Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:25:53 +0200: * Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20020409 20:45]: You don't have to tell me how glibc works, I develop it. Yeah, and Daniel Stone is a Linux kernel developer. Heheheheh But watch out, Jeroen == Hurd developer.. (Ohyes, Hurd != kernel..) -- *=-+-__ |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __ : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ jeroen dekkers a lin martinux ker \ ~~-+-=-+~+-=* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Jeroen [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:29:14 +0200: What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? The problem with those solutions is that they are slow. Not yet complete. Unusable. What if Plex86 and Bochs did not exist, you'd probably suggest him to use DosEmu? -- *=-+-__ |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __ : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ software ars an debiand of proble \ ~~-+-=-+~+-=* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers | Software always used to be free. That changed, but RMS didn't | change. I don't what software he used to write parts of GNU, but it | could have been free, there was enough free software at time. Oh, and | 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel 2) RMS has never written anything of | it AFAIK. Then perhaps you should stop comparing Linux and the Hurd, since one is a kernel and the other is becoming a full operating system. | No, because it's unavoidable to have a non-free BIOS, read just what I | said. You didn't look very hard, did you? http://www.acl.lanl.gov/linuxbios/ -- Tollef Fog Heen Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:29:56AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:40:41PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: s/refused/discouraged/ and I would agree. Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? IMHO the we support non-free software clause was I think this is one of the goals of Debian. And in cases where there is free software that works good enough I will use it. But sometimes there is only non-free software for a task or the non-free program is a lot better than the free one. I like thinking with my gonads. I just want to have freedom. In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software. You restrict yourself to get some leisure. Don't complain that you are restricted from doing something afterways when it doesn't work anymore and you don't have leisure anymore. Like you I want other people to use free software as well because then I hope not being asked about those silly opaque problems in proprietary programs anymore. Please don't see you want it like me. I like it because of moral things, you just because you get some advantages of it. If non-free software give you (short-term) advantages then you even use that. I would never do that because free software is always better in the long term. But I am not going to attack anybody because he likes the proprietary stuff better, not even if it is extreme silly to do so. If somebody tells me about yet another Outlook problem I will just smirk and go on to the next email. Yes, and I will tell him why he has this problems and that there is some solutions for it (namely using a good, free MUA). You just let the person helpless, I try to point him to the fix. However if you try to help somebody you should not be a debian developers because you said that non-free software is the problem and you are not allowed to say that according to the social contract. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpGuPzDzbiX0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? No, no, nonono, no, no, no. 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software I'm done. Me too. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpsOmDVNnnQk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? No, no, nonono, no, no, no. 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software Yes. Kindly note the order that the priorities are listed in. Your reply disregarded the most important part - Our Users. If users get flamed for reporting a bug in glibc, they ain't gonna stay our users, and this project of ours rapidly becomes pointless. I'm done. Me too. We can but hope. -Thom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: some solutions for it (namely using a good, free MUA). You just let the person helpless, I try to point him to the fix. However if you try to help somebody you should not be a debian developers because you said that non-free software is the problem and you are not allowed to say that according to the social contract. Of course you can. However, you must be able to do so without sounding like an aggravating evangelist if you are going to do so [in a way that appears to be] in Debian's name (so, right now, don't). The problem was not the message. It was the WAY that message was translated into words. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software. You restrict yourself to get some leisure. Don't complain that you are restricted from doing something afterways when it doesn't work anymore and you don't have leisure anymore. That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. With your logic he would have written the Hurd kernel and gcc, libc, etc. before using a computer. And of course he would have written it in machine language since there was no sufficiently versatile free C compiler available. Like you I want other people to use free software as well because then I hope not being asked about those silly opaque problems in proprietary programs anymore. Please don't see you want it like me. I like it because of moral things, you just because you get some advantages of it. If non-free Please don't tell me why I am using free software. I am using it mostly for moral reasons and this is why I am in the Debian project after all - I want to give back to the community. software give you (short-term) advantages then you even use that. I would never do that because free software is always better in the long term. So please don't boot your PC. Or do you have a free BIOS installed? But I am not going to attack anybody because he likes the proprietary stuff better, not even if it is extreme silly to do so. If somebody tells me about yet another Outlook problem I will just smirk and go on to the next email. Yes, and I will tell him why he has this problems and that there is some solutions for it (namely using a good, free MUA). You just let the person helpless, I try to point him to the fix. However if you try to help somebody you should not be a debian developers because you You never tried to help somebody. You are only projecting your view on other persons and taking their freedom away. Frustrated Torsten pgp0BCV3E9om8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software. You restrict yourself to get some leisure. Don't complain that you are restricted from doing something afterways when it doesn't work anymore and you don't have leisure anymore. That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel. If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to reinvent the wheel by the proprietary programs licenses. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. You mean proprietary software. There is no conflict between the GPL and commerciality (even if Microsoft is trying to implant another opinion in people's mind). And yes, he did so because this was the fastest way to achieve the goal of an entirely free operating system. This goal has by now been achieved. You will not find RMS using vmware for pure convenience. Thanks, Marcus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software. You restrict yourself to get some leisure. Don't complain that you are restricted from doing something afterways when it doesn't work anymore and you don't have leisure anymore. That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel. If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to reinvent the wheel by the proprietary programs licenses. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. You mean proprietary software. There is no conflict between the GPL and commerciality (even if Microsoft is trying to implant another opinion in people's mind). And yes, he did so because this was the fastest way to achieve the goal of an entirely free operating system. This goal has by now been achieved. You will not find RMS using vmware for pure convenience. It is naive and short-sighted to think that because RMS takes a hardline moral stance wherever software use is concerned, anyone who doesn't behave in exactly the same manner is immoral. How do you think Free Software advocacy happens? Do you think that companies like the one Daniel Stone works for are one day going to roll over and say, Oh! I think we should scrap this Exchange system that's a key part of our business process, and switch to using Free Software, even though no one here knows anything about it, because I've heard that Free Software is better and gives us more freedom!? Advocacy /within/ such enterprises is a key factor in making the Free Software revolution a reality. We're not going to get there by dividing the world into two parts between holier-than-thou Free Software zealots and the Unclean. Do you think that at the rate he's going, there will ever be enough Free Software-only jobs to feed the families of all the people Jeroen insults during his lifetime? I have my doubts. One thing I /do/ know is that treating people as social outcasts when they choose to -- or are forced to -- use non-free software isn't going to create those jobs. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpWzpltGkI2p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software. You restrict yourself to get some leisure. Don't complain that you are restricted from doing something afterways when it doesn't work anymore and you don't have leisure anymore. That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. With your logic he would have written the Hurd kernel and gcc, libc, etc. before using a computer. And of course he would have written it in machine language since there was no sufficiently versatile free C compiler available. Software always used to be free. That changed, but RMS didn't change. I don't what software he used to write parts of GNU, but it could have been free, there was enough free software at time. Oh, and 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel 2) RMS has never written anything of it AFAIK. Like you I want other people to use free software as well because then I hope not being asked about those silly opaque problems in proprietary programs anymore. Please don't see you want it like me. I like it because of moral things, you just because you get some advantages of it. If non-free Please don't tell me why I am using free software. I am using it mostly for moral reasons and this is why I am in the Debian project after all - I want to give back to the community. You just said that you wanted other people to use free software because you probably won't get any questions about non-free software anymore. I don't consider that a moral reason, but if you also have other reasons, I take that back. software give you (short-term) advantages then you even use that. I would never do that because free software is always better in the long term. So please don't boot your PC. Or do you have a free BIOS installed? No, because it's unavoidable to have a non-free BIOS, read just what I said. But I am not going to attack anybody because he likes the proprietary stuff better, not even if it is extreme silly to do so. If somebody tells me about yet another Outlook problem I will just smirk and go on to the next email. Yes, and I will tell him why he has this problems and that there is some solutions for it (namely using a good, free MUA). You just let the person helpless, I try to point him to the fix. However if you try to help somebody you should not be a debian developers because you You never tried to help somebody. I haven't? You are only projecting your view on other persons and taking their freedom away. Where did I take anybodies freedom away? Please don't pick random sentences and use them on me. