Re: Reminder: Removing < 2048 bit keys from the Debian keyrings
Gunnar Wolf writes: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dijo [Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:11:14PM -0200]: >> On Sat, 08 Nov 2014, Richard Hartmann wrote: >> > Interpretation is in the eye of the bee holder, but I am considering >> > to attach this list to my weekly bug report; mainly because I can. >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to ask these people privately what is getting in >> the way of a switch to a stronger key? > > They have been asked. Repeatedly. I haven't been asked. I've received a few reminders that I need a new key with signatures, but I haven't been asked why I haven't submitted a new key yet. -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87fvdot6kh@bignachos.net
Re: Reminder: Removing < 2048 bit keys from the Debian keyrings
Gunnar Wolf writes: > Brian Nelson dijo [Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:09:02PM -0500]: >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to ask these people privately what is getting >> >> in >> >> the way of a switch to a stronger key? >> > >> > They have been asked. Repeatedly. >> >> I haven't been asked. I've received a few reminders that I need a new >> key with signatures, but I haven't been asked why I haven't submitted a >> new key yet. > > Right. Precise definitions. You are right — Although we have been > slowly but steadily insisting (at least since 2010, when we announced > at DebConf10 we had removed the last 17 remaining PGPv3 keys) that > 1024D keys were no longer considered long-term trusty and urged > everybody to start updating to a >=2K key. > > But, as you are asking, you got me curious :) Why haven't you started > migrating to a new key? Well I have a new key but it doesn't have any signatures on it other than my own, and I haven't encountered another developer in years to have it signed. I've been listed on https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers for years (two locations in two different U.S. states, even) but have never been contacted for a keysigning. I'm not overly far from other developers--Boston is about a 2 hour drive away--but with general busyness from having a family, I haven't found a chance to try to meet people in Boston. The boston-debian-soc mailing list being down for years doesn't help, either. It's not a very interesting story. It's more about being inconvenient than insurmountable. I've just been hoping some opportunity would present itself for an easy keysigning, but that hasn't happen yet. -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/874mu2uchs@bignachos.net
Re: Reminder: Removing < 2048 bit keys from the Debian keyrings
Gunnar Wolf writes: > Brian Nelson dijo [Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:27:59PM -0500]: >> Well I have a new key but it doesn't have any signatures on it other >> than my own, and I haven't encountered another developer in years to >> have it signed. I've been listed on >> https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers for years (two locations in >> two different U.S. states, even) but have never been contacted for a >> keysigning. >> >> I'm not overly far from other developers--Boston is about a 2 hour drive >> away--but with general busyness from having a family, I haven't found a >> chance to try to meet people in Boston. The boston-debian-soc mailing >> list being down for years doesn't help, either. >> >> It's not a very interesting story. It's more about being inconvenient >> than insurmountable. I've just been hoping some opportunity would >> present itself for an easy keysigning, but that hasn't happen yet. > > Right :) I didn't want to out you as "a guy who has a minor problem > getting his key signed". But you asked us to ask you why. > > And it boils down to being motivated to do it. I hope this thread > motivates you. In the worst case, I hope most people whose keys are > retired from the active keyring next January will be motivated by the > need (or desire?) to do Debian work without requiring a sponsor. But > each person has their own story. I'd like to retain an active key in Debian. However, I already have a well-connected key from when I was younger and my time was freely available and travel was easy. Those are no longer true, but I'm supposed to start over from scratch anyway and spend a better part of a day traveling to Boston to meet developers I've most likely never interacted with before. I'll show them some identification to prove I'm a Brian Michael Nelson which, since the other Brian Michael Nelson in the project retired, means I'm probably the one still active. I'll be able to submit a stronger key, but what exactly has been gained? It feels like a waste of time and effort, so that's where my motivation is lacking. I've met and exchanged key signings with a good portion of the active developers (including you) with my old key, and it just seems like it would be a whole lot more meaningful and a more productive use of time to make use of that instead of yet another silly government ID exchange dance. -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ppcqsovq@bignachos.net
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:21:40AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think I have a problem, conceptually, with a kernel package which > > provides drivers for 10,000 different types of hardware, and needs to load > > firmware from disk for 300 of them, being in main (without a > > Depends:/Recommends: relationship on the firmware-providing packages). > > That doesn't quite solve the problem of drivers outside the main kernel > tree. This is the case for a large amount of current wireless hardware, > irritatingly. It's also completely nonsensical that single drivers must go in contrib, but a bundle of drivers may go in main as long as one of those drivers does not use non-free firmware. