kendrick at linux2themax.com
Wed Mar 31 01:38:33 PST 2004
Robert Connolly wrote:
>On March 29, 2004 11:29 pm, Kendrick wrote:
>>wheres the poxtix violations?
>Pax and Grsec are not posix compliant.
>>last i understood java was enablible via glibc? / gcc?
>The java in GCC is known to have issues with propolice. I have a feeling it
>doesn't work very well it Pax either.
dagmar answered the why and you answered the where and I didnt specify I
wanted both ;) im glad not every one thinks alike
ok the java thing is there another implimentation of java that doesnt
hork up procpolice and/or pax?
Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
>No offense, but wow you need to get a spell-checker, or an email client
>with a spell-checker built into it. (Other than that, very well said.)
would you be able to find a spell checker that can fix my spell checkers
best guess? unfortunatly i have great problims with spelling nastly lil
problem i have found little help in solving. as i know i have horid
spelling and know of little that will help i take no offense to the
spell checking comments untill they become constant nags from the
grammer police ;) if you get my meaning
I spend longer in a diconary then i do writing :/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3419 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the hlfs-dev