> > > aspect of their distro pretty good. They are business people over
there,
> > > and they know how frequent business users like to have updates, and
when
> > ...
> >
> > People here around *only* know RedHat, and it's *the best*, because
> > each half year you can buy a new Version.
> >
>
> It
>
> Last Debian Weekly News says that a Maintainer dropped 18 packages out
> of frustration with the slow pace of Debian 3.0. It also says that
> this slow pace is because Bugs are simply not fixed.
Yes, I read about that in the Debian Week too.
>
>
> If companies would a) adopt Debian packages
> > > aspect of their distro pretty good. They are business people over
there,
> > > and they know how frequent business users like to have updates, and
when
> > ...
> >
> > People here around *only* know RedHat, and it's *the best*, because
> > each half year you can buy a new Version.
> >
>
> It
>
> Last Debian Weekly News says that a Maintainer dropped 18 packages out
> of frustration with the slow pace of Debian 3.0. It also says that
> this slow pace is because Bugs are simply not fixed.
Yes, I read about that in the Debian Week too.
>
>
> If companies would a) adopt Debian packages
On Tue, 5/Feb/02 23:03:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:39:46AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> ...
> > aspect of their distro pretty good. They are business people over there,
> > and they know how frequent business users like to have updates, and when
> ...
>
> Pe
On Tue, 5/Feb/02 23:03:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:39:46AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> ...
> > aspect of their distro pretty good. They are business people over there,
> > and they know how frequent business users like to have updates, and when
> ...
>
> P
Hello!
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 04:55:44AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
...
> I know that as a company, we could donate a bit of money (with the economy
> as it is, not much though), but from what I can see, money isn't really
> where the problem lies... it is somewhere else.
...
Last Debian Weekly New
Hello!
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:39:46AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
...
> aspect of their distro pretty good. They are business people over there,
> and they know how frequent business users like to have updates, and when
...
People here around *only* know RedHat, and it's *the best*, because
each
Hello!
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 04:55:44AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
...
> I know that as a company, we could donate a bit of money (with the economy
> as it is, not much though), but from what I can see, money isn't really
> where the problem lies... it is somewhere else.
...
Last Debian Weekly Ne
Hello!
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:39:46AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
...
> aspect of their distro pretty good. They are business people over there,
> and they know how frequent business users like to have updates, and when
...
People here around *only* know RedHat, and it's *the best*, because
each
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:41, Jason Lim wrote:
> > ORDB (ordb.ORG) lists open relays, SPEWS lists spammers. Using ORDB is
> > very effective for blocking spammers who abuse open relays, but SPEWS
> > can stop the direct spammers and their hosts.
>
> How are the spammers going to get their emails out? M
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:41, Jason Lim wrote:
> > ORDB (ordb.ORG) lists open relays, SPEWS lists spammers. Using ORDB is
> > very effective for blocking spammers who abuse open relays, but SPEWS
> > can stop the direct spammers and their hosts.
>
> How are the spammers going to get their emails out?
> > That is why we suggest that businesses use ORDB (http://www.ordb.com)
as
> > it blocks most spam, but ONLY blocks spam and very rarely legitimate
> > emails (we use this list for our personal emails too).
>
> ORDB (ordb.ORG) lists open relays, SPEWS lists spammers. Using ORDB is
> very effecti
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 06:18:34PM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> > This paritions the dependancies, making it all easier to manage, speeding
> > the release cycle and potentialy allowing people to mix-n-match stable-core
> > with unstable-gnome if
> > That is why we suggest that businesses use ORDB (http://www.ordb.com)
as
> > it blocks most spam, but ONLY blocks spam and very rarely legitimate
> > emails (we use this list for our personal emails too).
>
> ORDB (ordb.ORG) lists open relays, SPEWS lists spammers. Using ORDB is
> very effect
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 06:18:34PM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> > This paritions the dependancies, making it all easier to manage, speeding
> > the release cycle and potentialy allowing people to mix-n-match stable-core
> > with unstable-gnome if
On 02 Feb 2002, Jason Lim (of Zentek?) wrote:
> Unfortunately, Spews and OSIRUS (they use Spews' list, so essentially the
> same applies) have listed many ISPs in Hong Kong and around Asia
Because they run open relays or insecure proxies, host spamware or
spamvertised web sites, and ignore abuse
On 02 Feb 2002, Jason Lim (of Zentek?) wrote:
> Unfortunately, Spews and OSIRUS (they use Spews' list, so essentially the
> same applies) have listed many ISPs in Hong Kong and around Asia
Because they run open relays or insecure proxies, host spamware or
spamvertised web sites, and ignore abuse
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > What do you think of having a mini distribution that limits the number of
> > packages allowed?