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 12:59:08PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 01:09:10AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > > It's also completely nonsensical that single drivers must go in contrib, > > but a bundle of drivers may go in main as long as one of those drivers > > does not use non-free firmware. > > No more nonsensical than the fact that code within a program that makes > optional use of a non-free library can go in main, while a program consisting > soley of that code must go in contrib. Of course it is. If you only rely on package boundaries, you could in theory move all of contrib into main by bundling it all into a single package that has at least one completely free component. That's ridiculous. At least a single program is OK to me because it's essentially an elemental component. You can't easily break it into smaller pieces. Likewise, a driver module is an elemental component. I still think all firmware-using drivers belong in main, but not by the reasoning that it's only OK if they can all be included in a single kernel package or something. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:53:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Brian Nelson wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 12:59:08PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > No more nonsensical than the fact that code within a program that > > > makes optional use of a non-free library can go in main, while a > > > program consisting soley of that code must go in contrib. > > > > Of course it is. If you only rely on package boundaries, you could > > in theory move all of contrib into main by bundling it all into a > > single package that has at least one completely free component. > > Dependencies do not make a component any less Free than a component > lacking dependencies. The whole purpose of contrib (at least in my > mind) is to indicate to users that they will need something extra from > non-free or even something we can't distribute to make useful use of > the program in contrib. I believe contrib exists because, as the SC states, "we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software." > Being in contrib doesn't mean that a work is evil, nor is contrib a > second cousin to non-free. It means it is "not a part of Debian," and won't be distributed on most Debian CD sets. It essentially means that hardware that needs drivers in contrib is not supported by Debian. There's a good chance Debian won't even be installable on such a system. > You could conceivably move all of contrib into main by making it into > a package that did something useful. Of course, a package made in the > way you describe would not be useful at all. Of course it would be useful--it has a driver that "depends" on no "non-free software". Stupid? Very. But still useful... -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
I recently conducted a poll on debian-user to get some input from users about the FDL issue. The results are available here: http://people.debian.org/~pyro/fdl_poll_results.txt And the full mail log is available here: http://people.debian.org/~pyro/fdl_poll.mail Here's a summary: 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? 29 responses Yes: 3 10.3% No: 26 89.7% Don't know: 0 0.0% My comment: Evidently, there is a very strong demand for packaged documentation. It is *not* OK to simply remove the documentation, as what happened with the autoconf documentation earlier this year. 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they still would not appear on most Debian CDs. 28 responses Yes:16 57.1% No: 11 39.3% Don't know: 1 3.6% My comment: Having documentation still available in non-free is OK with the majority of the respondents, though many stipulated that it was only acceptable as a last resort (i.e. they preferred keeping it all in main). 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? 28 responses Yes:10 35.7% No: 11 39.3% Don't know: 7 25.0% My comment: Nothing conclusive here. Several who responded with "No" clarified that they believed that all documentation should be kept in main, and others clarified that they felt all of it belongs in non-free. 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive and appear on Debian CDs? [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract 28 responses Yes: 8 28.6% No: 9 32.1% Don't know: 11 39.3% 5. Is Debian making a big deal out of a minor issue? Should Debian be focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying about licensing issues? 30 responses Yes:18 60.0% No: 9 30.0% Don't know: 3 10.0% My comment: That pretty much speaks for itself. A couple clarified that though license issues were important in general, they felt this particular issue was overblown. I strongly suggest reading the mail log, since many of the full responses are more interesting than the overall results. Thanks to all those who responded. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:19:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > > Very few responses for an universe as big as debian-user, I think. > > http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png > > Thanks for that! > > For the non-graphical, http://lists.debian.org/stats/ claims 2598 > subscribers. So 28 responses is 1.08%, which would be a very low > response rate for a postal survey. However: $ grep '^From: ' debian-users | sort | uniq -d | wc -l 270 Which means over the past two weeks (I expire mail over 2 weeks old), there are only 270 people who posted more than once to debian-user. So, you could say of those 2598 subscribers, only 270 have been "active" the past two weeks. I was still disappointed by the turnout. I had only 16 responses after 3 days, and only got more by sending another mail urging people to respond. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:26:52PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] > The preamble of the survey was terrible, in my opinion. I found > it in the mail log, but not in the results posted here or on > the poll results text file. I consider it incorrect on several > key points and it states a lot of the surveyor's beliefs. For a > self-selecting listener opinion poll (SLOP), this seems likely > to influence which listeners respond. Additionally, it should > have contained some details about what happens to responses, > especially how and when the results would be published. It was intended to be a very short introduction to the issues (which turned out to be really hard to write since each issue is complicated) to make sure they at least had a vague idea what the poll was about. I did encourage them to read Manoj's draft statement. Nonetheless, I think it was still too long and probably contributed to the low turnout. > [...] > > 5. Is Debian making a big deal out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > > about licensing issues? > > This question is very troublesome. It's actually two different > questions and rather biased wording. The original post of it > was missing a word, too. I don't think it's safe to give much > weight to the answers. If a respondant read this question > before answering any (as they can with an emailed survey), > it may have biased all their answers even further. :-( The intention was to see if people were voting based on a perceived overreaction by Debian to licensing issues in general, or perhaps a frustration with the release cycle (e.g. we're wasting time on other things when we should be releasing). Think of it as a knee-jerk-o-meter. Given that only 60% voted "Yes", and a few of those clarified that only this particular licensing issue was overblown, that indicates to me many had not given knee-jerk responses and had given some consideration to the GFDL before answering. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Surveys in debian
