Hallo! On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 04:04:29PM +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > But though I like the idea, I think Olaf is right with the point, that the > Yoth is not positive enough.
But we have to be careful to not exaggerate; to not raise false hopes.
> So I thought about the question what should be in the text in the first
> place.
> The path to that was easy: Just read the titles of all moth last year.
That's what I have done.
> - Arch Hurd (in just ... months! First a liveCD, then Hamp and a full desktop
> (emacs ;) ), now graphical!)
Uhm, yes...
> - GSoC 2010:
> - dde linux26 (device drivers!)
Not yet ready. (And this wasn't a GSoC project, even.)
> - d-i and native install (replaced manual releases by … Philip Charles)
Ack -- these can be merged.
> - Translators (one of the main features) (procfs, tarfs, gopherfs, netio)
A (stable / usable / ...) procfs implementation is very nice of course,
but it's not interesting per se -- it's only procfs. Nothing fundamental
changed for the other ones, too -- apart from having Manual making them
usable again, of course.
> I can flesh this out a bit more later, if you like it (reusing most parts of
> your text).
We need a publication-ready text by this Wednesday; so please hurry up if
you want to incorporate any changes. I didn't have any time in the last
two weeks.
Please send changes against these sources:
$ cvs -d :pserver:anonym...@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/womb co
womb/gnustatus
If you don't know how to talk texinfo, free-form text format is fine,
too, and either I or Karl will make it texinfo-conforming later on. I
will have some time this week to review proposed changes and discuss
this.
Grüße,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
