On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:50:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:14:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> So your belief that the GPL is free is entirely based on a belief that
> >> RMS i
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:41:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-17 10:05]:
> > > The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software
>
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Company B cannot make counterclaims from its defensive patent
> > portfolio, because that would invoke the termination clause and kill
> > its modi
a free license that defends against
software patents.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Why are we concerned about people who patent pieces of software while
> >> cla
of making decisions
regarding the logos on anything resembling a short timescale, even for
stuff which actually matters.
I can't imagine why anybody would care what you do with it,
though. People stick those things all over the place.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Li
> > Debian than to the FSF, I think Debian needs it more.
We don't have any use for money right now. What we have mostly just
sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by inflation. So fund
raising exercises aren't really a good idea.
--
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:16:53PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Isn't this a great idea that Debian could borrow? I think this could
> > > > generate some nice publicity/income for the Debian project, I mean
> > > > y
?
It's been proposed before, hasn't happened yet. Doesn't look likely to
happen; spending Debian money is very difficult.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
> > > Or is the whole Ubuntu thing (where I understand Mark Shuttlew
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:28:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Fortunately, that is not the case with Canonical.
> >
> &
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
n enhance a web site, I thought I'd ask on
> -project to see what other people think.
I can't imagine what we'd use the money for, and it'd just be more
bandwidth consumption for stupid users (personally, I blocked google
ads a long time ago). Where would be the point?
--
n consider each suggestion on a case-by-case basis and
> > make a decision on a case-by-case basis.
>
> Or maybe we should just draw a line and say: No ads.
That would involve the difficult problem of defining what is an
'ad'. Too hard, no point. Easier to deal with them as t
case of somebody trying to load extra
irrelevant tasks onto Debian.
We are not a clearing house for random things vaguely releated to free
software.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:08:23AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:31:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > Do you have any suggestion as to something that
I concluded a long time ago that it is not feasible.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ree that it can't be done.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> Really can't see why you think that.
>
> hot-babe.
Are you seriously suggesting that is a significant part of what Debian
does?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:25:01AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15.17, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:12:51AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
>
> > > Or maybe we should just draw a line and say: No ads.
> >
t;
> This is (almost) amusing. I suppose Debian doesn't actually exist,
> that's unfortuante, but perhaps that makes your hypothesis that it can't
> exist if it has money almost make sense.
What are you talking about? Debian is a loose affiliation of
independent developers,
assets. It's just a group of
individuals.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
lines before, I imagine.
You're thinking about founding a corporation. There are plenty of
those already. It is not necessary to hijack Debian's name and trademarks
in order to do this.
That corporation cannot and will not be the organisation currently
referred to as 'Debian&#
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some
> > > thou
reflection of:
"People usually forget to change the subject line when they change the
subject"
Anything on a Debian list that looks like a single large 'thread' is
invariably several dozen threads, mislabelled.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Lin
d here.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
is the same as "Why free software needs free
documentation".
The situation with the RFCs is an unmitigated disaster, and we should
not encourage it to continue by supporting them. Those documents
should all have been released under free licenses
length, years ago. We eventually concluded that
it was watertight and the FSF did indeed intend to create a
non-DFSG-free license.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><
ion?
No. The exception is the bits which are required by law, not license
holder (and then only grudgingly, but we don't really have time to sit
and wait for legislators to get a clue).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s accomplished by having a box on hand with
a copy of the images and a CD burner. If anybody wants them they can
be produced on demand.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
has one of the regular weak ones. Those are harmless
(and may not be enforceable in some jurisdictions due to silly rules
about trademark defense).
A "strict" trademark license says:
NOTHING THAT WE DID NOT DO CAN CARRY OUR NAME
Or something equivalent.
--
.''`. ** Debi
r stuff because it won't be
any use to you".
