* Andrew Saunders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061220 16:20]:
> On 12/14/05, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >actually, NetApp (the storage company) and Intel (the chip
> >manufacture) are solving this problem for us. we get a 7 or
> >10Tbyte storage from NetApp and two beefy servers to us
On 12/14/05, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
actually, NetApp (the storage company) and Intel (the chip
manufacture) are solving this problem for us. we get a 7 or
10Tbyte storage from NetApp and two beefy servers to use as a
front end for both CD/DVD generation and serving of CDs/DV
Matthew Palmer writes ("Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about
#debian operator]"):
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:50:54AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > It irritates us all. But I'd rather have substandard patches submitted
> > (just don&
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Complaint about #debian operator"):
> As absurd as Andrew's comparison may seem, the diffs distributed from
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ are pretty underwhelming as far as
> "contributing back to Debian" is concerned. [
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> > have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
> > which should *not* go into debian. That is provided the deb
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
> than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
It is *MUCH* better to attach a patch than to paste a link, unless as others
said, you're talking about > 1MB *compre
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:29:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:00:22PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
> > Sounds like a very good idea, and fully in the scope of Utnubu. Some
> > questions:
> >
> > * Is
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:26:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they
> > (canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures
> > locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire i
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:19:58PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 16:13 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> > Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
> > > than a link, and might annoy people with limited
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:23:36PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2005 04:03 am, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive,
> > > and have the ubuntu guys onl
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:00:22PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (I just got the mails to utnubu-discuss, so bear with me)
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
> > The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
> > the BTS, w
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
> > The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
> > the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it
> > (and
> > complain loudly to the submitter if
On Thursday 15 December 2005 04:03 am, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive,
> > and have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific
> > patches which should
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 16:13 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
> > than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
>
> It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
> than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might consider
doing otherwise if the patch exceeded 1 megabyte.
(And yes, I'm on
Hi,
(I just got the mails to utnubu-discuss, so bear with me)
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
> The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
> the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it (and
> complain
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >
> > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to not
> > send patches directly to the BTS,
>
> Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team,
> and have never heared about such a directive.
There was a large thread on
Sven Luther wrote:
> I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they
> (canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures
> locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire independent worker,
> who pay their social charges and stuff themsel
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:26PM +, Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
>
> I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
My
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:26PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
>
> I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
I have no idea how ubuntu works inte
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
--
Andrew Saunders
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > If the ubuntu patch database is public, and the patches therein
> > DFSG-free licensed, why don#t we establish an automatism which moves
> > patches from the Ubun
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
> > maintainers.
>
> Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Those guys that get money for ubuntu work. No n
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> If the ubuntu patch database is public, and the patches therein
> DFSG-free licensed, why don#t we establish an automatism which moves
> patches from the Ubuntu patch database to the Debian BTS?
The Utnubu[1] project was started at Debc
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
> > maintainers.
>
> Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Canoncal has.
Greetings
Marc, suppressing the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I was implying that ubuntu employees where supposed to not file patches as
> attachement to debian BTS, and instead send links to the ubuntu patch
> database, links which may or may not stay alive for the time needed until the
> patch i
[Andreas Schuldei pisze na temat "Re: snapshot.d.n (was: Complaint about
#debian operator)"]:
> actually, NetApp (the storage company) and Intel (the chip
> manufacture) are solving this problem for us. we get a 7 or
> 10Tbyte storage from NetApp and two beefy servers to use a
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
> maintainers.
Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
> > > up.
> >
> > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> > have
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
> > > >
> > > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is
> > > > to no
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:50:54AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > OTOH, I've seen a number of ubuntu patches which were blatantly wrong,
> > > where the maintainer clearly didn't grok the package they were changing.
> >
> > *This* irrit
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > OTOH, I've seen a number of ubuntu patches which were blatantly wrong,
> > where the maintainer clearly didn't grok the package they were changing.
>
> *This* irritates me mightily. The reason, as given by a MOTU when I asked
It irritates us all. B
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:57:37AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > I don't disagree. I would much rath
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> It is true that some MOTUs don't consider submitting
> to debian bts as priority because of bad experiences they had because
> of unresponsive and unhelpful Debian Maintainers.
