I'M NOT MEMER OF YOUR MAILING LISTS. MY MAIL IS : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED] IS ONLY FORWARD FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
WHY THIS MAILS COME TO ME?
EVERY DAY COME TO ME 200 MAILS FROM YOUR MAILING LISTS.
CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WITH IT?
THANK YOU.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Our users. Not our users of the most popular
> >> architectures. _all_ our users.
>
> David> Please! Your last justification "we do it because it floats
> David> our boat, not for the users" was at least honest.
>
> I see that you can't maintain a civil dialogue. I certainly do
> not understand how you come to the conclusion that this statement of
> mine is dishonest; but I most certainly am close to disregarding you
> as a rude, inconsiderate, troll.
>
> David> One of your $250 hours would do more for "_all_ our users" if
> David> spent on a i386 than on 68k.
>
> And this statement either displays a profound lack f
> understanding of English (quite possible, it is not your first
> language), or a worse grasp of simple logic. All our users do not use
> i386, hence the statement above does not make sense. Secondly, I
> doubt if the statement is really valid either, see below for my
> reasons.
>
> Indeed, were you a prime example of a user of i386 box, I
> would now be tempted to lower the importance of i386 in Debian
> (despite the fdact that I do not have a non i386 machine).
>
> David> This simple, irrefutable fact
>
> It is not a fact, nor is this irrefutable. Uncovering and
> fixing porting related bugs leads to fixing problems that are
> generally flaws that have been hidden on other architectures, it
> leads to better design, often more modular, streamlined, and simpler,
> due to the resulting abstractions; portable software often is easier
> to maintain.
>
> David> does not make 68k users "second class citizens". If you want
> David> to argue this, you need to go back to the original metaphor
> David> and explain why obscure diseases deserve as much funding as
> David> those affecting large fractions of the population.
>
> Who the hell cares about sheer numbers of users out there in
> the wild? I sure as hell don't. If numbers had been important to me,
> I would not have been wasting my time on Linux.
>
> >> Do you know what motivates the developers?
>
> David> I would certainly think so, since I am one professionally. And
>
> Professionally, remuneration often is the driver; it is not a
> factor in volunteer work on free software. A quick google search for
> you email address failed to turn up any hits apart from postings of a
> few user lists; so I have no idea if you work on any free software,
> and thus have a first hand understanding on what may drive people to
> work on it.
>
> David> I (and I strongly suspect most other developers) get a much
> David> bigger kick out of doing something new that out of doing
> David> something old on an obscure platform.
>
>
> Glad to know you feel that way, in case you ever show up in
> the NM queue. BTW, anyone who does not care about a solid, well
> tested, portable software is not very professional, really. Software
> engineering is more than just the latest 31337 cool hack; profession
> systems integration work requires solid, workanlike, professional QA
> work as well. I would hope that most Debian developers are not
> juvenile 31337 kiddies with a minuscule attention span.
>
> >> Debian leadership? The project leader has no say in deciding
> >> what architectures one releases.
>
> David> "No say?" That is flat-out wrong. The PL and RM may not decide
> David> alone, but they most certainly have a say, and a large one, in
>
> And on what, pray, are you basing this? When did the DPL ever
> have _any_ sayu whatsoever in the arches one releases for? The RM
> needs to bve convinced, yes, but he merely has veto pwoers, he
> certainlky does not add new arches all by his lone self, over the
> objections of people doing the real work.
>
> David> Certainly the appropriate conclusion wouldn't be to "ban" any
> David> 68k package someone wants to produce. But it would be to say
> David> we will not freeze the whole damn distribution while we wait
> David> for them and the infrastructure they require.
>
> I am so glad you are not the RM.
>
> manoj
>
> --
> "You can't expect a mother to be with a small child all the time,"
> Margaret Mead once remarked, with her usual good sense, but in 1978
> she shocked feminists by snapping that women don't really have
> children to put them in day care twelve hours a day, either. Caroline
> Bird, "The Two Paycheck Marriage"
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