You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way:
does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `
m dumb
lusers who are trying to insist that I should be able to solve their
problems with Linspire.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:59:26PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >That's probably the important case anyway. I'm not really bothered by
> >an organisation calling itself the 'Debian Core Consortium'. I am
> >bothered by somebody
are not offered a chance to defend themselves, and
accusations are taken as proof, go ahead; you'll get exactly what you
created. Make sure it's what you wanted.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:07:54AM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 8/9/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > is: think for yourself, and consider the sources of what you think you
> > know. How accurate is it *really*? What do you find when you look
attacking those
you don't agree with.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:23:00AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > I acknowledge that I occasionally write mails which can be sharp and
> > pointy, but generally it's just in response to similarly sharp
> > mails. It's hardly uncommo
millions if I
sued for this.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > In my experience, it is sometimes necessary to get somebody's
> > attention, and it does sometimes work. The trick is one of
> > j
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:09:35PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:23:18PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Did
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:08:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks
> > otherwise to present evidence. I sign almost all my outgoing mails;
> > this should be easy, if
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 12:42:37PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Looks like a perfectly justified response to me.
>
> Which is the basic problem isn't it? Communication involves not only how
> responses look to on
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the
> > past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been
>
king if the four top-10 posters to
debian-legal that aren't developers were professional trouble-makers
(and yet oddly I don't see you throwing accusations at him). I
responded by indicating that the list was confusing, since it doesn't
accurately represent the amount of time being spe
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:32:16PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > You're a smart guy Andrew (definitely smarter than me)
> >
&g
ple who were
using it.
> >> Insults never build consensus: even when they drive away
> >> individuals who disagree, they also splinter the consensus.
> >
> > This statement appears disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; if
> > it was meant to be a po
t's really quite irrelevant. I challenged those doing the attacking
to justify their claims.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
lly. I've rebutted every one of your claims and
you gave up.
Anybody else think they can prove their accusations?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><-
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> My response is simply
> this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
> evidence.
So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I
explained every case. I think that
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> My response is simply
> >> this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
&
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> For how long do we have to continue to wade through this flood of
> emails regarding the terrible state of heart of Andrew Suffield?
Until people stop making accusations.
> What
> is the ultimate purpose of this di
in serious trouble.
The debate about the impact and appropriateness of differing
conversational styles is not a new one, nor has anything new been
brought to it this week. It's only peripherally related, by subject
matter.
--
.''`. ** D
proven guilty' means, here. Are you
saying that this principle does not hold?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:25:52PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> On Aug 13 0:02+0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> > > For how long do we have to continue to wade through this flood of
> > > emails rega
of people understood. They just didn't feel
the need to talk about it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:56:32AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >> Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile
> >> you to anyone but themselves. Or
rong when replying to email is really quite pitiful...
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ly. Ask a chartered accountant.
And those penalties can probably be applied against any members, since
it's not incorporated with limits on liability.
Bugger.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the list archives. The index is updated
roughly every five minutes and covers the entire public archive on
lists.debian.org. Lists which don't have public archives aren't
indexed.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :'
up with plenty of alternate suggestions.
Bad explanation on our side, or misunderstanding on theirs. I believe
these have all been cleared up now.
> In addition, a few of our suggestions were of the "this is way too confusing
> to read" variety rather than the "this is non-f
variously be described as "not entirely accurate",
> "wrong" or even "completely untrue".
Other possible descriptions include "lemon sorbet", and "exuberence".
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www
; Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing back to
> > Debian. Let them compare on their own channel.
>
> This says you are wrong:
>
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
So if I were to diff the Debian archive against the Fedora one,
at's just a matter of personal
approach... I prefer to let them run on a bit longer to see if people
can shake some sense into them. Or I'm just more patient.
No way was it on-topic. Offtopic stuff is tolerated so long as it's
harmless, amusing, or not getting in the way; otherwis
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/pa
lated
from Japanese and all the names have been replaced with English ones -
it's patronising. I don't see why it would be any different the other
way around. If a word has no translation then leave it alone, don't
make one up just because it sounds odd.
--
.''`. ** Debi
with a release codenamed
> "woody", I think some incidental indecency is not something to worry
> about.
Given that Branden can get penis jokes out of 'potato', I don't think
it really matters what we call it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
less they're
just being an arsehole - in which case you aren't going to stop
them.
I don't think there's really anything to see here. If we'd called it
"et'chy" (English doesn't have geminated stops - that's a pause in
there, like a glottal stop) t
s at the *end* of
a sentence or phrase. I'm sure that means something really important
to the linguists].
> As I see on the web, the toy "Etch-a-Sketch" was translated as
> "?$B%(%C%A%"%9%1%C%A" by others. So this seems quite normal translation.
