Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
Have you left the project?
No?
Then why are you asking that question?
--
Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>
> We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I
> looked all over the constitution, and failed.
wedlock dragging Pomona brewing readied
Sergio Hoffmann, 25 y.o. psychotherapist, Germany:
I think i'm younkger than main target group of Cialdis consumers, but i
have a very hard work, i always had to listen about people's failures, about bad life et cetera.
gibberish Mitch pivotal
All that prob
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
>> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
>> put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result.
>
> Are you assumi
Save Money, Buy GENERIC!
Prescription drugs with NO prior prescription needed!
- XANAX - (to treat anxiety)
- PHENTERMINE - (for weight loss)
- Viagra - (got wood?)
- Ambian - (For a Great Nights Sleep)
- Lipitor - (to reduce cholesterol)
- NEXIUM - (to treat acid reflux and GERD)
- PAXIL -
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
>
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rationa
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of
the discussion about James, and comp
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:09:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yeah, failing arguments, you play with words, how usual of this thread.
>
> Huh? No, I said what the changes would be, and they are very
> important changes to me. They are not
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So that does mean, that this argument is not one you (and Mj Ray) think
> > are the reason for moving non-free out of the debian archive ?
>
> It might or might not happen that w
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> > infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate
> > non-free.org archive?
>
> Yes. How many times
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> > > infrastructure is in any way different than
Regretfully, Epic Games is no longer providing technical support
via email or telephone for its products. You can receive help for Epic
products from the publishers who publish them.
For product support please visit:
http://www.epicgames.com/support.html
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> > example of this.]
>
> Not really. IMHO the abuse was
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:15:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:45:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-fr
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
> we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
> certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not*
> need to be changed t
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
> > We have duties now? Can you point to
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> And believing
> that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
> quite common,
That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided
by the Debian project.
If you really want to reduce confu
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:12:04PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
> > we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
> > certainly, it's inste
Hy!
I'm using Debian GNU/Linux now for 3 years as my only Operating System and
i have read almost the complete discussion here about non-free.
I think it could be useful to read the view of a normal user about this
issue because i think the discussion is sometime at a high level of
rhetoric words a
[Please be careful about headers on replies to this message, it's
crossposted. Trim lists which are irrelevant to your context.]
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> Hy!
> I'm using Debian GNU/Linux now for 3 years as my only Operating System and
> i have read almost the comp
Markus wrote:
> Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most
> user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why:
> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
> deb ftp:... main contrib non-f
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
> Markus wrote:
>> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
>> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
>> deb ftp:... main contrib non-free
>
> Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge.
do you mean th
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:17:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you really want to reduce confusion, stop misusing ambiguous
> terminology.
That's part of what this proposal is all about.
When we've dropped non-free, it's just Debian, no need to differentiate
between 'Debian', 'the Debian pro
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > said:
>> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>> >We ha
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:43:51PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Markus wrote:
> >> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
> >> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
> >> deb ftp:... main contrib non-free
> >
> >
Hi, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
>> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
>> > example of this.]
>>
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
> >> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
> >> put me down or b
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
> fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
> else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work against these rules
> and decisions" in my book.
N
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least
> argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined
> benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this
> will make no difference to those users who thi
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > And believing
> > that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
> > quite common,
>
> That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided
> by the Debian projec
Anthony Towns writes:
> There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
> we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
> certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not*
> need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will alw
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
> actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
> Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
> under-representation of women) as other systems
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian;
Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I
thank you for that but I must say you are engaging
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
> obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
> nothing to address?
>
Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see how _my_ failure to communicate with exactitude, and taking
> shortcuts, does in any way support your argumentation. It is not a
> unclarity of my thoughts and feeling, just a failure to bring this
> clearly into words. And you choose to attack
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed
> > > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea.
> >
> > Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a
> ^^^
> Please refrain from us
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting
> > this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be
> > considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is
> > m
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in
> particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free
> package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time.
It is not Debian's job to help you with everything i
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:59:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed
> > > > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > Hogwash. There is no need
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting
> > > this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be
> > > consid
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in
> > particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free
> > package ? A strange way of not interferi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, from my understanding, hogwash would be the washing water of a
> pork, or something such.
When you don't know a word, look it up. This is so basic.
> The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english
> language enough to clearly
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But when i was accepted in the debian project, the social contract
> clearly said that if i wanted to package non-free packages, they would
> be distributed by the debian infrastructure. This is a promise the
> project made to me, as i made the promise to
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english
> language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness
> which is meant by it. And given the degree of insult i have in the
> past received by the non-free
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December.
elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. I
filed bug #221761 after a debian-legal discussion pointed it out.
I find it hard to track down bu
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
#include
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into th
Hi,
I have some questions I'd like to ask the candidates:
Branden:
You have been seen by many in the past as an abrasive developer. Nobody (to
my knowledge) has ever faulted your technical ability, but your manner has
sometimes come under fire. Given that the DPL is, in many ways, the
representa
#include
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
> >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> >they produce everything built in their devices?
>
> Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
> build into their devices?
Of course they do,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Voting starts on Sunday, March 7 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
Votes must be received by Sunday, March 21 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to decide
on future handling of the non-free section. Th
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:48:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Don't trivialise "on debian.org" to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry
> > though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is
> > quality control
Hi,
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
hQGOA89zfVvCjcxCEAX/Xfvn+mjO2bOjur3SD2okBQytyh6HFLVGMOC04G0Ywr4H
mxwdj+KciJAXxPybIISXB4Ne5KYyIq9xoIr83ejEencEJ/ndS07rlQ2Pgg4KG0G1
WYxvccwlC9MSh2C04XmOtWNbZ9Sgwsocg8Cq6FMM954WqIsgwhFGsekAr8
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:41:03PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
[snip]
Fantastic, so we know Christian has voted.
