Hi,
This is a silly argument. And the person conducting the other
end has managed to annoy a number of people who actually contribute
to the project, and hasd decended to profanity, so this is my last
word on the matter.
For those who care, the old scheme was to have revisions
called 2.0.1 etc, the new scheme calles them revisions.
old new
=== ===
2.0.0 2.0
2.0.1 2.0 r1
2.0.2 2.0 r2
There are no fewer release. All releases are numbered (with
revisions, not point versions). Technically, the two schemes are the
same. Mr Cinege has escalated a percived, non-technical difference
into a jihad.
Feel free to skip the rest, it is an lost attempt to answer
what Mr Cinege feels are points.
manoj
>>"Dave" == Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:33:41 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>> One of the reasons is that when people make a donation, it could
>> be tax deductable. Right now it is not. We have to get 501(c)3
>> status with the US IRS first.
Dave> Why? Of what intestest is that to the people that don't live in
Dave> the USA.
None. Maybe we should try incorporating in multiple
countries. Hmm. That's a thought.
Dave> How much in donations are to planning to work towards?
Heck, why create an upper limit?
Dave> Do you think the IRS will allow companies to write off the ftp
Dave> bandwidth they donate? Hell no...
If the company decided to donate bandwidth for goodwill
reasons, who's to stop 'em? If you don't see the need, do you think
there isn't one (Hah!). Many other did. do. We even voted on
this. Guess what? We want to incorporate.
Dave> Who? I've been reading this list long before the the notice of
Dave> incorpoation came through. I never saw any discussion about
Dave> it. Excuse me if I missed it, but I never remember seeing a
Dave> single post asking if it was OK if a few guys in the group
Dave> became 'Debian'
The people who contribute to Debian, the developers,
decided. It is not discussed on the users group. It is
discussed on the developers list, or, possibly, on the developers
private list. You want to contribute to the decision process, join
Debian. Contribute! (Ever read Starship troopers?)
>If you feel these changes make it impossible for you to use Debian,
>we're sorry, but it looks like the time has come for you to move to
>another distribution or start your own or whatever.
Dave> I just spoke with someone today about this, and he said it looks
Dave> like this crap might just do that.
Best of luck.
Dave> I've said it ten times. Politics are starting to come into play
Dave> over the technical aspects of the distribution.
I think you exaggerate.
Dave> Jeez I guess I set my expectations too high, looking for an OS
Dave> that doesn't have 15 different revs per minor number. Was the
Dave> bug fix in the 1,3 R2 that was relases this week or the 1.3 R2
Dave> that was released last week? Oh well, who cares....
Oh, for gods sake, what is the technical difference between
1.3.1 and 1.3 r1? *gngngngn*. Technically, the two nomenclature
schemes are the same. Are we slowing point releases? we are not. Are
we stopping release numbering? we are not. We just call them
revisions, not point versions. What difference does that make?
Dave> If it is furthered it will either destroy the project or break
Dave> it up. There was no good reason for a corp to be formed. I kept
Dave> quite.
No reason you could see. We, the people who are Debian, beg to
differ.
Dave> There was no good reason to put out an 'Official' cd
Dave> (which hurt a lot of our CD-R guys), and I kept quite.
The CD-R guys (whoever they are) could use the scripts for the
official CD just as anyone else. (Note I say nothing of people making
money from the hours I spend hunched over my machine in wee hours of
the night, toiling for the good of the world, and getting not an ioto
of money for it).
Dave> Now for the most pethtic reason, the entire version control
Dave> system (and quality of product, both perceived and actual) is at
Dave> stake. Now I'm ventting my shit with full force. I see where
Dave> this is leading.
Your perception of the quality of you offering is surprisingly
accurate.
>Personally, I'm glad to see Debian become a little more organized
>and getting incorporated.
Dave> They didn't need to get incorpoated to become more
Dave> orginized. The United States or any one of them has no interest
Dave> in our international communal project.
Umm. I like governments. I am no good as a
hunter-gatherer. How come Debian is ``your'' communal project, when
most of the people who actually contribute to Debian do not agree
with you?
>It means that Debian can start paying it's
>own bills instead of people like Bruce going out of pocket to pay
>for the internic domain fees.
Dave> Then tell him to rep a few CD-R's out and not pander an
Dave> 'official' CD to high volume leach cookie cutters.
Sorry. We happen to be in favour of what we are doing (it's
not just Bruce, get it?)
>On top of that, not everyone can donate time or resourses, but they can
>contribute money.
Dave> To who? Am I a part of Debian.org? Do I have a vote.....even if
Dave> I maintain 50 packages?? You'll see....the cash will lead to
Dave> bills created by the corp, that in turn will create more bills,
Dave> and there by creating a relience on direct finacial support.
We'll learn, then.
Dave> The point is you CAN'T just donate money to Debian. 'Debian' is
Dave> the efforts of several hundred people; it's not a physical
Dave> thing.
And the people who contribute to it should decide the
direction in which it goes.
>Why not allow them to do such? It is their choice.
>Debian is not asking for donations, yet people send donations anyways.
>Why do you feel that this way of contributing to the project should be
>stopped? Whether you're donating time, resources, or cash, it all
>boils down to contributing money.
Dave> No it does not. It would be hard to put a monetary figure on the
Dave> badwidth donated by ftp sites. This is the only real need the
Dave> Debian *developers* require. What this corpoation is doing, why it
Dave> even is I still don't understand. It doesn't represent the
Dave> people behind Debian.
Say what? We voted for it. We want it. Who are you, anyway, to
tell me what we want?
Dave> It doesn't offer them any protections. All it does is create an
Dave> expense, where there was none. And that expense creates a desire
Dave> to get money from the project, where there was none. Were you
Dave> asked if you wanted the version control change? Somebody out
Dave> there that does maintain alot of packages...Where you asked?
Yes. I should know, I think I was the first one to respond to
the proposal. With an objection. In the course of the discussion that
followed, the proposal was modified, and I wsa convinced. That's the
way things work.
Dave> No, we we're told that it was going to be changed, and purely
Dave> for the sake of appesment of the larger CD makers. Debian is not
Dave> about profit. The orginizes should not be worrying about it how
Dave> many cd's they get sent out....it obviously is interfering with
Dave> the technical aspects of the project.
Sorry. The organizers preferte to think for ourselves.
>Personally I think you're blowing things way out of proportion simply
>because you can't have things your way. Venting this anger by
>trying to imply that donated money is somehow being mispent is just
>plain childish. Grow up.
Dave> Sidetracking the issue insults my intellegence. Fuck you.
Interesting argument.
>Resorting to vulgarities on a public mailing list should get you bounced
>from the list. Like Behan said, grow up.
Dave> Then fuck you too. Bounce me. Weld you're power to stifle my
Dave> 'bad' speech. Dare you use your filter instead.....
That's it then. You are not worth having a discussion with.
manoj
--
Annex Canada now! We need the room, and who's going to stop us? A
Tom Neff .signature
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
