Hi,
this whole discussion touches some deep points that I'd like to
comment on.
Basically I can make out two attitudes, or views of the project,
resulting in arguments over more minor points. I'll call these groups
the "open" and "closed" positions. I know this is a _large_
oversimplification
Hi,
this whole discussion touches some deep points that I'd like to
comment on.
Basically I can make out two attitudes, or views of the project,
resulting in arguments over more minor points. I'll call these groups
the "open" and "closed" positions. I know this is a _large_
oversimplification
Hi,
I am nearly sorry to lengthen this thread, but I stumbled about an
assumption that I believe is fundamental and _not_ true:
The keyboard of Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think some sort of traceability is good. As debian maintainers, we
> can upload packages. If I am malici
> > Damn they make it look like they are the first and only one committed
> > to open source stuff... This just makes me angry.
>
> I don't see a word in that page that implies that "they are the first
> and only one committed to open source stuff." IMHO, if they want to
> support the FSF expli
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Gerhard Poul wrote:
> I don't think that there is something like an 'official' partner of the FSF.
> AFAIK Debian evolved out of a GNU Project.
>
> btw: RMS != rms :-)
Well - Debian is the preferred GNU/Linux distribution of the FSF - by rms'
words. As can be seen from the
5 matches
Mail list logo
