 | | Re: Organizing the Site Revamp
|
|
(...) This tactic of registration, just by its intrusive nature, is evil. Not to mention, riddled with about a *ton* of technical details that really shouldn't need to be worked out. LDraw is in a continual state of growth. If anyone *really* wants (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) It is my understanding that that is how it works. When you type "www.lugnet.com", that request is processed by a name server, which links that name to the proper address, the 204.302.23 stuff. But all you see is lugnet.com So if memorial on (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) Is there a way (or rules) to prevent non-TLG parts from creeping into the official LDraw updates? That seems like the only practical/logical danger...any other objections (like mine) would be personal/subjective. I don't use LDraw/LEdit enough (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subgroup for Revamp?
|
|
(...) Short term, set up a group for discussion. Long term -- integrate the sites together in crucial areas, like the setup of tlg models newsgroups and then automatically generating dat files that correspond with the posts.. similar to online (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Larritarians (was RE: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Funny story, and nice to remember him by. I am sad that I didn't get to know him well, and only exchanged a few emails. From what I hear, he was a great guy. I'm sorry, Larry, everyone.. Keep Building!! -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) :) Um, I didn't know there was a thing out there for MOC bricks.. interesting... (...) Yep, I don't mean any offense either, and I agree with you Todd. (...) Another good idea.. group, lets keep the creative juices flowing.. Ldraw Consortium? (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) I think it would be great -- I don't know of any existing restrictions other than the possibility that no one has published their efforts in this regard. I would be more receptive to other brand-name parts than to mangled pieces, however -- (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) So would I (personally). (...) Me too. In fact, I would take a stronger position against clone bricks than against purely-MOC bricks. This isn't to suggest that every official TLG element is a fragrant flower, but IMHO all clone elements are (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
(...) The ml isn't currently gatewayed with the ng. A gateway could always be established, however, if the need arose. (...) It is (or at least was a few minutes ago) when you sent out your other message. --Todd (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) You did a good job of it, though I don't think you'll like the replies from people (personal prediction). (...) I would personally severely disapprove. Though it could be argued to include clone bricks (which your described part would fall (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
We're not gatewayed, right? That is, I got a message from L-CAD@LISTSERV.UH.EDU that I replied to and I went to the people still subscribed to the list, but it did not appear here. That's what I expected would happen if we weren't gatewayed. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Non-TLG Parts
|
|
I'm not sure how the best way to broach this subject, but to jump head first best. First, I have wondered how the community feels about the creation of non-standard parts. By this I mean parts that TLG has not created ( at least not to my knowledge (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
But can we set the l.c.d for a Digest? I preferred the LCAD list in Digest form, this Live Feed is driving me nuts. I already get 100+ emails/day at home, and 3-900/day at work. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) have (...) Would this be visible to a visitor accessing ldraw.org? It would be very nice if the URL in the text box on a browser stayed at ldraw.org instead of making the visitor think thye had the wrong address. --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw announcements/updates
|
|
(...) For the site discussion, I think a temporary (or permanent if you desire) group name would be most appropriately: lugnet.cad.dev.site, denoting the site for the .dev group.. (...) Whoa! If I had $$ I would probably use that group too.. Keep (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subgroup for Revamp?
|
|
(...) I like the idea of a short-term newsgrouping experiment, but since the discussions would be centered around a permanently evolving resource, maybe the experiment would work better with a transient resource, project, or event instead. In other (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDraw announcements/updates
|
|
(...) If a separate mailing list were set up for update notifications, then everything would have to be posted to two places (there and here). Another possibility: Simply create .cad.announce or .cad.updates for this purpose. That way anyone could (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Um, then pair.com is a better choice than Osiris. Mike-friendly modeler.. what's wrong with Ldraw? :) (...) Good ideas.. A model competition isn't a bad idea, with a set as a prize or credit in Auczilla..something like that (the $$ for the (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subgroup for Revamp?
|
|
(...) Probably good, so we can weed out general ldraw discussion from site discussion. I see the Re: proposal.. thread has been chopped up into the set/piece discussion too..that would help on that as well. lugnet.cad.dev.site? Keep Building!! -Tim (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) My final version shouldn't take more than that because the bulk of that is program downloads. The website shouldn't be more than 500k at the most.. sites are small.. Maybe to be safe we can be allotted 15mb? Keep Building!! -Tim <>< (URL) (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
