Anthony Towns writes:
> * One of Testing's goals was to be 95% releasable at all times.
> * It hasn't been.
> * Why not?
> (a) RC bugs
> (b) Can't install it
> (c) Security vulnerabilities
This is the crux of the problem, I think, but I'm a little con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released
and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect); and indeed, I think
packages with GFDL material already h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
> The sentence was meant to stress to certain maintainers (who shall
> remain nameless) that like to ignore debian-legal or licensing
> issues that I would that pursue these bugs as vigorously as any
> others and that I expected them to be fixed, time a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In case you are wondering about bugs in case 1), please note that the
> > GNU Free Documentation License is non-free in all its forms, according
> > to the informal survey taken by Branden Ro
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I object. Until there is "universal" consensus (either through a vote,
> leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main,
> these bugs are wishlist at best.
Huh? Since when? Ultimately, the judge of licenses is the ftp-master
and
Michael Dominok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 09:15, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Through SPI's presence?
>
> Well, i didn't search _that_ long but couldn't find anything on
> http://www.spi-inc.org that would give me the Impression that this a
> Organisation only open to USAsia
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm no fan of the Bush Administration's adventures, but there aren't
> > all that many similarities. The current adventure is about oil, about
> > Bush's fantasies that he's promoting democracy, and about domestic
> > American politics, especially Bus
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Thomas Bushnell BSG ... and many other wrote:
> > [something about hot-babes, porn etc]
Actually, I said nothing about hot-babes or porn.
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you're going to give religion credit for the anti-slavery movement,
> you have to blame it for the slavers as well. Which just shows what
> others in this thread have said: religion is often used to justify
> whatever behaviour/belief the individual
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, that doesn't work. There's some base level of stuff that's so
> unlawful we don't include it because it would cut off far too much of
> the userbase (or cause them to commit illegal acts).
So if you think the package in question is actually illegal
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that the best solution to many of the worlds problems would be to
> provide really cheap laptops and good net access (including satellite net
> access). The idea is that everyone in the world should be able to download
> whatever they like (w
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the freedom of the press means that the people control the press.
> if the goverment control the press, then there is no such freedom.
Um, sure, but I can't see how that affects what I wrote. In China,
the "government" didn't control the presses any more
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TB said that cheap technology was used to promote democracy in Europe
> but was used to the opposite effect in China. But the point I was making
> was that price of the technology makes no difference if it is solely in
> the hands of the government.
Except
Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which are illegal where?
We have no evidence that hot-babe is actually illegal. If you want to
go gather such evidence, feel free, but don't expect the rest of the
Project to wait for it.
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are obligated to respect your right of free speech. We aren't
> obligated to provide the venue for your speech.
But Debian has no process for excluding packages on the grounds that
the packages are offensive.
Maybe we should have such a process; mayb
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is not the case for packages with questionable images and
> dialogue. I'm not volunteering, and neither are the people who gave me
> money. You or Manoj or other people who care about the issue should
> take a turn. And Debian should fund the necessa
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Currently, every time the problem comes up we argue about our own
> individual definitions of what is and is not questionable because we
> have not come to any definition for the project, or any process to go
> along with the definition.
Of course.
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because I am one of the people with legal responsibility for the
> U.S. incarnation of the project. I acknowledge that there are many
> other jurisdictions where our people can get into trouble, note my
> comment regarding non-US not being adequate to sol
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's a *fundamental* difference between "don't want hot-babe
> in Debian" and "don't want hot-babe to *exist*".
Currently, the procedures for the inclusion of packages in Debian
allow each developer to decide what to package, provided the licenses
perm
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> >Maybe we should have such a process; maybe not. But regardless, the
> >current process allows each individual developer that judgment.
> All Debian process is a result of having a problem,
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I do all of the work, I'll win arguments about the policy. That's
> OK with me, but some of you might want to get there first.
Who says? If you are saying that you'll get legal advice, and subvert
the process, so that we can't trust it, thanks for th
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> >If you believe there are legal issues, and you as a member of the
> >board of SPI are not willing to help resolve them, then you should
> >resign from the board.
