bian does have (even if that does make it harder for legitimate
expenses to be paid)
in short, money attracts the wrong sort of people.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
one appointed from above, although it works eevn better if
their suggestions have some official standing as well.
if not enough people like or respect the moderator, then it won't and
can't work. at best, they will be ignored. at worst, the list dies.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
nsequence of wanting to protect the logo and
the trademark from misuse by scumbags -- "scumbags" being defined as anyone
who would want to misrepresent themselves or whatever they're doing as being
an official part of the debian project, regardless of whether what they are
doing is compatible with or contradictory to our aims or not.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
h files and forced renamings
> are ok)
> No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> Distribution of License
> License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
> License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
which of these 9 points does the GF
IMAP? The easiest way to describe it to others would be to
> modify the IMAP RFC.
actually, the easiest way would be to write a new RFC (or other document)
which referenced the IMAP RFCs.
"... except as described below, the protocol is the same as IMAP (note that it
requires a refri
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:28:29PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > [ ... referencing earlier docs ... ]
>
> Sometimes this is a good approach, sometime it isn't. It certainly isn't
> good to do thi
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:13:25PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:02:38PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sorry, but that argument is bogus. convenience is NOT the same as freedom.
> > more to the point, freedom does not require convenience.
>
> Co
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:56:29AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:02:38PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sorry, but that argument is bogus. convenience is NOT the same as freedom.
> > more to the point, freedom does not require convenience.
>
> T
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:03:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > no, acroread is DFSG non-free for other reasons that have nothing
> > to do with convenience. most notably, the complete absence of
> > source-c
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:46:56PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > (similarly, you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only
> > do so by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply
> >
that GFDL licensed texts are
> > non-free, and debian has not yet voted on the issue. claiming that the GFDL
> > is non-free is not a statement of fact, it is merely a statement of opinion.
>
> Invariant sections can not be modified. The DFSG requires that modification
> be allowed. QED.
invariant sections can be modified by patch. the DFSG allows that
restriction. QED.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:04:08PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:01:41PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > Lack of source code and no permission to modify the existing article
> >
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:43:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > whether you call it commentary or a patch, it's still a patch and is
> > explicitly allowed by the DFSG.
>
> The section of the DFSG to which you are
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:54:38AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
> > succinct description of the anti-GFDL cr
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:56:09AM +0100, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O M?rcores, 5 de Xaneiro de 2005 ?s 19:42:46 +1100, Craig Sanders escrib?a:
>
> > because the DFSG explicitly allows a license to restrict modification so
> > that
> > it is only permitted by patch.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:57PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:54:38AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:13:51AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:43:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The license must allow:
> > >
> > > 1) the distribution of "
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > according to your particular degree of zealotry...but your zealotry is more
> > intense than what was common when we wrote the DFSG, so it's en
ince us that Free Software is hopeless and we should just give
> up by claiming that license documents can't go in main.
i don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested that that should happen.
it's just pointing out the consequences of being fanatical and pedantic about
licensing trivialities. you'd think that these consequences would be obvious,
but the evidence suggests otherwise.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
en the case since, but now some zealots are trying to change
that and impose their own insane interpretation.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.html
"Since the GNU Manifesto presents the principles of the GNU Project,
rather than features of GNU Emacs, we decided that others should not
remove or change it when redistributing the Emacs Manual, and we
wrote that requirement into the license. In effect, we made the GNU
Manifesto into an invariant section, though without using that term."
the only thing that has changed is that the FSF has now produced a formal and
very limited definition of what an invariant section is or may be.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
>
> I don't think this is a fair representation.
how can an accurate summary of history not be a "fair representation"?
if there's some inaccuracy in my summary, please point it out.
> If invariants are allowed, I think they need to be addressed in the
> DFSG. If they're not, they're not. I don't find this to be "insane" in
> any way. Reasonable people can disagree of course.
invariants are allowed, and always have been. i've already proved that, so
i'm not going to bother doing it again.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
#x27;t really care about. Drivers in
> main would be allowed to depend on this, and we'd include it on the
> install media. This would require changing the social contract.
either of these might be appropriate for third-party drivers, not included
with the standard kernel source.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:28:43PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > this affects even DFSG-free drivers with DFSG-free patches. you often can't
> > apply the patches to the debianised kernel sources because the context that
> > the patch needs is
installed by default when
you install Debian.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nions). depends on the poll.