How much extra work is it to submit a patch one has p
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
> which should *not* go into debian.
A good idea for Ubuntu to ease this would
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
> > up.
>
> They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
> whi
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
> > >
> > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to
> > > not
> > > send patches directly to the BTS,
> >
> > Please give a reference to
On Thursday 15 December 2005 11:57, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team,
> and have never heared about such a directive.
May be I've been a FUD victim too, but I've also heard that directive some
months ago.
Best regards
--
Isaac Clere
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:17:32AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > There's "I screwed up because I made a mistake", and there's "I screwed up
> > because I don't actually know what I'm doing", but "I screwed up because I
> > didn't c
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:28:39AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:17:32 +0100
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > There's "I screwed up b
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:57:37AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > I don't disagree. I would much rath
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
> > > corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:17:32 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > There's "I screwed up because I made a mistake", and there's "I
> > screwed up because I don't actually k
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
> > corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
>
> Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> There's "I screwed up because I made a mistake", and there's "I screwed up
> because I don't actually know what I'm doing", but "I screwed up because I
> didn't care about doing a quality job" is on a whole other level.
I have much
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
> corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
everything in the BTS would result in a lot of "patch,wontfix
* martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-14 12:10:30]:
> also sprach Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.14.1142 +0100]:
> > I believe this is due to snapshot.d.n having lost a considerable
> > amount of its archive. As those patches were generated from the
> > packages
>
> ... this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> >> This says you are wrong
also sprach Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.14.1142 +0100]:
> I believe this is due to snapshot.d.n having lost a considerable
> amount of its archive. As those patches were generated from the
> packages
... this makes me wonder why Canonical has not stepped in to support
snapshot.d.n.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:29:21AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As absurd as Andrew's comparison may seem, the diffs distributed from
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ are pretty underwhelming as far as
> "contributing back to Debian" is concerned. Last time I poked at a package
> diff
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> This says you are wrong:
> >>
> >> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
> > So if I were to diff the Debian arch
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Have you been in the channel? I've never ever seen you in there.
> > You obviously haven't put in that much time answering questions.
> > http://debstats.dontexist.org/ doesn't have you on the list, so
> >
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:59:05PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
>> I have been on #debian for a while, and I can understand that you
>> are fully booked. Still, #ubuntu is not the place to which we should
>> send people when they want Debian vs. Ubuntu
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> >> This says you are wrong:
> >>
> >> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
>
> > So if I were to diff the Debian
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 04:41:40PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:52:17PM -0800, Josh Rehman wrote:
> > read the transcript: are you saying that you think your fellow
> > operator acted rightly? Banning me when I was getting the information
> > I needed, not banning an obv
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> This says you are wrong:
>>
>> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
> So if I were to diff the Debian archive against the Fedora one, I'd be
> contributing to Fedora? Cool! That'll
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Saturday 10 December 2005 05:45 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> >> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.10.1358 +0100]:
> >> > So they can go join #ubuntu. Honestly, not tha
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:29:26AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing back to=20
> > Debian. Let them compare on their own channel.
>
> The above might variously be described as "not entire
Le lundi 12 décembre 2005 à 16:02 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit :
> The result of this leads me to believe that most of the famed integration
> going on in Ubuntu is the result of the eye-catching theme, the choice of a
> single default desktop, and good marketing. I had hoped to install Ubuntu
> on
* Josh Rehman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:12 12:52 -0800]:
> You read the transcript: are you saying that you think your fellow
> operator acted rightly?
As a fellow #debian operator, I have to say that I did agree with his
actions and probably would've been less patient.
--
off the chain li
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 12:01:02AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Monday 12 December 2005 12:52 pm, Josh Rehman wrote:
> > And to quote
> > "http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/document_view":
> >
> > "As a volunteer organization, Debian has historically been less good
> > at making tim
On Monday 12 December 2005 12:52 pm, Josh Rehman wrote:
> And to quote
> "http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/document_view":
>
> "As a volunteer organization, Debian has historically been less good
> at making time-based or predictable releases, and has a difficult time
> providing acco
On Monday 12 December 2005 04:41 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> But your post makes it all the more clear that *a lot* of Debian
> people need to get the facts straight, and that a Debian vs. Ubuntu
> comparison on #debian is definitely not out of place.
