|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 123 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 100 of 123:
| 
Sep 12 08:42 UTC 1995 |
agreed.
|
davel
|
|
response 101 of 123:
|
Sep 12 10:26 UTC 1995 |
It sounded to me as though it's likely that, if anyone remembers to do it,
when this stuff is set up on the Sun 4 there's likely to be a publically-
available database created by "nobody" (which will get permission-denied
errors & not list unpermitted dirs) and one readable only by staff or some
subset which reads everything. That was suggested, & no one's been
screaming & pounding the table in favor of continuing the violation of
normal policy regarding perms.
I don't think it's a really high-priority item, and given the amount of
work yet to be done on the Sun 4, it seems all too likely to get lost
in the mass of details, however.
|
ajax
|
|
response 102 of 123:
|
Sep 12 15:33 UTC 1995 |
I think if a vote were taken, there would be support for a
dual-database approach. However, not being a super important
item, it's not worth taking a vote, and even if such a vote
passed, that doesn't mean it would be implemented. But I hope
davel's vision of its just being changed in the Sun 4 happens.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 103 of 123:
|
Sep 12 17:05 UTC 1995 |
I agree.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 104 of 123:
|
Sep 12 23:00 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 105 of 123:
|
Sep 13 06:12 UTC 1995 |
To clarify the second part of my last post: The discussion on "locate" was
drift. Was there any resolution on the issue of "Indecent Files", the
original stated purpose for this item?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 106 of 123:
|
Sep 13 07:15 UTC 1995 |
That was what I addressed in my comments a couple of posts ago.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 107 of 123:
|
Sep 14 02:08 UTC 1995 |
OK, sorry, I couldn't tell, and most of the other comments referred to the
"locate" issue, so I wasn't sure which you were referring to, as your comments
were ambiguous as to their subject.
Oh, well.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 123:
|
Sep 14 03:41 UTC 1995 |
Me ambiguous? Hardly. I have many fames for my consistencies.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 109 of 123:
|
Sep 15 19:47 UTC 1995 |
Cross-item chatter !! That's illegal, right?? :-) Besides, I didn't say
that you weren't consistent, I just said that your post was ambiguous, lending
itself to more than one interpretation.
|
mdw
|
|
response 110 of 123:
|
Sep 20 07:10 UTC 1995 |
About the only thing 640 mode .plan's will do is make it harder for staff
to look at the .plan's. Just harder - not impossible.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 111 of 123:
|
Sep 20 12:33 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 112 of 123:
|
Sep 22 05:29 UTC 1995 |
Ah, good point. Poor arthur!
|
popcorn
|
|
response 113 of 123:
|
Sep 22 14:32 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 114 of 123:
|
Sep 22 14:32 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 115 of 123:
|
Sep 22 16:46 UTC 1995 |
Well, *I* dont', what do you mean, "arthur"??
|
srw
|
|
response 116 of 123:
|
Sep 23 11:38 UTC 1995 |
I understand Valerie's question. It refers to Marcus's #112 "Poor Arthur!"
Who's Arthur?
|
selena
|
|
response 117 of 123:
|
Sep 24 03:15 UTC 1995 |
adbarr?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 118 of 123:
|
Sep 24 15:23 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 119 of 123:
|
Sep 24 20:47 UTC 1995 |
selena?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 120 of 123:
|
Sep 25 20:38 UTC 1995 |
I think she was guessing at who "arthur" might be...
|
selena
|
|
response 121 of 123:
|
Sep 26 17:29 UTC 1995 |
Yeah, and poorly, too
|
lilmo
|
|
response 122 of 123:
|
Sep 27 03:48 UTC 1995 |
Well, at least you tried... :-) That's better than some of us did.
|
selena
|
|
response 123 of 123:
|
Sep 29 02:39 UTC 1995 |
Thanks, Mark.. and sorry, arnold..
|