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that.
i've had lots of disagreements over the years with people in debian,
some of them vehement and heated - but the only person i've ever wanted
booted out of debian was that bigoted neo-nazi misogynist moron Walther.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cybor
www.debian.org/intro/free
and
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Note: binary-only applications (i.e. without source code that the
user may view, modify and redistribute) are NOT considered to be Free
Software by Debian or by anyone else in the Free Software community.
craig
--
craig sanders
stable' system with some newer packages, you're
better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with
backports. it's not hard.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Religion is the work of the Devil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:37:35AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:17:34PM +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> > better off learning how apt&#x
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:11:20AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 15:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > contrary to popular belief and self-delusion, 'stable+backports' is NO
> > LONGER STABLE.
>
> That is of course true.
>
> > the onl
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 06:28:26PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> btw, debian handles upgrades of glibc really well. it hasn't been a
> problem for years (not since the libc4 -> libc6 transition, which
^
oops. typo. should be libc5.
cr
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:27:48PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're
> > better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with
> > backports. it&#x
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:43 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 1. why is this allegedly a 'benefit'? what's so special about
> > libraries?
> > why is a new libc6 or libssl etc more scary than a
heir stable release...and their users seem
mostly happy with that.
OTOH, it's good to give users some warning that 'testing' and especially
'unstable' aren't anywhere near as well tested as a 'stable' release.
btw, there's a history behind the name &#x
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:21:39PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:27:48PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> >> Craig Sanders wrote:
> >> > IMO, if you need a 'stable' system w
t it aren't possible with that version. i've also
seen the occasional security update for stable that isn't yet in
unstablethat doesn't last for very long, at least not if a package
has an active maintainer.
quite often the security update occurs in unstable before it occur
backports is just another variant of unstable.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BOFH excuse #164: root rot
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
delay as the fixed package makes its way from unstable to
testing and eventually to backports.
stable, testing, unstable, backports - they each have their own set of risks
and problems.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is well known that *things* from undesirable unive
g once and then we can move on to new projects and/or enhance
what we already have.
craig
--
craig sanders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
software and/or cloned as free software.
i don't really expect you to take any of this in. like many other
points, it has been made several times before in this thread and you
have ignored them all every time.
craig
--
craig sanders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
on numerous
different issues i have generally managed to respect them and/or their
positions...but not Joseph, i have no respect whatsoever for him, only
contempt - he's the ONLY developer I wish would just fuck off. debian
deserves better than idiots like him.
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:09:59PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:03:26PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> ...
> > > Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 07:52:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 01:49:00PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > It has not only been asserted, but proven through the quote of DC 4.1.5.
> > that is your assertion. it also has not been proved.
>
made.
> Worse yet, I have a vsceral reation against those who will only answer
> out of their emotions, and go so far as to attack the morality or
> insult the intelligence of those who disagree with them.
except by their own self-judgement, crusaders are inherently
amoral...even immoral. it was john who attempted to claim the moral
high-ground with his "it's the moral thing to do" line, so there should
be no great surprise that many find amoral intolerance masquerading as
"morality" to be deeply offensive, indeed dangerous.
craig
--
craig sanders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t this idea in
the interests of clarifying an ambiguity, and also because it provides
for these documents the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
in short, "me too".
craig
--
craig sanders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ations, this change adds clarifying language to
> > the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents.
> > Additionally, this also provides for the core, or Foundation, documents of
> > the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
> > constitution itself enjoys.
> > ==
>
> Seconded.
seconded by me, too.
--
craig sanders
PGP signature
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 07:14:55AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Indeed. But not everyone agrees with your opinion that invariant sections
> > are trivialities.
>
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:15:47PM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > right. even after 6 days you can't come up with any answer to over 70 lines
> > of argument in that message, so you retreat to the position of a coward and
> &g
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 07:48:53PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(learn how to quote. quoted text is preceded by ">" or similar. original
text is not).
> Somebody calling himself "Craig Sanders" wrote:
>
> >"a named appendix or a front-matt
software, so as not to
> misrepresent the original author by changing or deleting code.
documentation is not software. software is not documentation.
only a moron thinks that they are the same or that they must be treated
exactly the same.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ts are identical,
> as far as I know, so it's a true-but-misleading claim.
yes, yes, retreat to some idiotic position where can you ignore the
salient point and focus on the simpleton's interpretation and make yet
another worthless ad-hominem attack.
you must have missed it, so for y
it were possible
to devise a one-size-fits-all-situations tutorial for fixing them it would
make more sense to modify the code so that the problems couldn't occur or were
self-correcting.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
do
not have ANY right to demand that your mail must be accepted by anyone.
nobody has that right.
craig
ps: as for branden's mail policies - IMO, if he can't email someone because
they block him, he is under no obligation to lose any sleep over it.