>
> Why not just call it "debian-core". Then you can have "debian-gnome",
> "debian-kde", "debian-xfree" etc. Each of these can be implemented as
> seperate distro's with their
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > What do you think of having a mini distribution that limits the number of
> > packages allowed?
>
> Why not just call it "debian-core". Then you can have "debian-gnome",
> "debian-kde", "debian-xfree" etc. Each of these can be implemented as
> seperate distro's with thei
> >
> > This paritions the dependancies, making it all easier to manage,
speeding
> > the release cycle and potentialy allowing people to mix-n-match
stable-core
> > with unstable-gnome if they wish.
>
> So do you mean that these sub-distros don't have any dependencies on any
> packages within th
scussion there).
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Oliver Andrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 8:52 AM
Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: *SPAM* Re: unstable is
"unstable"
> >
> > This paritions the dependancies, making it all easier to manage,
speeding
> > the release cycle and potentialy allowing people to mix-n-match
stable-core
> > with unstable-gnome if they wish.
>
> So do you mean that these sub-distros don't have any dependencies on any
> packages within t
scussion there).
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Oliver Andrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 8:52 AM
Subject: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: *SPAM* Re: unstable is
"unstable"
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > This probably has been (and currently) discussed elsewhere. I think the
> > problems are that there are too many packages and too many dependencies.
>
> Yep, the old exponential dependancy problem...
I see the "problems with unstable" page is over 50
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2002, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to run
> > > unstable because only unstable had some new software, unav
If ONLY there was some way to make testing get security updates faster...
then I am almost sure "testing" would become the choice for many people
running servers and such. It almost sounds like Redhat 7.2 (compared side
to side).
Options are:
1) "unstable"
pros: Very up to date,
cons: Occasion bi
On 1 Feb 2002, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> > We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to run
> > unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in
> > stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as
Feel free to disagree with any point I made, 'cause I'm not as good as I
sound.
I'll throw my $.02 here.
I think there is a more fundamental problem here. That is somehow
incorporating the latest apache into stable will somehow make stable
break. What needs to get done is to build a distro wh
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > This probably has been (and currently) discussed elsewhere. I think the
> > problems are that there are too many packages and too many dependencies.
>
> Yep, the old exponential dependancy problem...
I see the "problems with unstable" page is over 5
I thinking the problem here, as I mentioned before, is one of semantics as
opposed to a real problem.
Options are:
1) "unstable"
pros: Very up to date,
cons: Occasion big bug that can do damage
user: Someone who knows there way around Linux pretty well and likes
to say,
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2002, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to run
> > > unstable because only unstable had some new software, una
On 2/1/02 at 4:25 PM Tim Quinlan wrote:
>> kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable"
>is
>> problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
>
>Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
>usually stable enough for most applications plus th
>
> > kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable"
is
> > problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
>
> Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
> usually stable enough for most applications plus the various software
> packages are
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/1/02 at 4:25 PM Tim Quinlan wrote:
>> kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable"
>is
>> problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
>
>Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
>usually
If ONLY there was some way to make testing get security updates faster...
then I am almost sure "testing" would become the choice for many people
running servers and such. It almost sounds like Redhat 7.2 (compared side
to side).
Options are:
1) "unstable"
pros: Very up to date,
cons: Occasion b
On 1 Feb 2002, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> > We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to run
> > unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in
> > stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as
>
>Feel free to disagree with any point I made, 'cause I'm not as good as I
>sound.
I'll throw my $.02 here.
I think there is a more fundamental problem here. That is somehow
incorporating the latest apache into stable will somehow make stable
break. What needs to get done is to build a di
> kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable" is
> problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
usually stable enough for most applications plus the various software
packages are pretty up to d
I thinking the problem here, as I mentioned before, is one of semantics as opposed to
a real problem.
Options are:
1) "unstable"
pros: Very up to date,
cons: Occasion big bug that can do damage
user: Someone who knows there way around Linux pretty well and likes to
say
> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> > We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to
run
> > unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in
> > stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as compared to
> > other distros like R
On 2/1/02 at 4:25 PM Tim Quinlan wrote:
>> kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable"
>is
>> problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
>
>Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
>usually stable enough for most applications plus t
>
> > kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable"
is
> > problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
>
> Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
> usually stable enough for most applications plus the various software
> packages are
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/1/02 at 4:25 PM Tim Quinlan wrote:
>> kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable"
>is
>> problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
>
>Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
>usuall
> kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable" is
> problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
usually stable enough for most applications plus the various software
packages are pretty up to
> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> > We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to
run
> > unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in
> > stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as compared to
> > other distros like
46 matches
Mail list logo
