On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:33:20AM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> On Fri 20 March 2015 22:09:20 Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> > for details on how all this works on apt level with the devuan overlay over
> > debian, you rather ask nextime.
>
> Rather first look here:
> https://git.devuan.org/dev
re all,
perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended and please
consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect and the
right to have different opinions than "the majority".
At Libreplanet (the GNU/FSF conference) today someone (who?? thanks for th
On March 21, 2015 3:34:28 PM WET, Jaromil wrote:
>
>re all,
>
>perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended
>and please
>consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect
>and the
>right to have different opinions than "the majority".
>
>At Libreplanet
We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this looks
like a sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this thread
started with questioning the long term policy.
For sure, if one wants systemd, this one should install Debian, or
RH. Also, to all of us, anybody tryi
Didier Kryn wrote:
We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this
looks like a sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this
thread started with questioning the long term policy.
For sure, if one wants systemd, this one should install Debian, or
RH. Also, to all
Great reading. I knew RMS would answer something like that to that
question, if it's licensed under GPL, it's free software, period.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Nextime wrote:
> On March 21, 2015 3:34:28 PM WET, Jaromil wrote:
> >
> >re all,
> >
> >perhaps interesting to perceive the atmo
On Sat, 3/21/15, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2015, 11:25 AM
Didier Kryn wrote:
> We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this
> looks like a sustainable goal to
On 21.03.2015 18:51, Linuxito wrote:
> Great reading. I knew RMS would answer something like that to that
> question, if it's licensed under GPL, it's free software, period.
( Actually it's LGPL [1] but ... )
I expect that he is thinking about it and will be thinking about it a
while longer befor
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:04:00 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
> However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate
> systemd and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the
> reasons to reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of
> rules for acceptability, in a sensible
I think what we're after is a way to accept/reject software based on a
well-defined set of acceptance criteria. It sounds like we're trying to
say that the mission statement of Devuan is something like "Devuan
prioritizes the inclusion of Free Software that follows the Unix software
design philoso
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:56:01PM -0400, Jude Nelson wrote:
> I think what we're after is a way to accept/reject software based on a
> well-defined set of acceptance criteria. It sounds like we're trying to
> say that the mission statement of Devuan is something like "Devuan
> prioritizes the inc
> -Original Message-
> From: Didier Kryn [mailto:k...@in2p3.fr]
> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:04 AM
> To: dng@lists.dyne.org
> Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
>
> We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this looks like
> a
>
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:31:31PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> That is, prioritizing rather than excluding. So we can still, for
> example, keep the linux kernel. :)
The kernel is replaceable. Don't forget about kfreebsd (ok, hurd's state is
a bad joke). Of course, the pro-systemd party has
Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real.
Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long ago
when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved Hurd
project into the trash can. If he really called someone a "troll" for
asking his opinion of systemd,
RMS stance is understandable, because he is also responsible for the
current situation. He failed to predict it, and his dream is now
turning into another Animal Farm, where some developers are becoming
more equal than others (it's an open question if there was a better
strategy possible when GPL w
>> [...all...] Sounds familiar? It's because developing and earning money
>> on support only will always lead to such pathologies. [...]
Full ACK
Internet and downloading complete distros (for free) kills the Linux FOSS
ecosystem now, like downloading mp3 music did kill the music ecosystem.
Suse
On Sun 22 March 2015 00:40:45 Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> kills the Linux FOSS ecosystem now,
This time read ecosystem as "economic system". The "ecologic system" aka
"community" is probably still fine.
RH just establishes the new better economic system:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we
Hi Jörg,
I am going to get beaten for this, but that proposal is actually
brilliant! Well, brilliant if you are not bothered by btrfs that is:-)
But that is what I got backups for.
While I do not care about all the sandboxing that got mixed into this,
the rest got me really thinking about my setu
On Sun 22 March 2015 01:15:18 devuan...@spamgourmet.net wrote:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> I am going to get beaten for this, but that proposal is actually
> brilliant! Well, brilliant if you are not bothered by btrfs that is:-)
> But that is what I got backups for.
Besides me for one not liking the idea to *
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
reisenwe...@web.de
wrote:
> Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for /,
The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least
common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress.
> my li
On Sun 22 March 2015 01:42:33 devuan...@spamgourmet.net wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
> reisenwe...@web.de
>
> wrote:
> > Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for
> > /,
> The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the
> On March 21, 2015 at 11:34 AM Jaromil wrote:
>
> re all,
>
> perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended and
> please
> consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect and
> the
> right to have different opinions than "the majority".
>
> At Lib
> The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least
> common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress.
This is simply not true. A key hallmark of good application design is to
keep the business logic as decoupled as possible from the layers beneath
it, thereby enab
> On March 21, 2015 at 12:25 PM Miles Fidelman
> wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to add something along the lines of "the freedom to
> install software without it taking over your machine" (obviously this
> needs work, or we'd it would eliminate things like the kernel, file
> system, etc.).
>
> Miles
> On March 21, 2015 at 6:36 PM Robert Storey wrote:
>
> Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real.
>
> Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long ago
> when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved Hurd
> project into the trash can. If he r
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:00:40 -0500
"T.J. Duchene" wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Didier Kryn [mailto:k...@in2p3.fr]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:04 AM
> > To: dng@lists.dyne.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
> >
> > We
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 06:36:37 +0800
Robert Storey wrote:
> Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real.
>
> Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long
> ago when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved
> Hurd project into the trash can. If he
27 matches
Mail list logo