> >
> Oh come on Th
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I am saying is that if I sit down and work out all of the
> implications of a questionable material policy, and nobody else does, I
> will be presenting research and worked-out logic and the folks who did
> not want to do the work will be hand-wav
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I know. AFAICT, the only way for h-b to not be in Debian
> would be if Thibaut VARENE, who filed the original ITP, decided
> not to submit the package to Debian.
So if you would like it not to be in Debian, can you discuss with him
directly, and lea
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. An unincorporated association that has a contractual relationship
> with a public-benefit corporation.
> 2. A division of a public-benefit corporation.
Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given
package, it is your responsi
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
> violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies
> that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws.
Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a
> > given package, it is your responsibility to substantiate your
> > claim beyond raising FUD.
> I doubt it will be the
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
> pornographic material.
>
> See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Do we have evidence--actual evidence--that this provision applies to
cartoons? Keep in m
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
> pornographic material.
>
> See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Upon reading this carefully, it says that the Australian Government
may order the suppres
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may
> not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner.
> GW computing systems and services shall not be used in a manner that
> discriminates against another
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
> of naked people either. I might be mistaken.
The word "pictures" is ambiguous; hot-babe contains no photographs.
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
> > of naked people either. I might be mistaken.
>
> It does have language which qualifies as obscene.
Not in the United States, at least, where "obscene", as a matter of
constit
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big
> concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30
> Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of
> havoc by driving people and even financial donors
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea...
Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no
obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies.
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
> history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want
> what's best for the project.
Sure; you want what's best, and you seem to think that what's best
right now is to make pe
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe
> that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they
> refuse to support themselves by doing the legal homework to support
> the content they desire. The entire project
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
We do well to listen to what mirrors say, and what their concerns
are. But we do not do well to guess at what they might say, on the
basis of half-understood and unsupported claims about what
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators
> so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe
> that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their
> own. That would be very unsympathetic towa
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems like if the person being offended has the sole
> discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well
> hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be offended by
> anything.
Don't worry, that's not how hostile en
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works.
> > IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely
> > complex.
>
> It all depends on your definition of "reasonable".
No, that's not true. "reasonable person" (ac
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, that's not true. "reasonable person" (actually, they say
> > "reasonable man") is a quite well-defined concept in American law.
>
> Is "reasonable man" the same in San Francisco and Birmingham, AL?
Um, workplace harrasment cases are not the same a
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nobody can stop you from creating a package of it. Folks on the Debian
> project can collectively decide whether or not the project should be a
> party to distributing it.
Currently the only procedure we have in place for this, short of
convincing the ma
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> >But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the
> >mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies.
> Certainly a good guess is better than noth
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about you go off and create a distribution that panders to all the silly
> ideas. The rest of us will keep making Debian usable.
Um, I think Kevin Mark was making exactly this point.
Unfortunately, people try sarcasm all the time, and it falls fl
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not a policy proposal yet, when I have that I will bring it to
> debian-project.
It is *still* off-topic for this list. Discussion about possible
policy proposals, the whole damn thing, belongs on debian-project.
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, except for..
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that these other possibilities don't exist.
Bruce was not suggesting any of them either, and my real point is that
none of them are on-topic for debian-devel.
> 6. project decides informally that potential legal
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The images are hardly pornography, though I certainly couldn't run
> it on my office PC (unless I was trying to get fired).
Heh, but frozen-bubble might be even better at that.
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you have no objections to bestiality web sites then?
The assumption here is that one must either have no objections, or
else have objections and then proceed to object and want things
removed. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but there are many who
The discussion about common carriers is all very interesting, but
irrelevant. There are many protections in American law, and common
carrier status is only one. We are certainly not responsible for
things which are not obscene, and the package in question is not
obscene (b/c under US law a carto
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could be wrong, but Debian is occasionally used and distributed by
> people outside the USA. Making any argument in this thread with
> reference solely to US law is irrelevant to the problems at hand.
I was answering a claim about US law; I was not the o
Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A note to Thomas: You can already try building GnuCash 1.8.9 (1.8.10
> will have the patch applied, as it is already in CVS, both in HEAD and
> the 1.8 branch) when you apply the attached patch.
