On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Sven Luther]
> > To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> > tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
>
> I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
> observations and o
"Anthony Towns" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point
of the social contract as:
"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component."
(For reference, that replaced the following text from
[Sven Luther]
> To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
observations and offered some advice. He's quite right that my views
are not those of a develope
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > aren't software. So if firmware was already supposed to be covered
> > under the DFSG, how is this reconciled with the fact that no one
> > ever wo
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I'm undecided whether it's a good idea to exclude them from the
> distribution CDs and so on. How big is the problem of vital hardware
> which won't work without firmware being copied to it? Should we split
> non-free into non-free-hardware and non
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:25:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
> > actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
> > implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
> actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
> implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
> refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anyt
Martin Schulze wrote:
> There also
> the most official (even if still a non-official sub-project)
> project Debian Live (live.debian.net) which refers to the
> Debian Live Initiative.
There were much things happened behind the curtains, we are working on
having an alpha release soon (in about a we
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:18:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > OK, never saw that drives. But where is the problem with them. Works
> > without needing any non-free stuff being put in the operating systems
> > and people might be able to replace it. No good example.
>
> Wait. So by "Non-free
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
>> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
>> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
>> vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstra
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
> vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstrapping a system (LinuxBIOS
> will suffice for a v
Le mer 23 août 2006 13:35, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> The followup was only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was*
> Peter's take, and not necessarily the project's, and that debate is
> still appropriate.
d-vote@ is a discussion list, and nothing here that isn't a vote
result can be t
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not true in either direction. Not every non-free application has
> a free counterpart[1]. And not every hardware needs firmware.
If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly imp
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> > you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> > This means the missing of legal obs
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 16:40]:
> > We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> > you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> > This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
> > For this discussion
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
> For this discussion "preferred form
* Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 15:46]:
> Certainly, it's one of the purposes. But I don't think we've *lost*
> anything by distributing binary firmware. Consider the cases:
>
> 1. Everything in hardware. You're not able to fix anything without a
>soldering iron ... and good lu
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:19:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:38:07 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> [Steve Langasek]
>> > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see
>> > this being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a
>> > ROM wouldn
Followups set to -vote; why are we cc'ing this across multiple lists?
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El mi?rcoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
> escrib?a:
> > We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
>
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett
escribía:
> > No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what it's
> > required by it.
> The DFSG apply to "The Debian system". The social contract doesn't
> define what "The Debian system" is. We could
Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
> escribía:
>
>> We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
>> requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
>
> No, the DFSG
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
> > isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
> > fibrechannel card, it's produc
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> > Well, the only one who could clai
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:14:03AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
> > > isn't producing a distr
Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> I'd be glad to have your opinion about the two
> following related issues:
>
> 1) According to the documentation [1]:
> "There are no official Debian live CDs available.
> However, we would like to recommend Knoppix, which is
> based on Debian - a very useful, full-featured
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns escribía:
> We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
> requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what
In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some
>> > representativity
>> > of the project as
On Aug 23, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
> non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
> making obviously false claims like "firmware are not programs" ?
"Firmwares are not progra
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Manoj wrote:
> > Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> > definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
> > define: computer program gives:
> > ,
> > | * A computer program is a set of s
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:11:39PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Why is freedom of software only important for the central
> > processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
> Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
> ba
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:35:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I didn't say Peter's take didn't matter, because personally I consider
> it self-evident and unarguable that it does matter. The followup was
> only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was* Peter's take,
> and not necessarily
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
> > of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
> > opinion,
Manoj wrote:
> Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
> define: computer program gives:
> ,
> | * A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
> | used directly or indirectly in a c
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > and his expectat
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
> of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
> opinion, be he a DD or a guy from NM or some random poster.
Anyone can claim th
* Ottavio Caruso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-23 09:53]:
> --- Ottavio Caruso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > it as an official download, branded as Defiant Live
> > image?
>
> Obviously I meant: "Debian live image". Blame the
> Yahoo spellchecker!
Take a look at http://debian-live.alioth.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:40:11PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > No, but he blamed Peter for participating in the conversation because he was
>
> That's not my understanding of aj's post. From my point of view, he
> did not "blame" Peter. He didn't even address him directly.
well, its the e
> reminder was, is rude and inappropriate. That's not the first tham that
> aj does such reminders[1], and especiall beeing the DPL[2], I find that
> disturbing.
Well, even being the DPL, aj is perfectly allowed to have personal
opinions, even some that you (or me) may find irrelevant or wrong
Le mer 23 août 2006 12:16, Christian Perrier a écrit :
> > Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
> > believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
> > people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation
> > instead of the merits of the com
> No, but he blamed Peter for participating in the conversation because he was
That's not my understanding of aj's post. From my point of view, he
did not "blame" Peter. He didn't even address him directly.
> Maybe it is not best for us non-english speaker to comment on the content of
> aj's post
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:16:22PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
> > believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
> > people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation instead of
> > the merit
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:19:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > > and his expe
> Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
> believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
> people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation instead of
> the merits of the comment.
This is not my understanding of aj's comment, Josselin.
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 19:19 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> If you believe a comment on a list has no merit, it's very easy to deal
> with it: just ignore it, and go on discussing the ideas that are worth
> discussing.
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
belie
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Steve Langasek]
> > > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> > > being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> > >
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
> > as a w
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 17:38 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
> as a whole.
An
2nd'd, also with Don's amendments.
Note that the 'in consultation' bit is still in - it could be still clearer
that the DPL may on his own take the decisions. But it's improved over the
prev. version.
cheers
-- vbi
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 18:46, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ---
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Steve Langasek]
> > > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> > > being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> > >
--- Ottavio Caruso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it as an official download, branded as Defiant Live
> image?
Obviously I meant: "Debian live image". Blame the
Yahoo spellchecker!
Ottavio Caruso
--
No individual replies, please!
__
Do You Yahoo!?
I'd be glad to have your opinion about the two
following related issues:
1) According to the documentation [1]:
"There are no official Debian live CDs available.
However, we would like to recommend Knoppix, which is
based on Debian - a very useful, full-featured live
CD!"
Now, I love Knoppix and
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Steve Langasek]
> > That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> > being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> > wouldn't also be?
> The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or de
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:47:47PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Pat Tadgerson:
>
> > I am not a real hardware person, but I would like a server with 2
> > hard drives with about 160 gigs of storage, with a raid 0
> > configuration.
>
> RAID 0 is usually a very bad idea because you lose all yo
54 matches
Mail list logo