But aren't ELG-E keys supposed to be de-activated by now
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Fantastic, so we know Christian has voted.
>
> But aren't ELG-E keys supposed to be de-activated by now and replaced?
no. ElGamal signing != ElGamal encryption. (20 vs 17)
Peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
mess
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However there is no reason why a third-party non-free.org would feel
> compelled to limit themselves to our keyring and our policy. They might
> well accept help from anyone who volunteers, but would they have an NM
> process equivalent to ours? No reas
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:10:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free
> > disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later.
> > I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not
> > time yet
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When a GR is conducted and the winner(s) are those who wish to remove
> non-free. Hopefully you've already submitted you vote so this discussion
> can be put to rest (for now).
Hehe. Indeed; I submitted my vote so fast it seemed to have beaten
the vote
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:55:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
> > we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
> > certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* po
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that
> you want to volunteer for. Debian has a purpose, and I seek to
> clarify what that purpose is.
Its purpose is to create a first class free operating sys
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:58:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> His point is that this "time" is not time you spend on Debian, but on
> some non-free packages that happen to be distributed by Debian right
> now.
How is that different to saying that the time you "spend on Debian"
isn't just time
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that
> > you want to volunteer for. Debian has a purpose, and I seek to
> > clarify what that purpose is.
>
> Its purpose is to cre
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
Have you left the project?
No?
Then why are you asking that question?
--
Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>
> We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I
> looked all over the constitution, and failed.
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
>> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
>> put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result.
>
> Are you assumi
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
>
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rationa
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of
the discussion about James, and comp
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:09:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yeah, failing arguments, you play with words, how usual of this thread.
>
> Huh? No, I said what the changes would be, and they are very
> important changes to me. They are not
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So that does mean, that this argument is not one you (and Mj Ray) think
> > are the reason for moving non-free out of the debian archive ?
>
> It might or might not happen that w
wedlock dragging Pomona brewing readied
Sergio Hoffmann, 25 y.o. psychotherapist, Germany:
I think i'm younkger than main target group of Cialdis consumers, but i
have a very hard work, i always had to listen about people's failures, about bad life et cetera.
gibberish Mitch pivotal
All that prob
Save Money, Buy GENERIC!
Prescription drugs with NO prior prescription needed!
- XANAX - (to treat anxiety)
- PHENTERMINE - (for weight loss)
- Viagra - (got wood?)
- Ambian - (For a Great Nights Sleep)
- Lipitor - (to reduce cholesterol)
- NEXIUM - (to treat acid reflux and GERD)
- PAXIL -
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> > infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate
> > non-free.org archive?
>
> Yes. How many times
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> > > infrastructure is in any way different than
Regretfully, Epic Games is no longer providing technical support
via email or telephone for its products. You can receive help for Epic
products from the publishers who publish them.
For product support please visit:
http://www.epicgames.com/support.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> > example of this.]
>
> Not really. IMHO the abuse was
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:15:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:45:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Sven implied that there is a time
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
> we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
> certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not*
> need to be changed t
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
> > We have duties now? Can you point to me wh
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> And believing
> that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
> quite common,
That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided
by the Debian project.
If you really want to reduce confu
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:12:04PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
> > we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
> > certainly, it's inste
Hy!
I'm using Debian GNU/Linux now for 3 years as my only Operating System and
i have read almost the complete discussion here about non-free.
I think it could be useful to read the view of a normal user about this
issue because i think the discussion is sometime at a high level of
rhetoric words a
[Please be careful about headers on replies to this message, it's
crossposted. Trim lists which are irrelevant to your context.]
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> Hy!
> I'm using Debian GNU/Linux now for 3 years as my only Operating System and
> i have read almost the comp
Markus wrote:
> Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most
> user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why:
> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
> deb ftp:... main contrib non-f
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
> Markus wrote:
>> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
>> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
>> deb ftp:... main contrib non-free
>
> Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge.
do you mean th
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:17:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you really want to reduce confusion, stop misusing ambiguous
> terminology.
That's part of what this proposal is all about.
When we've dropped non-free, it's just Debian, no need to differentiate
between 'Debian', 'the Debian pro
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>> >We have dut
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:43:51PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Markus wrote:
> >> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
> >> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
> >> deb ftp:... main contrib non-free
> >
> >
Hi, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
>> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
>> > example of this.]
>>
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
> >> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
> >> put me down or b
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
> fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
> else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work against these rules
> and decisions" in my book.
N
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least
> argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined
> benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this
> will make no difference to those users who thi
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > And believing
> > that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
> > quite common,
>
> That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided
> b
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
> we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
> certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not*
> need to be changed to meet the concern t
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
> actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
> Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
> under-representation of women) as other systems
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian;
Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I
thank you for that but I must say you are engaging
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
> obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
> nothing to address?
>
Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see how _my_ failure to communicate with exactitude, and taking
> shortcuts, does in any way support your argumentation. It is not a
> unclarity of my thoughts and feeling, just a failure to bring this
> clearly into words. And you choose to attack
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed
> > > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea.
> >
> > Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a
> ^^^
> Please refrain from us
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting
> > this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be
> > considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is
> > m
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in
> particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free
> package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time.
It is not Debian's job to help you with everything i
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:59:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed
> > > > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > Hogwash. There is no need
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting
> > > this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be
> > > consid
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
