomail. Once upon a time I had this on
RP>> ZXNet node, have I really forgotten? :)
OG> Well, I remembered... This is still not the norm, usually without packaging. And everything about you
OG> was cunning. ;)
Why not the norm? Binkley is quite a standard, in my opinion even older. So it’s very normal. And I’ve been in this mood since the time when I picked up ZXNet mail myself from Kharkov with the help of Bink. That's when I
made a Binkley-style outbound on my node, which, by the way, still stands today, only soap now passes by it.
19 Sep 02 17:36, Eugene Palenock wrote to Roman Petrov:
EP> And in any case, packaging soap is a violation of standards
which FTS?
YP>>> do you also suggest sending software to the bourgeoisie in wheezing?
AL>> If you give them wheezing in the source, then write a revealer - nothing
AL>> difficult - we still have to worry about the bourgeoisie....
AA> Write them all down on a piece of paper, then sit down and think that you can’t
AA> _in principle_ this can be done on the Spectrum
In principle, everything can be done, but there are things that are easier to do
and there are things that are more difficult to do - and there are two mutually exclusive
problems, one of which is many times simpler than the other. So isn't it easier
to start with a simple one? those. make anhrip on offtopics.
Bye...
WBR, fyrex.
OG> What a pity... (c) ?
OG> Soap is always unpacked. The conversation is not about soap. Are you cheating?
Use less copyrights, maybe you can also cheat adequately.
So the conversation is about what is packaged and what is not. Soap is not packed,
text files are not packed, hard files are packed in a wheeze - what's unclear?
Bye...
WBR, fyrex.
AL> You can express your flawed opinion somewhere else if you have nothing
AL> to say on the merits.
;) Fool.
Change your diapers...
;)))))))
Sincerely, Oleg. [ZX]
AL> In principle, everything can be done, but there are things that are easier to do
AL> and there are things that are more difficult to do - and there are two mutually exclusive
AL> problems, one of which is many times simpler than the other. So isn't it easier
AL> to start with a simple one? those. make a wheeze on offtopics.
You are also a brake. 8(
It is already on the pussy.
Sincerely, Oleg. [ZX]
AL> You can express your flawed opinion somewhere else if you have nothing
AL> to say on the merits.
AL> Bye...
AL> WBR, fyrex.
AL> -+- Spot 1.3b
AL> + Origin: I am your servant, I am your worker (2:5022/120.9)
-------
express disagreement with the moderation policy via netmail
...bye.Andrey! ...tigrr//bw::ceg
... Jurgen Vries - The Theme ...
AL>> is simpler and there are some that are more difficult to do - and there are two
AL>> mutually exclusive problems, one of which is many times simpler than
AL>> the other. So isn't it easier to start with a simple one? those. make a wheeze on
AL>> offtopics.
OG> You're also a brake. 8(
OG> It's already on the pussy.
~$ unhrip
bash: unhrip: command not found
~$ whereis unhrip
unhrip:
~$ which unhrip
~$ apt-cache search unhrip
~$
It's not on the pussy:
~$ uname -n
pc