On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 22:00 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> [Note Mail-Followup-To:]
Noted, but the problem is not everyone is subscribed to debian-project,
which makes continuity of the discussion somewhat awkward...
>
> The interesting bit is the bit that is explictly omitted: the rationale.
> It
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:10:34PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 18:56]:
> > This is precisely the reason why I think it's so completely beside the
> > point, from Debian's POV, to worry about whether SPI is capable of
> >
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
As of this post, you had three responses. Two were only sent to
d-project (which makes sense; discussing this stuff on d-private
is silly).
> that means the r
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 20:06 -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 7:52 pm, John Hasler wrote:
> > Then complaints about the posted status are not criticism of you.
>
> Oh. Good point. I guess I'm mashing Andreas' criticism in with Dave's
> message.
> Maybe that isn't what he
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:22:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a tarball with a
> > docbook and included pictures/graphs/,... and an Openoffice doc.
> > Wh
Several of you work closely with GNU people. A question
for you. Is the FSF a body like the IETF, W3C or Debian
in which stakeholders make reasonably collaborative
policy decisions together? Or is "FSF policy" more or
less another name for "the views of Richard M.
Stallman"? (Or does the realit
")
Fcc: +sent-mail
Mail-Followup-To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
[Note Mail-Followup-To:]
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
> that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Now imagine someone who's doing a study on available algorithms for
> Fourier transforms, and wants to pick out parts of the text in the
> invariant section to write his paper.
It seems that he could do this with a simple footnote
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a tarball with a
> docbook and included pictures/graphs/,... and an Openoffice doc.
> Why on earth would we want to exclude openoffice docs (provided that the
>
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
> > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one?
>
> I wasn't aware that people had expressed proble
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> er, are you aware that an openoffice document is basically a zip file of a
> coupple of xml documents (plus included pictures if any)?
> -> you definately /can/ edit them in a generic text editor, in fact I've
> done so
On Thursday 14 April 2005 19:25, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:
[Replying only to -project, since there's *ABSOLUTELY NO POINT* in
having something on -private when it's already on -project.]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Openoffice documents are classified as Opaque, thusly ca
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:44:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to the spi-trademark list.]
Nor am I.
[ much snippage ]
> I'm CCing John Goerzen, the SPI President -- John, if you think it would be
> a good idea, please ask David to add an SPI Trademark Committee update
[I am not subscribed to the spi-trademark list.]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:21:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > There are other domains which are imho more problematic than those
> > mentioned in this thread. Anyway, before we can enforce our
> > trademark, we actually nee
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What does this cross-posting between debian-project and debian-private
> mean?
It means follow-ups to Matthew's orginal post should have gone to
debian-project only, but not everybody seemed to honor that.
Michael
--
Michae
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > > http://people.debian.org/~wi
What does this cross-posting between debian-project and debian-private
mean?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:05AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > fsf-free
> >
> > Should this rather be GFDL-free ??
>
> I read it more like 'Giv
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
> > >
> > > This inherits its definition of Transpar
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:45PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:55:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'.
> >
> > I call things by their real
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
> >
> > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
> > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better
This shoulda gone here too (Matthew, you can forward my other message if you
want to forward your reply).
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\
| "Systems in which an event can happen before itself do|
| not seem to
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:05AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > fsf-free
>
> Should this rather be GFDL-free ??
I read it more like 'Give me what the FSF thinks is Free'. Narrowing it
down to the GFDL would needlessly
On Thursday 14 April 2005 10:11 am, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
> that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
> interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
Personally I haven't responded b
[I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdoc
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:22:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:44:33PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > I didn't post that status nor are we actively monitoring it. Someone from
> > Alpha needs to get proactive and run the ball if they care about that
> > machine.
>
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:45PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > It's just more documentation. Free software needs *free* documentation.
>
> Assuming I agree, what's that got to do with standards documents
> (or specifications, if you like)? RFCs, for example, describe
> protocols which is not
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:55:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'.
>
> I call things by their real names. A 'standards document' is a
> specification promoted by a self-pro
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050414 13:45]:
> * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-14 13:25]:
> > > BTW, Noah Meyerhans at MIT offered two Alphas but so far he hasn't
> > > been taken up on his offer.
> >
> > As far as I know we're not short on offers. Al
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-14 13:25]:
> > BTW, Noah Meyerhans at MIT offered two Alphas but so far he hasn't
> > been taken up on his offer.
>
> As far as I know we're not short on offers. Alexander Wirt also offered
> an Alpha.
Yes, and these offers are the reason I haven't sug
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050414 13:15]:
> BTW, Noah Meyerhans at MIT offered two Alphas but so far he hasn't
> been taken up on his offer.
As far as I know we're not short on offers. Alexander Wirt also offered
an Alpha.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arco
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-14
12:10]:
> > Has anyone asked the DPL to authorize purchasing new drives for
> > lully? Martin, is this feasible?
> Yes, sure.
It might be better though to ship the box to someone who can host it
and who knows about Alphas
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 18:56]:
> This is precisely the reason why I think it's so completely beside the
> point, from Debian's POV, to worry about whether SPI is capable of
> processing donations when we're organizationally incapable of making sure
> they're put to good us
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > duplicated, or a blan
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:38:24AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them.
>
> So are laws?
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. My point (which is not
necessarily something
On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them.
So are laws?
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Adam believes that it boots off of IDE rather than SCSI but isn't 100% sure.
The unit does have both IDE and SCSI.
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 11:43 pm, Martin Schulze wrote:
> If it only lacks a boot drive, this can probably be arranged. I assume,
> that lully read SCSI, so either an older SCSI
38 matches
Mail list logo