Interestin
:38AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Curious. But I've since found a paper which observes that, for no
> > apparent reason, the 'ch' sound in English tends to map onto an -i
> > ending rather than the -u which most of the other 'sharp' consonants
>
It's due to some recent and inconveniently timed personal events
rather than *anything* within Debian, but I'm going to be reducing my
involvement considerably. I'm sure people who have no insight into my
life will claim otherwise; they're full of shit, if you care. If you
don't already know my rea
abase takes something like 10 hours,
running at nice +20, and that's got to be on master too. I seem to
have accidentally killed off all my copies of it, thought I still had
one, oh well)
--
Andrew Suffield
mindx.tar.gz
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:43:14PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, obviously mutt sucks, why did it put a comma there? Unencoded
non-ASCII characters are invalid in mail headers though.
--
Andrew Suffield
signature.asc
Description: D
F 8286 98AC C10A
uid Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And is attached for convinience.
[I'm not subscribed to this list]
bin5dUThOfMl2.bin
Description: PGP Key 0x98ACC10A.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[I am *so* not subscribed. Cc me if you particularly want me to read
what you have to say. Do not expect a reply.]
> There are 5 people listed in the -legal top 10 who are not DDs now
> and of those: Andrew Suffield stopped posting when he was still a DD
> IIRC
Basically when I quit
ort for
> this hardware, because we don't use material from contrib and non-free
> by default.
Putting these drivers into main instead of contrib would not alter
this, because it still wouldn't work without non-free. Any *practical*
difference?
--
.''`. ** De
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:35:59PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >
> >On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:51:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> > You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way:
> >> > does having
efinitely free.
>
> Anyone interested in trying?
It's on my todo list, but I have a couple of binary-only drivers to
tackle first.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
t the patent system is broken and
gives us no other real options. In the event that it were somehow
fixed to behave similarly to copyright (I don't know if this is
possible, but I can't rule it out), then we probably should start
requiring free patent licenses.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
other than questionable "interpretations", when has this actually
> happened?
The Artistic license would be the classical case. Pine if you want an
example of where we got screwed by it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.deb
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:45:45AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even
> > > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare e
quot;Mind what people do, not only what they say, for actions will betray a lie"
-- "Wizard's Fifth Rule", Terry Goodkind
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 08:37:20AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Ok, and now I give the word to the 'Debian don't need no stinking marketing'
> counter argument :-)
Avaunt, smelly marketer.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
t that the people responsible ask
their relevant professors to do it.
And I hate this stupid term "FLOSS". It's a blind attempt to lump two
entirely discrete groups of people together, who have radically
different motivations. A very strange choice of sample set. I would
expect the two
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:58:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > As somebody who understands and hates statisticians and statistics, I
> > echo the sentiment. This is a terrible survey.
>
> I can understand why people hate social statistics when they are
have to ask.
Going around and getting all the licenses fixed is what we do when we
give up on trying to get the FSF to fix the thing once, centrally.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
n these (unmodifiable or
unredistributable documents are not considered useful).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
he FSF are crap at writing
licenses. Fixing it is *easy* - they're just useless, and haven't
fixed it. The details of how to fix it are a matter for -legal.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** |
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 blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we
> > know so far, there is no useful point between these (
or shortly after sarge releases, along with a
big list of stuff to fix.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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:
> &
t;
> I don't think that's an interesting case though. Why would you take a
> document that has nothing to do with a particular subject and turn it
> into a document that has that subject as its main purpose?
Because that part of the text was useful to you. Why do you even have
to
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&
met with
dismissal.
So goodness knows what it could mean.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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:
> > > &
ice document.
> Why on earth would we want to exclude openoffice docs (provided that the
> contents is licensed freely?)
I have no idea what your motives might be for your actions.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux
exposed by this survey, we should
> probably do something thing to adress this.
The reaction was exactly what everybody predicted would happen. What
were you expecting from a hopelessly biased and braindamaged survey
sent to -user? The questions were formulated to permit no other result.
--
your pilot study should cover
is how many of the people you select for sampling actually respond,
and why the rest didn't)
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
had much over 500 bother to vote.
This sour grapes bullshit is getting really old.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ian lists
still don't reject all mail, does that count? It's getting *really*
old.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
