On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:24:03AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> While I still strongly agree with you on this one (even though I think all
> major ISPs here are scumbags, especially the incumbent), I still strongly
> think we should not have this debate here, and we should turn this around
> the usu
> On 10 Sep 2019, at 09:38, Yao Wei wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:24:03AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> While I still strongly agree with you on this one (even though I think all
>> major ISPs here are scumbags, especially the incumbent), I still strongly
>> think we should not have this d
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> I don't think your alleged works poorly for using your own
Scott> namespace are real problems.
I would be a lot happier if your message was phrased in terms of
discussing which trade off you prefer.
It's clear from past discussion that peo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vincent Bernat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: xtl
Version : 0.6.5
Upstream Author : QuantStack
* URL : https://github.com/QuantStack/xtl
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C++
Descript
Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-09-10 03:50:47)
> I think using the debian namespace is the right default, particularly
> when we view it through the lens of what's best for the project.
>
> Think of it this way: we have a new Debian package maintained by
> someone who's maybe new to the project. Wh
Russ Allbery writes:
> 3. Anyone who comes from a tech company / Silicon Valley development
>environment is probably going to already be used to this style of
>collective ownership (along with politeness conventions about not
>messing with other people's stuff unless you have talked t
On September 10, 2019 10:12:39 AM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
>
>
>Scott> I don't think your alleged works poorly for using your own
>Scott> namespace are real problems.
>
>I would be a lot happier if your message was phrased in terms of
>discussin
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:13:15AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> I'm also not sure if this is a completely rational reaction, but I'm not
> currently very comfortable with any DD being able to make global changes
> to thousands of git repos. I think we haven't yet developed any kind of
> social co
Sam Hartman writes ("Git Packaging Round 2: When to Salsa"):
> Discussion Comments
> ---
...
> I realize that not everyone wants all developers to have push access to
> their packages. If you have a firm idea about that, then this
> recommendation is not for you. I also realize th
> "David" == David Bremner writes:
l reaction,
David> but I'm not currently very comfortable with any DD being able
David> to make global changes to thousands of git repos. I think we
David> haven't yet developed any kind of social conventions or rules
David> about when that i
On Sep 09, Adam Borowski wrote:
> With DoH:
> * the target server knows about you (duh!)
> * the ISP can read the destination of every connection
> [reading the IP header, reading SNI header]
> * the ISP can block such connections
> [blocking actual connection]
Well, no. They cannot without s
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:24:03 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > On 9 Sep 2019, at 15:31, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >
> > I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or
> > Google, simply based on the jurisdiction.
>
> While I still strongly agree with you on this one (even though I
On 2019-09-10 19:56:48 +0200 (+0200), Julien Cristau wrote:
[...]
> How is this worse than what we're already doing by default, namely
> sending the same data to whoever happens to be on the network, in
> addition to whoever happened to be listed in an unauthenticated
> dhcp response? (Which, if yo
Ian Jackson writes:
> Sam Hartman writes ("Git Packaging Round 2: When to Salsa"):
>> Discussion Comments
>> ---
> ...
>> I realize that not everyone wants all developers to have push access to
>> their packages. If you have a firm idea about that, then this
>> recommendation is
On September 8, 2019 10:38:03 PM UTC, Adam Borowski wrote:
>DoH doesn't stop ISP-based spying nor censorship.
Firefox, I believe, already supports encrypted SNI (in nightly at least).
Cloudflare does too.
So fully deployed, your ISP can only tell that you're connecting to Cloudflare,
Clo
Am 10.09.2019 um 07:50 schrieb Florian Lohoff :
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:31:37PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or
>> Google, simply based on the jurisdiction.
> There are tons of setups which are fine tuned for latency because they
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