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:25:52AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I'm rather fond of "How to lie with statistics" as an introduction to > > what it's all about, not least because it teaches extreme cynicism > > about anything that smells like a statistic. [...] > By the way, I've been disappointed that criticism of "User views > on the FDL issue" has been described as an insult by its author > and generally dismissed. http://bignachos.com/?p=10 I found your (MJ's) criticism quite helpful, actually. I was more disturbed by the critical comments which appeared to be just insults or quick dismissals from those that didn't agree with the results. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:38:40AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:19:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> > Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: >> > > Very few responses for an universe as big as debian-user, I think. >> > > http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png >> > >> > Thanks for that! >> > >> > For the non-graphical, http://lists.debian.org/stats/ claims 2598 >> > subscribers. So 28 responses is 1.08%, which would be a very low >> > response rate for a postal survey. >> >> However: >> >> $ grep '^From: ' debian-users | sort | uniq -d | wc -l >> 270 >> >> Which means over the past two weeks (I expire mail over 2 weeks old), >> there are only 270 people who posted more than once to debian-user. So, >> you could say of those 2598 subscribers, only 270 have been "active" the >> past two weeks. >> >> I was still disappointed by the turnout. I had only 16 responses after >> 3 days, and only got more by sending another mail urging people to >> respond. > > Oh now I feel guilty. Without trying to sound flippant, does it concern > the 'average' debian user? The end result does affect all users, since the documentation will be harder to find and may no longer be packaged. The actual issues with the GFDL have very little affect on end-users. An end-user can do any damn thing he or she wants with the GFDL docs, including deleting all invariant sections. However, those docs would no longer be redistributable. > Is it holding up the release of sarge? No. > I don't subscribe to debian-devel or debian-legal. > > Should the 'average Joe Blogg debian user' be concerned about these > issues. It seems a reasonable knowledge of the DFSG is needed before > one can pass comfortable opinions. Does this seem reasonable? Yes. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Debian Who is Who
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For amusement, also see http://master.debian.org/~edd/karma.txt > which ranks people's number of packages with adjustments for number of > outstanding bugs! > > (Hmm my standing seems to have slipped a little since I last looked -- > by about 50 or so ;-) Ha, Kitame is both in the top 5 and bottom 3. /me wonders if that's intentional... -- On a scale of 1 to 10? It sucked. pgpUnuZQGY83l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IMPORTANT/URGENT - PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME FROM YOUR SITE!
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> KECIA BARKAWI (LAWYER, ZURICH) > > martin krafft (human, zurich) Heh, I always enjoy a good lawyer joke. -- I had no feelings about it. It was aloof and licked itself too much. Like my cat Mr. Trotsky. pgpkjMe1nWR3B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:35:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> On 2003-10-06 20:53:56 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >trademark law doesn't allow us the same latitude for selective >> >enforcement that copyright law does >> >> Can you be more specific, please? I was recently challenged about >> this and cannot point at why this would be. > > Because a generic term cannot be trademarked. You can trademark "Coke" > but you can't trademark "Cola." Err, "coke" is a generic term too. I think Coca-Cola is the trademark you're thinking of. > This makes sense because the point of a trademark is too allow for the > creation of a brand -- to associate the goodwill that an organization > creates with name that they slap on a product. So every time you buy a > "Coke" you can rest assured that you're getting something that the > Coke folks in Atlanta are willing to vouch for (for whatever that's > worth). Some refined charcoal? :p -- I'm sick of being the guy who eats insects and gets the funny syphilis. pgpieizLolntu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: just wondering
"shannon simms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > hi i have been trying to get another os for months now.. I would like to use > somehing besides > windows...I have neve seen any other though. what is linux like. I have tryed > to install every one > that is out there for free and have failed.. don't know enough about it i > guess. i did buy a red > hat and it would not install either ...is there a place to get a system that > will install it self > .. and does it work the same as windows I mean will it operate all of my > hardware like scanners > cameras stuff that we use all the time..word processers.. thanks for your > time s simms I suggest attending a local Linux User Group (LUG) meeting. There you can meet people who can tell you more about Linux and help you get it installed on your machine. Also, you can try Knoppix for a Linux distribution that does not need to be installed--it runs directly off the CD-ROM and is great for someone like you who wants to give Linux a try. -- You win again, gravity!