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpEjUAI7iNGb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:33:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Oh, and 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel Wonderful news! Does this mean that we can expect the 'whine-the-linux-kernel-packages-should-all-have-linux-in-the-name-/whine' thread to not repeat itself? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp1zKoqC0BfJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to reinvent the wheel by the proprietary programs licenses. Forced to by whom? By Jeroen, RMS and you? If there is the proprietary program available I can still choose if I am willing to pay for it or if I am willing to put in the efforts to build something similar. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. You mean proprietary software. There is no conflict between the GPL Yeah, right, I knew this would come up. I am just short of synonyms for proprietary and I did not want to repeat a word all the time since that is bad style at least in german. and commerciality (even if Microsoft is trying to implant another opinion in people's mind). And yes, he did so because this was the fastest way to achieve the goal of an entirely free operating system. This goal has by now been achieved. You will not find RMS using vmware for pure convenience. Okay, right, bad parable. But I am allowed to be a worse guy than RMS, trying to have a real life as well and trying to get the job done. Neither you nor Jeroen will take that away. Thanks Torsten pgp0vr01VXJiy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:33:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. With your logic he would have written the Hurd kernel and gcc, libc, etc. before using a computer. And of course he would have written it in machine language since there was no sufficiently versatile free C compiler available. Software always used to be free. That changed, but RMS didn't change. I don't what software he used to write parts of GNU, but it could have been free, there was enough free software at time. Oh, and 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel 2) RMS has never written anything of it AFAIK. 1) Okay, right, Mach is the kernel used in the Hurd. 2) I did not say he did. But he should have done it if he is really using only free software. Apart from this I am giving up. My time is limited. Think whatever you want about me but please send polite emails to Debian users if they just have a problem with a non-free product they are using on Debian. If they run Debian they are probably already on the right track. cu Torsten pgp174sDd8u2c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:46:12AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:33:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Oh, and 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel Wonderful news! Does this mean that we can expect the 'whine-the-linux-kernel-packages-should-all-have-linux-in-the-name-/whine' thread to not repeat itself? No, as woody is not yet released. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpJ4RpJzhoLC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:09:58AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software. You restrict yourself to get some leisure. Don't complain that you are restricted from doing something afterways when it doesn't work anymore and you don't have leisure anymore. That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel. If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to reinvent the wheel by the proprietary programs licenses. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. You mean proprietary software. There is no conflict between the GPL and commerciality (even if Microsoft is trying to implant another opinion in people's mind). And yes, he did so because this was the fastest way to achieve the goal of an entirely free operating system. This goal has by now been achieved. You will not find RMS using vmware for pure convenience. It is naive and short-sighted to think that because RMS takes a hardline moral stance wherever software use is concerned, anyone who doesn't behave in exactly the same manner is immoral. Hu, I am neither sure if you really know how hard RMS' stance on this is, nor who you believe thinks that way. How do you think Free Software advocacy happens? I have never seen anyone being more active and more successful in free software advocacy than the FSF and FSF europe. I prefer their advice on how such advocacy works over yours. This said, it might be to the advantage of free software if for example you get a government to use a heterogenous solution with a mixture of free software and non-free software, rather than a homogenously non-free solution. It depends on the details. However, the only small point I was trying to make is that Thorsten implied in his mail that RMS would agree to use a non-free program over working on a free replacement just because it is more convenient, That this is simply not true is public knowledge (there are lots of examples where he encouraged people to write free replacements for proprietary programs) [1]. I am somewhat surprised to see this simple matter of fact used as a jumping board for your rants. Thanks, Marcus [1] Now, he _did_ use a non-free system to write gcc and emacs on, and Thomas gave the right reasons for it, it would just be an too enormous task not to do so. It was very ambitious a project already with doing so. And the reason why the development of the core was delayed so long is also known: Because writing the core of an operating system is a very complex task. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to reinvent the wheel by the proprietary programs licenses. Forced to by whom? By the license on the proprietary programs of course, because we can't reuse their code. Just as I said in the paragraph you replied to. A similar problems occurs with software patents that are not freely licensed. By Jeroen, RMS and you? If there is the proprietary program available I can still choose if I am willing to pay for it or if I am willing to put in the efforts to build something similar. Yes, and if you are willing to put in the efforts you are forced to reinvent the wheel because you can't reuse the proprietary code. Even RMS used commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written. You mean proprietary software. There is no conflict between the GPL Yeah, right, I knew this would come up. I am just short of synonyms for proprietary and I did not want to repeat a word all the time since that is bad style at least in german. Using a completely different word is not a way out, and only leads to misunderstandings and communication problems. Please don't do that. Using the same specific term for the same specific meaning is not bad style, but consistency, and important in any technical discussion. (Or, to pick another example, look into law texts for a place where repition is used, and very important for exactly the same reasons). Thanks, MArcus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:40:41PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: s/refused/discouraged/ and I would agree. Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? IMHO the we support non-free software clause was I think this is one of the goals of Debian. And in cases where there is free software that works good enough I will use it. But sometimes there is only non-free software for a task or the non-free program is a lot better than the free one. In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software. Like you I want other people to use free software as well because then I hope not being asked about those silly opaque problems in proprietary programs anymore. But I am not going to attack anybody because he likes the proprietary stuff better, not even if it is extreme silly to do so. If somebody tells me about yet another Outlook problem I will just smirk and go on to the next email. Thanks Torsten pgpD3oDj1eAtc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Hi Donald, On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:54:54PM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: Well, I didn't expect to inspire such a vibrant thread! A couple of responses (not in anger, just adding some perspective). 1) free vs. non-free alternatives I use VMWare 2.0. If you think that bochs and Plex86 aren't viable alternatives yet, you can imagine the state of the world (2 years ago today) when I bought my license. At that time VMWare was being praised for bringing Linux into places where it never before existed. You are not the only one. During an internship we were using VMware all the time to test install a Linux product and to run proprietary software where needed (people tend to send MS Office attachments, arg). becomes viable. When I can start Plex86, drop in a Windows NT install disk (or any other OS for that matter) and install a system from scratch, I will be pleased to do it. I am in the end a free software zealot. The problem with plex86 is that it is not that urgently needed. I can live without VMware and plex86 because everything I need is available on Linux. Maybe that's the reason why plex86 does not drag more developers. 2) posting to ddevel I posted to ddevel for a few reason (perhaps in error, and I'm willing to concede that). - I read the list, and I have for a long time (so I don't actually need to be Cc:ed). - I was continuing a previous thread. The level seemed to be of a technical nature and relevant to the list. My question wasn't really of the user variety (how do I configure a fire wall, how do ... in dselect, etc.). I agree to this. For a technical skilled person it is bothersome to post to some -user list. Most of the time you get silly replies which you already know. Sometimes you feel like calling the support hotline of your hardware supplier ;) BTW, the fix was right on and I have passed it on to two colleagues who are also Debian users. I do appreciate the help Thanks for not resenting because of the answers you got. Debian should be glad to have users like you... Greetings Torsten pgpWsgzdDTiYf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20020409 20:45]: You don't have to tell me how glibc works, I develop it. Yeah, and Daniel Stone is a Linux kernel developer. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Od: Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do: debian-devel@lists.debian.org X-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 10 11:26:22 2002 Temat: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0 Data: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:25:53 +0200 * Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20020409 20:45]: You don't have to tell me how glibc works, I develop it. Yeah, and Daniel Stone is a Linux kernel developer. Yeah, and Martin Michlmayr is a developer in general. --- Mariusz Przygodzki [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? No, no, nonono, no, no, no. Yes, of course. That's one of Debian's main goals. But that doesn't mean that Debian should restrict our freedom by forbidding or hindering the use of non-free software. It's about giving us an alternative, not forcing an alternative on us. - Sebastian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Mariusz Przygodzki wrote: Od: Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do: debian-devel@lists.debian.org X-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 10 11:26:22 2002 Temat: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0 Data: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:25:53 +0200 * Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20020409 20:45]: You don't have to tell me how glibc works, I develop it. Yeah, and Daniel Stone is a Linux kernel developer. Yeah, and Martin Michlmayr is a developer in general. Wowh! I never thought I would see a I'm cooler than you -thread in a debian list ;-) // Emil --- Who's your daddy, WHO's your daddy. You know why, because I did THIS to your MAMA! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:38:13PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Tue, 09 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: But does that mean they can posts question about problems with that non-free software which are not related to Debian at all (the only relation is that the user runs Debian) to debian-devel? No. However, this mess all started because the *wording* in your message was such that one got the clear impression that 'non-free' was the problem, and not that the fact that he posted to debian-devel instead of debian-user was. Non-free is the problem here. The question should actually be posted to a vmware list. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpeBQpfpjWS2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:54:54PM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: Well, I didn't expect to inspire such a vibrant thread! A couple of responses (not in anger, just adding some perspective). 1) free vs. non-free alternatives I use VMWare 2.0. If you think that bochs and Plex86 aren't viable alternatives yet, you can imagine the state of the world (2 years ago today) when I bought my license. At that time VMWare was being praised for bringing Linux into places where it never before existed. That's actually true. We should fix the free alternatives. :) I have since felt slightly cajoled by the company to buy upgrades that I didn't feel that I needed, and I resisted. I am content with what I have, and satisfied to wait until a free alternative becomes viable. When I can start Plex86, drop in a Windows NT install disk (or any other OS for that matter) and install a system from scratch, I will be pleased to do it. I am in the end a free software zealot. Yes, it was actually your own fault, but the problem is that there doesn't exist a good free alternative. There are a lot of outstanding plex86 patches and somebody from an university had interest in plex86. The project isn't dead and I hope you can happily run plex86 within a couple of months. And it won't have this kind of problems and it would just be possible to apt-get install plex86. :) 2) posting to ddevel I posted to ddevel for a few reason (perhaps in error, and I'm willing to concede that). - I read the list, and I have for a long time (so I don't actually need to be Cc:ed). - I was continuing a previous thread. The level seemed to be of a technical nature and relevant to the list. My question wasn't really of the user variety (how do I configure a fire wall, how do ... in dselect, etc.). Actual my point was that you should ask vmware for the patch, we can't provide it because it's non-free software. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpUKOVyxT1yu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) *sigh* Do you always need to repeat this? Do you really think it's a waste of bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a problem caused by a change in _Debian_? Even though I haven't tried plex86 and bochs in about a year I've never heard anyone run Windows XP, FreeBSD, etc on any of them. Is it at all possible? Useable? -- Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228 pgpyCBIaqXJdT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) *sigh* Do you always need to repeat this? Do you really think it's a waste of bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a problem caused by a change in _Debian_? Even though I haven't tried plex86 and bochs in about a year I've never heard anyone run Windows XP, FreeBSD, etc on any of them. Is it at all possible? Useable? Since when are Hurd fanatics concerned with minor details like usability and productivity? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpmPOP3mCJrp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:49:49AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) *sigh* Do you always need to repeat this? Do you really think it's a waste of bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a problem caused by a change in _Debian_? Even though I haven't tried plex86 and bochs in about a year I've never heard anyone run Windows XP, FreeBSD, etc on any of them. Is it at all possible? Useable? Since when are Hurd fanatics concerned with minor details like usability and productivity? I've always been, so do all other Hurd developers AFAIK. Why do you think we don't care about usability and productivity? Or do you just like spreading lies? It's actually the other way around, almost all recent development in the Hurd is to make it more usable. AFAIK the Hurd developers always have been very productive. We never cared much about speed etc, because we are more concerned about usability and productivity. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp1HmaFa9qgU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) *sigh* Do you always need to repeat this? Yes. Do you really think it's a waste of bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a problem caused by a change in _Debian_? First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. This is clearly the wrong list, either go to some vmware list or go to the glibc lists if you think it's a bug in glibc. And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and bandwith. Those posts also waste my time. Even though I haven't tried plex86 and bochs in about a year I've never heard anyone run Windows XP, FreeBSD, etc on any of them. Is it at all possible? Useable? I got GNU/Linux to boot on plex86. The Hurd doesn't work on it at the moment (plex86 development is a bit stalled at the moment). IMHO it's very usable, bochs is more stable but slower. For all supported systems read the documentation of the packages. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpZ7c6Pu8ykD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) *sigh* Do you always need to repeat this? Yes. Do you really think it's a waste of bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a problem caused by a change in _Debian_? First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. This is clearly the wrong list, either go to some vmware list or go to the glibc lists if you think it's a bug in glibc. And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and bandwith. Those posts also waste my time. I'll bet they don't waste nearly as much of your time as composing your juvenile go away replies does. -S -- by Rocket to the Moon, by Airplane to the Rocket, by Taxi to the Airport, by Frontdoor to the Taxi, by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ... - They Might Be Giants -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Do you always need to repeat this? Yes. .. And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and bandwith. Those posts also waste my time. Filtering them out would save you more time, bandwidth and processing power than replying in the manner you do. If your concern is with bandwidth, processing power and time then deleting based on a subject filter of 'vmware' would be the best solution. If you'd rather waste more of your time, bandwidth and processing power then continue to reply to posts which talk about vmware, or Oracle or any number of non-free-software that people use. I seriously doubt there is anything which could be done to stop the posts from being sent here short of moderating the list and having a moderator who thinks they shouldn't be here. I don't think the list should be moderated myself, nor do I feel the posts are inappropriate. Stephen pgpldCYY2GRp7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Do you really think it's a waste of bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a problem caused by a change in _Debian_? First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. Fourth, we support the use of non-free software, and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for non-free software packages. If you don't agree with Debian's social contract, perhaps you should be part of a project that's more philosophically acceptable to you. Regards, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif pgpnIylIf5NpO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:10:20AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and bandwith. Those posts also waste my time. Filtering them out would save you more time, bandwidth and processing power than replying in the manner you do. If your concern is with bandwidth, processing power and time then deleting based on a subject filter of 'vmware' would be the best solution. That isn't my biggest concern. If you'd rather waste more of your time, bandwidth and processing power then continue to reply to posts which talk about vmware, or Oracle or any number of non-free-software that people use. I don't think that advocating free software is a waste of those things. I seriously doubt there is anything which could be done to stop the posts from being sent here short of moderating the list and having a moderator who thinks they shouldn't be here. I don't think the list should be moderated myself, nor do I feel the posts are inappropriate. I don't think it's wrong saying that if they want to keep using their favourite non-free software they should post to some other mailinglist and that if they want help from Debian they should use free alternatives which are in Debian. (Well, somebody thought saying that is such a bad thing that he asked DAM to put my application on hold.) Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpJoziPUi0oc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. This is clearly the wrong list, either go to some vmware list or go to the glibc lists if you think it's a bug in glibc. Okay. So now we're not going to discuss things because they are not debian specific? And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and bandwith. Those posts also waste my time. Even though I haven't tried plex86 and bochs in about a year I've never heard anyone run Windows XP, FreeBSD, etc on any of them. Is it at all possible? Useable? I got GNU/Linux to boot on plex86. The Hurd doesn't work on it at the moment (plex86 development is a bit stalled at the moment). IMHO it's very usable, bochs is more stable but slower. For all supported systems read the documentation of the packages. plex86 is Debian specific isn't it? Because, if it's not, I'm sure plex86 got some mailing list where you can move this. -- Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228 pgpfFrNqoUaqg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That isn't my biggest concern. Apparently. This implies, of course, that the additional bandwidth due to those messages isn't the real problem. I don't think that advocating free software is a waste of those things. Advocating free software isn't. That has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, however. I don't think it's wrong saying that if they want to keep using their favourite non-free software they should post to some other mailinglist and that if they want help from Debian they should use free alternatives which are in Debian. I don't believe it's wrong to ask questions on a debian list when a change in debian causes a change in some application, be it a part of Debian or not. I do think it's wrong to tell people to not ask questions on a debian list about a change in Debian. Stephen pgptuBgIV0NDe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Jeroen [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:30:54 +0200: And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and bandwith. Those posts also waste my time. Writing these posts probably takes (wastes) even more time. I got GNU/Linux to boot on plex86. It'll reduce my XP1700+'s power to a K6/400, I'm told. What's the fun in that? Not to mention a complete emulator like Bochs.. I think you should build your own computer next time. There's probably a lot of non-free stuff in it! -- *=-+-__ |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __ : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ the but a bocelope is all supporg \ ~~-+-=-+~+-=* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:31:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Do you really think it's a waste of bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a problem caused by a change in _Debian_? First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. Fourth, we support the use of non-free software, and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for non-free software packages. Vmware isn't even in Debian. This is truely a problem of vmware itself. IMHO this isn't something for debian-devel. Or do you want to make debian-devel a list where all Debian users can come with their problems running buggy non-free software? If you don't agree with Debian's social contract, perhaps you should be part of a project that's more philosophically acceptable to you. I agreed with the social contract, but I think it should be changed. Some parts are just wrong, other things are confusing. To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpQ32X6qRe7Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:46:33AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That isn't my biggest concern. Apparently. This implies, of course, that the additional bandwidth due to those messages isn't the real problem. I never claimed that. I was asked if I considered those messages a waste of bandwith, I said that I think it's waste. Is it just so difficult to *read*? I don't think it's wrong saying that if they want to keep using their favourite non-free software they should post to some other mailinglist and that if they want help from Debian they should use free alternatives which are in Debian. I don't believe it's wrong to ask questions on a debian list when a change in debian causes a change in some application, be it a part of Debian or not. The answer was already given, it was a vmware-specific problem. I do think it's wrong to tell people to not ask questions on a debian list about a change in Debian. The question I replied to was truely vmware-specific. The guy I replied to doesn't make such a problem of my mail than almost anyone else on the list. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpiEVQyOQIDO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. This is clearly the wrong list, either go to some vmware list or go to the glibc lists if you think it's a bug in glibc. Okay. So now we're not going to discuss things because they are not debian specific? No. Even though I haven't tried plex86 and bochs in about a year I've never heard anyone run Windows XP, FreeBSD, etc on any of them. Is it at all possible? Useable? I got GNU/Linux to boot on plex86. The Hurd doesn't work on it at the moment (plex86 development is a bit stalled at the moment). IMHO it's very usable, bochs is more stable but slower. For all supported systems read the documentation of the packages. plex86 is Debian specific isn't it? Because, if it's not, I'm sure plex86 got some mailing list where you can move this. True, but then other people don't know that I've answered his question and might answer his question too if they aren't subscribed to the plex86 list. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpxpvg7OeZ2r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I agreed with the social contract, but I think it should be changed. Some parts are just wrong, other things are confusing. That certainly looks like a contradiction to me. How do you agree with it if you feel it's wrong? To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? Nothing is wrong with that. However, that isn't what you said. * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) That's the original message you sent which *is* wrong. Debian supports its users regardless of if they run non-free software or not. In fact, we specifically support their running of non-free software and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for them. Stephen pgp00yn57nkIB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:31:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. Fourth, we support the use of non-free software, and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for non-free software packages. Vmware isn't even in Debian. This is truely a problem of vmware itself. IMHO this isn't something for debian-devel. Or do you want to make debian-devel a list where all Debian users can come with their problems running buggy non-free software? What if they turned out to be caused by bugs in our free software? Telling them to go away then would be foolish, since we want to know about bugs, no matter how they were caused. Apparently this breakage was caused by a change in glibc. As a general rule, changes in the C library should not break any software, whether free or non-free. Sometimes this is not the case (e.g. StarOffice's use of private glibc symbols a few years ago), but bugs should be investigated rather than casually dismissed. To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? Because it runs the risk of hiding real problems. Given that he'd already tried the free software and found it unusable for his purposes, it also sounds like you need to pick better times to advocate free software, or else spend your time improving that software instead so that you have a better chance of being able to advocate it in the future. *That's* what debian-devel is about - a list for improving the technical quality of Debian. Turning it into advocacy and other non-technical debates is the very reason why many of our best developers don't even bother to subscribe to this list any more. (In that spirit, please direct non-technical followups to debian-project or private mail.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) As this might be a bit too offensive I apologize if you read it that way. Here is an alternative wording which says what I actually meant (I never try to write a mail quickly just before I got to bed): This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being slower) but you probably won't have the same problems you're having now. We can also help you with problems you are having with plex86 and bochs. If you insist on using vmware, we can't help you, you should go to the vmware guys when you've got problems. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpXha1GWjo4L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:21:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:31:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free software, vmware isn't. Fourth, we support the use of non-free software, and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for non-free software packages. Vmware isn't even in Debian. This is truely a problem of vmware itself. IMHO this isn't something for debian-devel. Or do you want to make debian-devel a list where all Debian users can come with their problems running buggy non-free software? What if they turned out to be caused by bugs in our free software? Telling them to go away then would be foolish, since we want to know about bugs, no matter how they were caused. Apparently this breakage was caused by a change in glibc. As a general rule, changes in the C library should not break any software, whether free or non-free. Sometimes this is not the case (e.g. StarOffice's use of private glibc symbols a few years ago), but bugs should be investigated rather than casually dismissed. Did you *read* the thread? The cause of the problem was already found, it was a vmware bug, vmware already provided patches but not for the version Donald was using. You don't have to tell me how glibc works, I develop it. To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? Because it runs the risk of hiding real problems. Given that he'd already tried the free software and found it unusable for his purposes, it also sounds like you need to pick better times to advocate free software, or else spend your time improving that software instead so that you have a better chance of being able to advocate it in the future. I agree that my reply was not very friendly, I apologized for that. I was actually a bit tired and very busy skimming through all my mails and replying too fast (I know it's not a reason to be unfriendly, but it was the cause). *That's* what debian-devel is about - a list for improving the technical quality of Debian. Turning it into advocacy and other non-technical debates is the very reason why many of our best developers don't even bother to subscribe to this list any more. I think that's also because of other things, see below. (In that spirit, please direct non-technical followups to debian-project or private mail.) (This is for the list in general, not personally to you) And let people just say false things without correcting it? Really, I already wrote a couple of replies telling people that they should read first what I've actually said or what the problem was. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpPjFa2kE3mD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) As this might be a bit too offensive I apologize if you read it that way. Here is an alternative wording which says what I actually meant (I never try to write a mail quickly just before I got to bed): This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being slower) but you probably won't have the same problems you're having now. We can also help you with problems you are having with plex86 and bochs. If you insist on using vmware, we can't help you, you should go to the vmware guys when you've got problems. Have you ever tried to do any work beyond the boot process in plex86? It's unbearably slow. I have a day job, as well as spending plenty of time doing other Debian work; it's not like I have time to sit down, spend hours beating on plex86 (it's a real pain to get going, I did it anyway!), and then spend months of my life making it faster. There is only one program in the caliber of VMWare, and that's VMWare itself. You're perfectly free to not use it, but those of us who have to get work done are also perfectly free to use it - and Debian's Social Contract, as Anthony pointed out, says that we'll try to help people who need to do that. Plex86 is not an alternative to VMWare in any reasonable sense of the word. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:13:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I agreed with the social contract, but I think it should be changed. Some parts are just wrong, other things are confusing. That certainly looks like a contradiction to me. How do you agree with it if you feel it's wrong? By knowing the date it was written and what they actually meant instead of what they actually have written down. (For example, they meant non-free but they wrote commercial). And I'm not the only one, I know more Debian developers who don't really support non-free and would rather see it removed. To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? Nothing is wrong with that. However, that isn't what you said. I did say it, although a bit unfriendly. * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else ^ with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) That's the original message you sent which *is* wrong. Debian supports its users regardless of if they run non-free software or not. In fact, we specifically support their running of non-free software and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for them. Does Debian support vmware? So if Debian does support that, where is it written down that Debian supports every piece of non-free software? Of course you can say that in the social contract says Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, but if I interpret that correctly, it just means the non-free software packages provided by Debian. And this actually my major complaint with the social contract, it's too vague to actually agree or disagree with it. I just interpretted it in the way I think was meant and agreed, because that is a lot easier than trying to change the social contract. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpAuRnjT9ebB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:53:59PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) As this might be a bit too offensive I apologize if you read it that way. Here is an alternative wording which says what I actually meant (I never try to write a mail quickly just before I got to bed): This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being slower) but you probably won't have the same problems you're having now. We can also help you with problems you are having with plex86 and bochs. If you insist on using vmware, we can't help you, you should go to the vmware guys when you've got problems. Have you ever tried to do any work beyond the boot process in plex86? Not really as I didn't got the Hurd beyond the boot process. It's unbearably slow. If I'm right the plex86 developers know why it's slow. I have a day job, as well as spending plenty of time doing other Debian work; it's not like I have time to sit down, spend hours beating on plex86 (it's a real pain to get going, I did it anyway!), and then spend months of my life making it faster. There is only one program in the caliber of VMWare, and that's VMWare itself. But if it doesn't work because there is a bug in VMWAre and it isn't fixed because the version it too old, we can't help those people who are running VMWare. You're perfectly free to not use it, but those of us who have to get work done are also perfectly free to use it - and Debian's Social Contract, as Anthony pointed out, says that we'll try to help people who need to do that. If I'm right, but correct me if I'm wrong, debian-devel isn't a mailinglist to ask questions about every random piece of software which runs on Debian. Plex86 is not an alternative to VMWare in any reasonable sense of the word. It is IMHO. Just like that GNU/Linux is an alternative to windows. (But it isn't even user-friendly, how could it ever be an alternative???) Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpi88eH6LRlt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) As this might be a bit too offensive I apologize if you read it that way. Here is an alternative wording which says what I actually meant (I never try to write a mail quickly just before I got to bed): This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being slower) but you probably won't have the same problems you're having now. We can also help you with problems you are having with plex86 and bochs. If you insist on using vmware, we can't help you, you should go to the vmware guys when you've got problems. mindless rant I think you totally miss the point. Free software is about choice. What you are saying is that it is okay for a library to change in a way that breaks software which I *choose* to run. The fact that software is non-free is irrelevant. I *choose* to run it. I made an informed choice. I looked at the alternatives, and made a decision. You look like you are wanting to remove my ability to make that choice. From reading this thread, it looks to me almost as if you would advocate a system whereby Debian refused to run any non-free software at all. The free alternatives to VMware are not really all that good at all I am afraid. Development on plex86 has pretty much died since Kevin changed jobs. bochs was never really an alternative at all, its aims are somewhat different. VMware might be non-free, but it is damn good. When a libc6 change breaks it, then asking why is not *ever* a bad thing. Expecting changes in libc6 to not break things is sensible. If it does break stuff then we should look at why. If it turns out that the breakage is unavoidable, or serves a greater good then fine. I don't really understand this case well enough to know if that is the case or not. The breakage is/was deemed necessary by the libc6 maintainer (presumably) and I tend towards trusting Ben's judgement. Your advocacy looks like so much wind and piss in all honesty. You do no favours either to yourself or to the free software movement by it. You look and sound like a rabid, unthinking, kneejerking moron. That is usually a description reserved for RMS :) Seriously examine what it is that you are saying. What it looks like to me (at least, probably others too) is You run non-free software, so fuck off, we hate you, we hate your mother, we hate your sister's cat. Go whinge to the people who made the non-free software, because they should have forseen when they wrote their software a couple of years ago that we were going to break it. When I joined Debian I did so with the understanding that Our priorities are our users and free software. Free software is not served at all by your silly rants, and our users are definitely not served by firstly having the software they *choose* to run break, and secondly being insulted and belittled by you for making that choice. One way or the other, VMware not working any more is a bug somewhere. Whether it is a bug in libc6 or a bug in VMware itself. Since VMware has been running on this machine essentially without change for over a year, and a new version of libc6 has just been installed, then surely I can be forgiven for asking questions of libc6 first? I know that it is very easy to be infected by the rabidity of non-free is bad by definition -- people who use it are either evil or misguided. All I can do is assure you that most people grow out of that. I *choose* to use non-free software of many kinds. I am also forced to do so ssometimes. I will *not* have someone try to make me feel evil, stupid or misguided because of it. /mindless rant Cheers, Stephen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:21:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Vmware isn't even in Debian. This is truely a problem of vmware itself. IMHO this isn't something for debian-devel. Or do you want to make debian-devel a list where all Debian users can come with their problems running buggy non-free software? What if they turned out to be caused by bugs in our free software? Telling them to go away then would be foolish, since we want to know about bugs, no matter how they were caused. Apparently this breakage was caused by a change in glibc. As a general rule, changes in the C library should not break any software, whether free or non-free. Sometimes this is not the case (e.g. StarOffice's use of private glibc symbols a few years ago), but bugs should be investigated rather than casually dismissed. Did you *read* the thread? The cause of the problem was already found, it was a vmware bug, vmware already provided patches but not for the version Donald was using. I was rather under the impression that we were talking about any discussion of problems with non-free software, regardless of the cause. It certainly sounded that way to me. Even your improved reply says: This problem is very common for non-free software. ... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see #141500, and a minor problem with X, see #140012. The nice() interface *did* change without versioning - it's true that programs that relied on the old behaviour were buggy, but there are plenty of such programs in Debian main and that is something Debian developers should be aware of. Patting ourselves on the back is great when it's justified, but I think it's somewhat counterproductive when it isn't. Now, it's true that one generally can't fix the non-free stuff when it breaks in this way, nor can Debian. But claiming that the *problem* is common in non-free software, implying that it is not common in free software, is simply not true. