link
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Jul 31, 2006 2:18 AM CST |
Why does the link go to eweek.com and not the original article at linuxwatch.com? I know they're probably run by the same company anyway, but imho it's a wasted click, really. |
| grouch Jul 31, 2006 10:15 AM CST |
Sorry about that, inhibitor. That one got by me. |
| grouch Jul 31, 2006 12:16 PM CST |
Fixed. I swear I thought it was fixed before posting. Must investigate this sleep thing people talk about. |
| dcparris Jul 31, 2006 3:57 PM CST |
I just thought you had smoked a whole gig of bytes. You know you can't handle more than a 100k. ;-) |
| jimf Jul 31, 2006 4:11 PM CST |
Apparently 100k is more than enough to keep him up at night :D |
| grouch Jul 31, 2006 4:31 PM CST |
Warning: You have just crossed into the gigglebit zone. Do not attempt to adjust your set. Do not attempt to regain your senses. I had changed the lead of the story from the cutesy one given by eWeek to the 1st paragraph at Linux-Watch, and had entered the author's name, but something short-circuited after that. It had to be the swarm of eWeek repeats coming in. I barely had time to get to my foxhole. |
| dcparris Jul 31, 2006 4:44 PM CST |
I have to admit, the e-Week folks seem pretty intent on getting their news out, one way or another. |
| incinerator Jul 31, 2006 10:46 PM CST |
Thanks for fixing the link. Regards, Dominik |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!