The problem with that, though, is the Ubuntu
also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.2241 +0100]:
> Yes, the Debian installer does a lot of things during the
> installation of Debian with the desktop task that you will not get
> if you just install packages with apt. One example is that our
> X needs read-edid and mdetect to be
Josh Rehman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This question, for me, is moot since I don't plan on using #debian IRC
> again. I expected a level of maturity from a Debian representative
> that I did not get.
Don't expect maturity on IRC and don't expect detailed development
or advocacy discussion welcomed in
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 21:42 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.2121 +0100]:
> > So when was the last time you tried installing Debian with this
> > task whose name you are not even sure of?
>
> I don't think I ever installed the task myself, but s
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:52:17PM -0800, Josh Rehman wrote:
> read the transcript: are you saying that you think your fellow
> operator acted rightly? Banning me when I was getting the information
> I needed, not banning an obvious troll (deadcat), and finally banning
> me before telling me where
martin f krafft wrote:
> Personal attacks aside, would you mind sharing what I missed? Does
> the desktop task do anything more than pull in some packages and let
> them configure themselves? Will my experience differ if I install
> the desktop task, or `apt-get install x-window-system kde gnome`
>
On 12/12/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:59:05PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.11.0539 +0100]:
> > > Martin, I'd like for you to come in to #debian. Not for an hour or
> > > a few hours, but for a f
also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.2208 +0100]:
> Sigh, I rest my case. Thank god we have actual users who help us
> make Debian better as opposed to developers who are too busy
> running ubuntu.
Personal attacks aside, would you mind sharing what I missed? Does
the desktop task
also sprach David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.2202 +0100]:
> I'd personally love to see more specific complaints about how
> things could be improved.
I usually try to get those people to go into detail, or encourage
them to file bugs. However, "plain users" generally don't really
know
martin f krafft wrote:
> I don't think I ever installed the task myself
Sigh, I rest my case. Thank god we have actual users who help us make
Debian better as opposed to developers who are too busy running ubuntu.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:42:14PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.2121 +0100]:
> > So when was the last time you tried installing Debian with this
> > task whose name you are not even sure of?
>
> I don't think I ever installed the task myself
also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.2121 +0100]:
> So when was the last time you tried installing Debian with this
> task whose name you are not even sure of?
I don't think I ever installed the task myself, but surely
I installed GNOME and/or KDE, and the task doesn't really do
a
martin f krafft wrote:
> No, of course I don't. And I was hoping my comment would be read
> with a grain of salt. d-i is massively cool and it gets more usable,
> even to "plain users" on a daily basis. But once you finished the
> install, what then?
You've missed my point I'm afraid.
> Ever comp
also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.2053 +0100]:
> Sure, but unless I misunderstood, your book wasn't about advocacy topics,
It surely included them. Anyway, this is going off-topic.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. kra
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.1953 +0100]:
>> People who go to IRC and ask advocacy questions are fairly unlikely to
>> get high-quality information no matter where you send them. At best,
>> they'll end up sparking another
also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.1953 +0100]:
> People who go to IRC and ask advocacy questions are fairly
> unlikely to get high-quality information no matter where you send
> them. At best, they'll end up sparking another one of these
> interminable discussions like the o
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because the quality of information there won't be much better than in
> Debian-forums -- people are biased. I've witnessed quite some polemic
> talk by Ubuntu users advocating their distro, somewhat reminiscent of
> what I would have assumed to hear by
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:59:05PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.11.0539 +0100]:
> > Martin, I'd like for you to come in to #debian. Not for an hour or
> > a few hours, but for a few weeks to see what it's like. We have
> > consistently refus
also sprach Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.1431 +0100]:
> > Still, #ubuntu is not the place to which we should
> > send people when they want Debian vs. Ubuntu thoughts.
>
> Respectfully: Why not?
Because the quality of information there won't be much better than
in Debian-forums
Scripsit martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Still, #ubuntu is not the place to which we should
> send people when they want Debian vs. Ubuntu thoughts.
Respectfully: Why not?