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being slower) but you probably won't have the same problems you're having now. We can also help you with problems you are having with plex86 and bochs. If you insist on using vmware, we can't help you, you should go to the vmware guys when you've got problems. s/we/I/i Suggest free alternatives, yes. Offer help for the free alternatives, yes. Blow off the non-free software user, no. If you have nothing to offer by way of help with vmware itself, then your silence will be enough to indicate that. Jeroen, I do not appreciate you speaking for the project in this way. As a member of the Debian project who believes firmly in the whole of our Social Contract, I cannot comprehend what makes you think you can throw about we can and we can't in blatant disregard for: We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian ... If you have personal problems with the Social Contract's allowing that our users may use non-free software, get it changed. And regardless, give a cordial answer to the non-free software user and lose the thinly-concealed hostility: If you insist on using ... you should go ... is dripping with it. Does the user insist? Have you evaluated his requirements? Do you know for certain that he's not turning to vmware as a last resort? And to the original poster, if you are actually reading this and have not long ago given up, wearied by the petty bickering your innocent request has spawned, my sincerest apologies for the manner of my colleague. I am sure you are aware that in a volunteer organization it takes all kinds, with diverse, and often conflicting viewpoints. While I value Jeroen's contributions in other areas of this project, he clearly does not speak for all of us. Regards, Ben Armstrong -- nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ] [ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:58:20PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Of course you can say that in the social contract says Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, but if I interpret that correctly, it just means the non-free software packages provided by Debian. And this actually my major complaint with the social contract, it's too vague to actually agree or disagree with it. I just interpretted it in the way I think was meant and agreed, because that is a lot easier than trying to change the social contract. That is not by any stretch of the imagination merely an interpretation. I don't believe anyone is arguing that we should support vmware nor any piece of non-free software, whether in the non-free archives or not. The fact is, users do use non-free software and we support them, the users, in spite of the fact that they do this [unspeakably horrible, depraved thing]. The fellow asked about a potential glibc problem with vmware, and as such it related to a piece of free software in Debian that we support. The spirit in which help was rendered to the user is the same spirit in which the Social Contract was written: certainly, this fellow uses vmware, which is non-free, and which we do not support, but we forgive him that and try to see if the problem might actually relate to glibc itself, which we do support. This situation exemplifies perfectly why this clause is in the Social Contract to begin with: it is not a pledge of support for non-free, but an acknowledgement that our users use it, and that we still support them in spite of it. Who are you to stomp in and say categorically that we can't answer questions relating to vmware if and when we feel some part of the problem may fall within Debian's domain? And Social Contract notwithstanding, who are you to squelch the desire of anyone among us to help the user in any matter, thereby building a relationship of trust and respect upon which we can build better software? Your attitude from the very outset stank, and your attempts to cover yourself after you were called on it are pathetic. Ben -- nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ] [ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:20:38PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being slower) but you probably won't have the same problems you're having now. We can also help you with problems you are having with plex86 and bochs. If you insist on using vmware, we can't help you, you should go to the vmware guys when you've got problems. s/we/I/i Okay. Suggest free alternatives, yes. Offer help for the free alternatives, yes. I did both. Blow off the non-free software user, no. If you have nothing to offer by way of help with vmware itself, then your silence will be enough to indicate that. And the user will never find out why he's having that problem. I don't think that not telling the user the cause of the problem is helping him. And our priorities are free software, but we aren't allowed with some respects free software is better than non-free software? And for that blow off, I already corrected that, right? Jeroen, I do not appreciate you speaking for the project in this way. Sorry, I will try to not give you the feeling that I speak for the project next time. As a member of the Debian project who believes firmly in the whole of our Social Contract, I cannot comprehend what makes you think you can throw about we can and we can't in blatant disregard for: We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian ... The can't help means not being able to help you, because we can't fix any non-free software we aren't allowed to see and modify the source of. If you have personal problems with the Social Contract's allowing that our users may use non-free software, get it changed. And regardless, give a cordial answer to the non-free software user and lose the thinly-concealed hostility: If you insist on using ... you should go ... is dripping with it. Does the user insist? Have you evaluated his requirements? Do you know for certain that he's not turning to vmware as a last resort? Hmm, I knew somebody would find something to complain about in my second try to word my opinion. I'm not even going to try to do it a third time. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp7S2XTNIrrc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:48:59PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Hmm, I knew somebody would find something to complain about in my second try to word my opinion. I'm not even going to try to do it a third time. I'm sorry. That just doesn't wash. I read: I knew somebody would ... complain as don't nitpick, no matter how hard I try, some fool always reads me wrong. It is a cop out. I think you chose the words that seemed natural to you as one already convinced of the error of the poster's ways. Try treating the people you support as your equal, not speaking down to them. Learn to see their own value judgements as being just as important to them as yours are to you, even if they are at odds with yours. Then you may learn to chose words that do not speak judgementally against them without having to try three times. Ben -- nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ] [ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:11:59PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: This problem is very common for non-free software. ... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see #141500, and a minor problem with X, see #140012. The nice() interface *did* change without versioning - it's true that programs that relied on the old behaviour were buggy, but there are plenty of such programs in Debian main and that is something Debian developers should be aware of. Patting ourselves on the back is great when it's justified, but I think it's somewhat counterproductive when it isn't. And just to make this documented and archived: mentioned above change to nice() return value also breaks realplayer - it starts but doesn't play. Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +---+ | _ 7 | Alexander Yukhimets | \()| http://www.AlexY.org | / \ \ +---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:11:59PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:21:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Vmware isn't even in Debian. This is truely a problem of vmware itself. IMHO this isn't something for debian-devel. Or do you want to make debian-devel a list where all Debian users can come with their problems running buggy non-free software? What if they turned out to be caused by bugs in our free software? Telling them to go away then would be foolish, since we want to know about bugs, no matter how they were caused. Apparently this breakage was caused by a change in glibc. As a general rule, changes in the C library should not break any software, whether free or non-free. Sometimes this is not the case (e.g. StarOffice's use of private glibc symbols a few years ago), but bugs should be investigated rather than casually dismissed. Did you *read* the thread? The cause of the problem was already found, it was a vmware bug, vmware already provided patches but not for the version Donald was using. I was rather under the impression that we were talking about any discussion of problems with non-free software, regardless of the cause. It certainly sounded that way to me. Well, if everybody just understood each other correctly, it would solve a lot of problems. However that's not the case. :( Even your improved reply says: This problem is very common for non-free software. ... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see #141500, and a minor problem with X, see #140012. The nice() interface *did* change without versioning - it's true that programs that relied on the old behaviour were buggy, but there are plenty of such programs in Debian main and that is something Debian developers should be aware of. Patting ourselves on the back is great when it's justified, but I think it's somewhat counterproductive when it isn't. Now, it's true that one generally can't fix the non-free stuff when it breaks in this way, nor can Debian. But claiming that the *problem* is common in non-free software, implying that it is not common in free software, is simply not true. The actual problem was that he has an old version for which no patch exists. That problem doesn't occur with free software because 1) If it is in Debian the Debian maintainer would fix it 2) You've the freedom to fix it yourself or let somebody else fix it. Now this is actually one of the things free software is about, I just had to point that out and say there are free alternatives in Debian. I don't see anything wrong with that. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpxz5N4e5f2R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: By knowing the date it was written and what they actually meant instead of what they actually have written down. (For example, they meant non-free but they wrote commercial). And I'm not the only one, I know more Debian developers who don't really support non-free and would rather see it removed. We can all claim to know the intent of the original authors but what they actually wrote down is what everyone who joins the project is asked to agree to. Developers are not asked Have you agreed with the intent of the authors of the Social Contract? because (in steps reality) no one really knows the intent of the original authors except (maybe) the original authors themselves (who, of course, may have disagreed with each other in their intent anyway). There has been debate about that in the past, yes, though I think it's been more about the actual non-free ftp space and whatnot than about users being allowed to run non-free software on Debian and expecting to still be treated with respect and as a user of Debian. If you want the Social Contract changed then work on changing it. Do not act as if Debian follows your 'New Social Contract' instead of the existing one. You mislead people into thinking you're right when you're not. To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? Nothing is wrong with that. However, that isn't what you said. I did say it, although a bit unfriendly. No, you said 'go somewhere else' to a Debian user asking a question about a Debian change which broke an application they used. That's quite different from saying there are 2 free alternatives in Debian or any of what else you claimed to have said above. * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else ^ with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) That's the original message you sent which *is* wrong. Debian supports its users regardless of if they run non-free software or not. In fact, we specifically support their running of non-free software and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for them. Does Debian support vmware? So if Debian does support that, where is it written down that Debian supports every piece of non-free software? Debian supports users running non-free software by way of allowing them to ask questions on our mailing lists and use our bug tracking system. At the same Debian is a volunteer organization and individual developers are not required to respond to questions they don't want to. Of course you can say that in the social contract says Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, but if I interpret that correctly, it just means the non-free software packages provided by Debian. And this actually my major complaint with the social contract, it's too vague to actually agree or disagree with it. I just interpretted it in the way I think was meant and agreed, because that is a lot easier than trying to change the social contract. Obviously you have some odd ideas about how to interpret that line. Debian specifically says non-free software is not a part of Debian. Additionally there exists free software which is not a part of Debian. We support the use of both on Debian systems. We are also kind enough to even host some non-free software on our sites for the benefit of our users but that doesn't mean that the non-free software our users are allowed to run is limited to that subset of software. Stephen pgpgZ2Xu5cXim.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:16:07PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) As this might be a bit too offensive I apologize if you read it that way. Here is an alternative wording which says what I actually meant (I never try to write a mail quickly just before I got to bed): This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being slower) but you probably won't have the same problems you're having now. We can also help you with problems you are having with plex86 and bochs. If you insist on using vmware, we can't help you, you should go to the vmware guys when you've got problems. mindless rant I think you totally miss the point. Free software is about choice. What you are saying is that it is okay for a library to change in a way that breaks software which I *choose* to run. The fact that software is non-free is irrelevant. I *choose* to run it. I made an informed choice. I looked at the alternatives, and made a decision. You look like you are wanting to remove my ability to make that choice. I just say the consequences of that choice, that is you're having problems with an old version and you don't have the freedom to fix that. From reading this thread, it looks to me almost as if you would advocate a system whereby Debian refused to run any non-free software at all. s/refused/discouraged/ and I would agree. Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? IMHO the we support non-free software clause was only temporary, when there are free alternatives for the non-free software we could drop the support of non-free software. I feel the time has come to drop it. The free alternatives to VMware are not really all that good at all I am afraid. Development on plex86 has pretty much died since Kevin changed jobs. bochs was never really an alternative at all, its aims are somewhat different. True, but plex86 development is going to continue, subscribe to the list if you want to get informed on everything. VMware might be non-free, but it is damn good. I think for the price of a license you can better buy a nice second-hand computer. I'm sure that will a damn bit better!! (I actually use this method, with an old computer I got for free beer) When a libc6 change breaks it, then asking why is not *ever* a bad thing. Expecting changes in libc6 to not break things is sensible. If it does break stuff then we should look at why. We looked at it. We saw it wasn't libc's fault. If it turns out that the breakage is unavoidable, or serves a greater good then fine. I don't really understand this case well enough to know if that is the case or not. The breakage is/was deemed necessary by the libc6 maintainer (presumably) and I tend towards trusting Ben's judgement. It's not really breakage, it's fixing a bug. The programs which now break were buggy, I don't see why there should be any support for that. Instead, the programs should get fixed. Your advocacy looks like so much wind and piss in all honesty. You do no favours either to yourself or to the free software movement by it. You look and sound like a rabid, unthinking, kneejerking moron. That is usually a description reserved for RMS :) I already said people compare me with RMS and I take it as a compliment. Actually, there are people who can work with me (Yes, really!), there are also enough people who can work with RMS. Personally I never worked with RMS or discussed with him, but I don't think I would have big problems with that. I never see why everybody just say that RMS and GNU are bad. Seriously examine what it is that you are saying. What it looks like to me (at least, probably others too) is You run non-free software, so fuck off, we hate you, we hate your mother, we hate your sister's cat. Go whinge to the people who made the non-free software, because they should have forseen when they wrote their software a couple of years ago that we were going to break it. This want not meant so, I already apologized about that. Do I have to do more? When I joined Debian I did so with the understanding that Our priorities are our users and free software. Free software is not served at all by your silly rants, and our users are definitely not served by firstly having the software they *choose* to run break, and secondly being insulted and belittled by you for making that choice. True, the best way would have been that they
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Blow off the non-free software user, no. If you have nothing to offer by way of help with vmware itself, then your silence will be enough to indicate that. And the user will never find out why he's having that problem. I don't think that not telling the user the cause of the problem is helping him. And our priorities are free software, but we aren't allowed with some respects free software is better than non-free software? You didn't tell him why he's having that problem. You didn't tell him the cause of the problem. The problem was not the non-free software. The problem was that glibc was changed in a way which broke some programs (both free and non-free) which depended on the old behaviour. The non-free software (just like the free software) needed to be changed, yes, but that isn't the fault of the software being non-free any more than it is the fault of the free software being free. As a member of the Debian project who believes firmly in the whole of our Social Contract, I cannot comprehend what makes you think you can throw about we can and we can't in blatant disregard for: We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian ... The can't help means not being able to help you, because we can't fix any non-free software we aren't allowed to see and modify the source of. They can be helped if someone wants to help them. As simple as 'downgrade glibc'. We should not tell users to 'go somewhere else'. If no one wants to answer the question no one is going to answer it. That would be indication enough for them to take it elsewhere. It doesn't require you to do anything. Hmm, I knew somebody would find something to complain about in my second try to word my opinion. I'm not even going to try to do it a third time. Please and thank you. Stephen pgpmEWgzcDWGd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: By knowing the date it was written and what they actually meant instead of what they actually have written down. (For example, they meant non-free but they wrote commercial). And I'm not the only one, I know more Debian developers who don't really support non-free and would rather see it removed. We can all claim to know the intent of the original authors but what they actually wrote down is what everyone who joins the project is asked to agree to. Developers are not asked Have you agreed with the intent of the authors of the Social Contract? because (in steps reality) no one really knows the intent of the original authors except (maybe) the original authors themselves (who, of course, may have disagreed with each other in their intent anyway). I merely seeing it as interpreting the contract. In some respects it's just too vague. There has been debate about that in the past, yes, though I think it's been more about the actual non-free ftp space and whatnot than about users being allowed to run non-free software on Debian and expecting to still be treated with respect and as a user of Debian. Users should be allowed to run non-free software, but Debian shouldn't much waste time and resources on it IMHO. We have to treat non-free users just as normal users, but they should not complain when their non-free software which is not in Debian is buggy. If you want the Social Contract changed then work on changing it. Do not act as if Debian follows your 'New Social Contract' instead of the existing one. You mislead people into thinking you're right when you're not. I merely interpret the social contract different. IMHO we are both not right or wrong, the social contract is just too vague. Indeed we should fix that, but I've got a lot of things on my TODO list. To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems? Nothing is wrong with that. However, that isn't what you said. I did say it, although a bit unfriendly. No, you said 'go somewhere else' to a Debian user asking a question about a Debian change which broke an application they used. Asking a question whether VMWare supports his version which wasn't the case. I said (in an not-so-friendly manner, I agree) that debian-devel isn't the correct place for that. That's quite different from saying there are 2 free alternatives in Debian or any of what else you claimed to have said above. I said there are plex86 and bochs, I said that in that mail and in some other mail in that thread. * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else ^ with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) That's the original message you sent which *is* wrong. Debian supports its users regardless of if they run non-free software or not. In fact, we specifically support their running of non-free software and we provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for them. Does Debian support vmware? So if Debian does support that, where is it written down that Debian supports every piece of non-free software? Debian supports users running non-free software by way of allowing them to ask questions on our mailing lists and use our bug tracking system. So debian-devel is the mailing list where people can ask question about patches for non-free software which isn't in Debian? And can they also use the bug tracking system for that? I thought not, but maybe you can prove me wrong. At the same Debian is a volunteer organization and individual developers are not required to respond to questions they don't want to. And they are not allowed to state their opinion? And they are not allowed to tell the user what the cause of the problem actually is? IMHO, developers should do that. Of course you can say that in the social contract says Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, but if I interpret that correctly, it just means the non-free software packages provided by Debian. And this actually my major complaint with the social contract, it's too vague to actually agree or disagree with it. I just interpretted it in the way I think was meant and agreed, because that is a lot easier than trying to change the social contract. Obviously you have some odd ideas about how to interpret that line. Debian specifically says