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROT
ily stupid
blocking rules you like.
i doubt if anyone will care very much.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:05:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:12:55 +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > note that there is no third option of whinging about how your rights
> > are being infringed because your dynamic-IP m
ificant are the few that
are correctly configured.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:44:00PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday June 21 2005 9:12 pm, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
> >
> > because you
ably be used mostly by developers and bleeding-edge
type users.
'snapshot' will be used by those with fewer guinea-pig genes, who want
something up-to-date but with major obvious problems resolved.
'frozen' is for those who just can't wait for stable or who want to help
with final testing.
'stable' is for everyone.
craig
--
craig sanders
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 11:02:31AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> ??? - packages auto moved to here after basic criteria met (e.g.
> in unstable for 2 weeks with no bug reports). can't remember
> what this stage was to be called.
i feel a need to w
se packages in unstable depend on new packages which haven't made
it out of incoming yet, or even because version in unstable is broken
and the fixed version has been sitting in incoming for several days (or
more).
craig
--
craig sanders
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:51:28PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > I hope to dismantle the sites mirroring incoming in favor of
> > > direct access, it ultimately will use less bandwidth/cpu.
> >
> > this is bad
atever self-serving position you have.
no need to. you habitually demonstrate more than enough of a blinkered,
my-way-is-the-only-way, self-serving attitude for any dozen normal
people.
have a nice day.
craig
--
craig sanders
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using
> > it for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than
>
change
will not cause harm to debian users or developers.
craig
--
craig sanders
t's called 'unstable' for a reason...
to discourage InfoMagic from releasing it before we do.
check the archives of debian-private, or debian-devel or perhaps the old
& dead debian-masters list. that is the reason we called it unstable.
craig
--
craig sanders
t;No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
> "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
> -- Mahatma Ghandi
>
what an appropriate .signature. i'll have to say No to this proposal.
craig
--
craig sanders
to go out of our
way to invite legal attacks.
better to call it "free-world" :)
(*) yes, i know bulls go for the motion and not the colour, but the
phrase sounds better than "gesticulating with a piece of cloth of
indeterminate colour at a male animal of the bovine persuasion".
craig
--
craig sanders
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 08:26:38PM -0500, Daniel Scott wrote:
> i'd like to download debian and use it on my new computer, it's an amd
> 800mhz t-bird and a kt7-raid... what architecture would i use?
i386
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG Ke
?
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0
Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 06:41:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Out of curiosity: are you asking for points to be repeated if the
> candidate already addressed the issue in his platform?
a brief statement from all nominees would be useful for comparison
purposes.
craig
--
craig sanders &
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:45:12PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:22:28 +0200
> Patrick Schnorbus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 14 July 2003 19:15, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> > > > apt-get source apt ?
> > >
> > > No, that requires Debian installed already
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:52:45PM +1300, Mike Beattie wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, it's not just homosexuals that fit into this gripe, it's
> also african-americans, .nz's Maori, various religions, and Australians..
this "We're a minority, we're special" card you mention is used by those who
feel
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:23:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Mike Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "We're a previously persecuted minority, dammit, treat us special, we
> > deserve the land you have worked hard for. even though we sit on our asses."
>
> New Zealand, Australia,
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:41:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 12:24:14AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> > Note that this situation existing doesn't mean that there necessarily are
> > hostile/scary/condescending guys about, and it isn't the fault of
> > anyone in particul
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:17:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> We also have our fair share of people with an excess of the polar
> opposite of meekness.
really?
i never noticed.
craig
:)
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:03:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Quite. But you too are ignoring one detail: that behavioral
> > trait is expressed preferentially in one gender; perhaps due to
> > cultural indoctrination, perhaps due to
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > meekness isn't about bullying.
> >
> > it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> > i
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:34:39PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> >and just as you don't cure quadraplegia by breaking the arms and legs of
> >healthy people, you don't cure meekness by making healthy people fearful &
> >timid.
>
> Nice analogy. It is indeed not the fault of able-bodied people th
78 matches
Mail list logo