Just so you know, it's really my intention not to have
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is. if we want people in Arabia to be able to possess Debian
> disks.
The solution to censorious regimes is not to say, "well, ok, we'll
censor ourselves so you don't even have to bother".
Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> A note to Thomas: You can already try building GnuCash 1.8.9 (1.8.10
> >> will have th
Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:24, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > > Which is a fine point of view if you are making a political point. But as
> > > far as I am aware we are trying to make an operating system.
> >
> > Sure. So we should not censor ourselves.
>
>
David Pashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 10, 2004 at 16:30, Will Newton praised the llamas by saying:
> > I have looked at it. And I don't think it is an acceptable thing
> > to ship as part of an operating system. I am an atheist and a
> > liberal but the majority of people in the world
Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Though you could try the following set of criteria:
We could have all kinds of criteria. The ones you propose are not, in
fact, our criteria. Our criteria are something like:
1. Does the license meet the DFSG?
2. Is there a Debian maintainer willing to
Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I don't want a different set of criteria. As a user, I am
> concerned that Debian is in danger of having a thousand "CPU
> monitors"[1] all with RC bugs. A process for restricting addition of
> semi-duplicate packages might reduce workloads all r
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
It's hardly that. We distribute only free software, that's our rule.
The rest, as you say, is for the manufacturer and the user to work
out, but we disvalue non-free software, and so we don't distribu
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You say they should go into contrib because they depend on non-free
> software. However, *all* device drivers depend on non-free software.
> Why does it matter if that non-free stuff is stored on the device itself
> or is loaded externally?
Because if i
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Think of it this way. For the card with the built-in firmware, the
> > driver does not depend on any additional packages or software
> > distribution to work. By contrast, for the card with the separate
> > firmware, the driver *does* depend on tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Your case of hardware wich already includes firmware is totaly
> > irelevant since Debian does not distributes hardware, does not even
> > stand for free hardware nor do debs have to depend
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 11, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
> > debian-legal.
> No, others did too, even if most of them did not bother arguing to death
> like I'm doing.
Please continue y
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When the firmware is burned into the device, the user is prevented
> from modifying it in a rather more drastic and permanent fashion than
> when the restrictions are a matter of missing code or permissions.
Sure, but that's not the point. If someone p
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 11 dÃcembre 2004 Ã 13:45 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a Ãcrit :
> > Please continue your argument on debian-legal. NOT HERE.
>
> Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
> DFSG-freeness of t
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 11 dÃcembre 2004 Ã 13:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a Ãcrit :
> > > Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
> > > DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
> >
> > The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> (Please try to not Cc me on every reply. My messages even contain a
> Mail-Followup-To header.)
>
> On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > And why it should be different if
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's pretend that Debian actually has a significant amount of leverage
> on this sort of issue, and that vendors see their drivers appearing in
> contrib and want to do something about it. They /could/ open the
> firmware and provide a toolchain for i
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
> simply by turning them into kernel patches and getting them included in
> the stock kernel. This seems, uh, odd.
That's our policy. Every policy will have curious corner cases.
:
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, but it does. Having the source code to the firmware of my DVD drive
> would allow me to remove some silly restrictions. I've even got software
> that would allow me to reflash it. Now, you could make the argument that
> if I bought the DVD drive th
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, because we have chosen a limited set of goals. We are for free
> > software, not Curing All The World's Ills. There is nothing
> > hypocritical ab
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It also means that I can upload a kernel image that contains all these
> drivers, ensure that it's ABI compatible with the "official" kernels,
> and then build udebs containing the firmware-requiring drivers. These
> could then be grabbed by d-i. The d
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it's the case today, but I think that it will be soon.
> It's the way the world is going.
Especially if we and others just give in and say "ok, that's fine."
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think it's a step in the right direction for "free"
> hardware. By moving firmware off the device and into the operating
> system, we inherently gain more control over it. In the near future,
> firmware will likely remain as a binary blob wi
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The parsimonious explanation is that the issue wasn't thought about in
> that much detail when the social contract was written. The archives tend
> to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
> a way that we can interpret th
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have some
> false positives.
