 | | Re: Organizing the Site Revamp
|
|
(...) Right, without permission we can neither modify nor distribute these files. But even with permission, an ARJ-based install should be available. (...) Good point. (...) I disagree with this. Many people (maybe not many people into virtual LEGO, (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw announcements/updates
|
|
(...) Todd, it was a joke. We just moved in here, right? (...) That's an interesting idea. Can people subscribe via e-mail without visiting the web-pages (even if it means they can't post?) (...) But that's because most robotics-heads are subscribed (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Sorry, but hugin.risoe.dk is actually sys-323.risoe.dk (until last week it was another machine with another name). Hugin is just an alias. The HTTP daemon (aka "web server") I use can handle separate names as separate virtual servers. Play (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) No. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@risoe.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- LDraw FAQ: <URL:(URL) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) On Unix machines, yes, basically. Although sendmail won't automatically generate email from scratch, if you pass it a valid SMTP document, it will fill in various headers and make sure the mail gets to its destination one way or another (or (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) This isn't correct. The lugnet.com machine and the Apache software it's running can answer to anything that they're configured to answer to, without impacting performance. Currently, there is a mapping at pair.com (ISP) which associates (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Sendmail is actually the SMTP daemon, the program that accepts email messages being thrown at a certain machine (after which youi can retrieve them from that machine with pop3d) . My sendmail is working perfectly, tho. janssen.dynip.com is my (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Well, the point isd that hugin.etc thinks it's name isn't ldraw.org, but hugin.etc.. Then it returns that to the user. There are special services available with some domain-registry-services, that give you another layer in between which will (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) Oh, sure. All parts that go into the updates go through a peer review process, then the collection is assembled by Terry for distribution. Even assuming the non-Lego parts survive the voting, all that would be needed is policy on Terry's end (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) I am totally opposed to this. LDraw was started to model Lego elements and that is what we have adhered to. And as long as I have the watch, so to speak, I will not knowingly allow fictitious parts into an official update. I even have some (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