The Ubuntu people, having actually derived Ubuntu from Debian, are the
ones who are in the best position to know what
also sprach David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.11.0539 +0100]:
> Martin, I'd like for you to come in to #debian. Not for an hour or
> a few hours, but for a few weeks to see what it's like. We have
> consistently refused to support non-Debian distros for years,
> including knoppix and ubunt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 05:45 am, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.10.1358 +0100]:
>> > So they can go join #ubuntu. Honestly, not that hard. Type it
>> >
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:41:49PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.0112 +0100]:
> > Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing
> > back to Debian. Let them compare on their own channel.
> I can hardly imagine you actual
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 13:41 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> But your post makes it all the more clear that *a lot* of Debian
> people need to get the facts straight, and that a Debian vs. Ubuntu
> comparison on #debian is definitely not out of place.
My biggest surprise whas that the channel opera
also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.10.1943 +0100]:
> Wow, talk about self-defeating attitudes. Do you have a d-i patch
> handy to turn away all new users from Debian?
No, of course I don't. And I was hoping my comment would be read
with a grain of salt. d-i is massively cool and it
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.0112 +0100]:
> Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing
> back to Debian. Let them compare on their own channel.
I can hardly imagine you actually have substance to back up these
claims. Of course, if you as a DD refu
[Paul Johnson]
> If they're related to Ubuntu, they're primarily about Ubuntu, don't
> ask them in Debian. Debian didn't come from Ubuntu, after all, most
> people on Debian don't know or care about Ubuntu problems.
This is slightly exaggerated, as several of the problems experienced
and solved
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing back to=20
> Debian. Let them compare on their own channel.
The above might variously be described as "not entirely accurate",
"wrong" or even "completely untrue".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EM
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 16:32 -0800]:
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:07 pm, Josh Rehman wrote:
>
> > As for being warned, I was told that because my discussion was about
> > ubuntu I should stop. Because I felt my discussion was not about
> > ubuntu, I did not feel that
Hi Paul,
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:32:10PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> So you deliberately show newbie arrogance, get called on it, then
> complain? Dude, you got what you deserved, now you're just
> embarrassing yourself with how much you and most 13 year olds on AOL
> have in common.
This is
On Sunday 11 December 2005 03:16 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Telling a new user to "shut up" first thing is traditional troll
> > behavior [...]
>
> Opening by asking whether anyone is alive is traditional troll
> behaviour (is there anyone to annoy?), possibly second only to a/s/l.
> I don't know whethe
On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:07 pm, Josh Rehman wrote:
> As for being warned, I was told that because my discussion was about
> ubuntu I should stop. Because I felt my discussion was not about
> ubuntu, I did not feel that I should have to stop.
So you deliberately show newbie arrogance, get c
On Saturday 10 December 2005 04:57 am, Michael Banck wrote:
> Don't know whether you send the guy a private message, but perhaps a
> public message like "foo: You have been silenced for 10 minutes due to
> repeated off-topicness, despite warnings" or so would be alright, so
> they know it is not p
Perfect link, thanks so much. Perhaps Don can put that one under his belt.
On 12/11/05, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 02:43:51AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > [Obviously, if someone knows of such a resource, feel free to modify
> > the "why debian" factoid,
On Saturday 10 December 2005 06:12 am, Michael Banck wrote:
> You are welcome to idle in #debian and have a highlight on `ubuntu' to
> address these questions, should you have the time.
I think whoever does that, and isn't paid to do so, will probably change that
to a trigger so whenever ubuntu g
On Saturday 10 December 2005 05:45 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.10.1358 +0100]:
> > So they can go join #ubuntu. Honestly, not that hard. Type it
> > with me now:
> >
> > /join #ubuntu
>
> Why should a Debian-Ubuntu comparison be any more on-t
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 02:43:51AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [Obviously, if someone knows of such a resource, feel free to modify
> the "why debian" factoid, or perhaps create a "why not debian" factoid
> on the bot that points to a website or something that goes into this
> topic in depth.]
I
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 11:16:19AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Opening by asking whether anyone is alive is traditional troll
> > behaviour (is there anyone to annoy?),
>
> It /might/ be traditional troll behaviour, it could just be
> unfamiliarity with IRC. [...]
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