What is this, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
want"?
Thomas
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have
>
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions of a
> scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless deaths of
> hundreds of people from his own country with typical actions of a Unix
> administrator (which do
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, implementing greylisting in master would be bad for you,
> because you demand that mail is transmitted without any delay at all.
When have I ever made such a demand?
Thomas
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> > the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are wor
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was just following your line of reasoning:
>
> "You cannot justify the bad things that happen as a result of your
> actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached without such bad
> things happening", where:
>
> action = greylisting
> bad things
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Save for the fact that it was Rumsfeld who said this, not Bush or bin
> > Laden:
>
> It's the same thing.
>
> References to Goebbels will invoke Godwin's law...
But I didn't reference Goebbel's or Hitler. You seem to have a
serious problem with rea
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The worst case costs of well-implemented graylisting should be
> > something like a short delay in an email message; the worst case of a
> > false positive rejection can be much much worse indeed.
>
> The worst case for graylisting is the same as a fals
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Thomas is capable of making a point without reference to the Bush regeime
> then there might be a possibility of doing so.
I already did, but you ignored it.
You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
that they are the only
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is of course another reason to avoid analogies such as the one Thomas
> used. A discussion about whether the US army is good or bad is not on topic
> for this list and has nothing to do with spamcop.
Of course, I didn't discuss whether the US ar
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
> > that t
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If spamcop was as bad as people claim then I'm sure that throughout
> this discussion people would be CCing me on their messages to the
> list and then flaming me on the list when my server rejected their
> email due to the Spamcop DNSBL. I conclude tha
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just run over some problem I'd like to get discussed here, as it
> might effect wheather some GFDL documents are distributeable at
> all and thus wheather they could be included in the non-free
> section or the sarge distribution.
Please ask yo
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
I recently was very mistaken about the proper way to deal with a
confusing (to me) solib change, combined with a mistaken upl
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Parents are *supposed* to censor what their children see.
>
> They are also supposed to educate their children.
Yes, but it's the job of *parents* to do that. If you want me to do
it for you, you'll have to pay me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought like you until my kids grew to an age where supervising
> every waking minute of their lives is quite impossible.
That's fine. If you want the rest of society to supervise your kids
for you, then you'll have to pay us.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:32 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Parents are *supposed* to censor what their children see.
> > >
> > > They are also
Sam Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>This is NOT a censorship issue, but a matter of appropriate
>packaging. The way it is, it's like having a XXX magazine hidden
>among the comic-books in a newsagent.
No. It's like having a sexy adult comic book "hidden" among the rest
of the c
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sam Watkins writes:
> > Another issue - if a script is designed specifically to download non-free
> > content, shouldn't it go in contrib? According to Debian's official view
> > that anything made of bits is software, the scripts to fetch the comics
> >
Maykel Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> rendered my system unbootabled.
What led you to do such a thing? The idea "I don't know what this is,
so I should delete it" is rampant, and disastrous.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
Mowgli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Mi den 9. Feb 2005 um 22:07 schriebst Du:
> > What led you to do such a thing? The idea "I don't know what this is,
> > so I should delete it" is rampant, and disastrous.
>
> I don't think so. Well, maybe not directely removing somethink but the
> Systema
Lech Karol PawÅaszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be honest - i don't care what you think about people who "cut
> extra wire from their car". They can be morons or whoever they want
> to be. I would point out that one might be suprised that a hidden
> directory appeared in his/hers root direct
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell writes:
> > Even if one thinks "I've been compromised", it is not the right thing to
> > immediately delete the files which are the evidence of the intrusion.
>
> People often do the wrong thing, especially when agitated. When we notice
>
Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It depends on programs, sometimes the same usage function is used for
> either --help or invalid options. Not always GNU rules are
> followed appropriately.
Right, and in that case, it's a bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quite difficult if the function is the same. In both cases it uses stderr.
Oh good grief. Add an argument to the function saying where to direct
the output. How hard is this?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject o
1 - 100 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