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:40:41PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:16:07PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote: I just say the consequences of that choice, that is you're having problems with an old version and you don't have the freedom to fix that. From reading this thread, it looks to me almost as if you would advocate a system whereby Debian refused to run any non-free software at all. s/refused/discouraged/ and I would agree. Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? IMHO the we support non-free software clause was only temporary, when there are free alternatives for the non-free software we could drop the support of non-free software. I feel the time has come to drop it. Then that is where we differ. That is NOT what I see the goal of Debian as being. The goal of Debian (from where I stand at least) is to offer people the *choice* of running free software if they want to. If they *choose* to run non-free software (either instead or as well) then they should have that *choice*. This is enshrined in the Social Contract. If at some point this changes then I will re-evaluate my position. I suspect I will not be the only one. The free alternatives to VMware are not really all that good at all I am afraid. Development on plex86 has pretty much died since Kevin changed jobs. bochs was never really an alternative at all, its aims are somewhat different. True, but plex86 development is going to continue, subscribe to the list if you want to get informed on everything. I have been a lurker on the plex86 list for roughly 2 years. VMware might be non-free, but it is damn good. I think for the price of a license you can better buy a nice second-hand computer. I'm sure that will a damn bit better!! (I actually use this method, with an old computer I got for free beer) That is your *choice*. I *choose* to run VMware instead. Please do not seek to restrict my freedom. When a libc6 change breaks it, then asking why is not *ever* a bad thing. Expecting changes in libc6 to not break things is sensible. If it does break stuff then we should look at why. We looked at it. We saw it wasn't libc's fault. But you can see why people might be forgiven for thinking it was? An unversioned change that breaks lots of stuff? I think that looking to ask questions to libc6 is not at all unreasonable. If it turns out that the breakage is unavoidable, or serves a greater good then fine. I don't really understand this case well enough to know if that is the case or not. The breakage is/was deemed necessary by the libc6 maintainer (presumably) and I tend towards trusting Ben's judgement. It's not really breakage, it's fixing a bug. The programs which now break were buggy, I don't see why there should be any support for that. Instead, the programs should get fixed Programs which were not broken suddenly break and the reason they break is because a bug was fixed?? Forgive me for finding this a hard thing to understand. I accept that it might be (probably is) true. But it isn't even close to obvious, or intuitive. Your advocacy looks like so much wind and piss in all honesty. You do no favours either to yourself or to the free software movement by it. You look and sound like a rabid, unthinking, kneejerking moron. That is usually a description reserved for RMS :) I already said people compare me with RMS and I take it as a compliment. Actually, there are people who can work with me (Yes, really!), there are also enough people who can work with RMS. Personally I never worked with RMS or discussed with him, but I don't think I would have big problems with that. I never see why everybody just say that RMS and GNU are bad. I don't say that GNU and RMS are bad. I *do* say that rabid and stupid looking kneejerk reactions are bad, make you look bad, and make free software look bad. Seriously examine what it is that you are saying. What it looks like to me (at least, probably others too) is You run non-free software, so fuck off, we hate you, we hate your mother, we hate your sister's cat. Go whinge to the people who made the non-free software, because they should have forseen when they wrote their software a couple of years ago that we were going to break it. This want not meant so, I already apologized about that. Do I have to do more? When I joined Debian I did so with the understanding that Our priorities are our users and free software. Free software is not served at all by your silly rants, and our users are definitely not served by firstly having the software they *choose* to run break, and secondly being insulted and belittled by you for making that choice. True, the best way would have been that they didn't have to run non-free software. That's one of the reasons I'm subscribed to the plex86
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:45:26PM +, Wilmer van der Gaast [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Jeroen [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:30:54 +0200: And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and bandwith. Those posts also waste my time. Writing these posts probably takes (wastes) even more time. I got GNU/Linux to boot on plex86. It'll reduce my XP1700+'s power to a K6/400, I'm told. What's the fun in that? Not to mention a complete emulator like Bochs.. I'd be happy if I could get one of these free [0] emulators/virtualizers to run that quickly; that would be quite usable for work and (especially non-graphical) experimentation, although obviously not heavy computation :) Daniel [0] I haven't tried out the non-free ones, so I can't compare. -- / Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\ |Don't underestimate the power of the force.| | -- D. Vader| \- The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote: This problem is very common for non-free software. ... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see #141500, and a minor problem with X, see #140012. The nice() interface *did* change without versioning - it's true that programs that relied on the old behaviour were buggy, but there are plenty of such programs in Debian main and that is something Debian developers should be aware of. Patting ourselves on the back is great when it's justified, but I think it's somewhat counterproductive when it isn't. So, the change should be backed out. Why was glibc changed during this freeze? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:27:04PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote: This problem is very common for non-free software. ... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see #141500, and a minor problem with X, see #140012. The nice() interface *did* change without versioning - it's true that programs that relied on the old behaviour were buggy, but there are plenty of such programs in Debian main and that is something Debian developers should be aware of. Patting ourselves on the back is great when it's justified, but I think it's somewhat counterproductive when it isn't. So, the change should be backed out. Why was glibc changed during this freeze? ...to bring in other fixes that aren't so easy to seperate from smaller ones. Lose the tone, it wont get you what you want. Nice is being fixed. I've said this in several of the bug reports. This whole thread just needs to die. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: But does that mean they can posts question about problems with that non-free software which are not related to Debian at all (the only relation is that the user runs Debian) to debian-devel? No. However, this mess all started because the *wording* in your message was such that one got the clear impression that 'non-free' was the problem, and not that the fact that he posted to debian-devel instead of debian-user was. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ben Collins wrote: ...to bring in other fixes that aren't so easy to seperate from smaller ones. Lose the tone, it wont get you what you want. Nice is being fixed. I've said this in several of the bug reports. This whole thread just needs to die. You haven't said it here, until now. You can't honestly expect everyone in the world to read all bugs, to find out what you have said in a few of them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rant about the flaming here (Was: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:52:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Blow off the non-free software user, no. If you have nothing to offer by way of help with vmware itself, then your silence will be enough to indicate that. And the user will never find out why he's having that problem. I don't think that not telling the user the cause of the problem is helping him. And our priorities are free software, but we aren't allowed with some respects free software is better than non-free software? You didn't tell him why he's having that problem. You didn't tell him the cause of the problem. The problem was not the non-free software. The problem was that glibc was changed in a way which broke some programs (both free and non-free) which depended on the old behaviour. The non-free software (just like the free software) needed to be changed, yes, but that isn't the fault of the software being non-free any more than it is the fault of the free software being free. rant I'm getting sick of people who can't read. Let's say the same thing for the next time. Maybe a lot of people on this list just need glasses, so I do it in upper case that you can easily read it: CAPSLOCK THE PROBLEM HE IS HAVING IS THAT VMWARE DOESN'T PROVIDE A PATCH FOR THE OLD VERSION HE IS USING. WITH FREE SOFTWARE, HE COULD JUST FIX THE PROBLEM ITSELF, WITH NON-FREE SOFTWARE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE CAUSE OF HIS PROBLEM IS THUS THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MODIFY THE SOFTWARE. /capslock Is it clear now? The damn fucking problem on this list is that nobody actually reads but just starts flaming because some part of the message they just don't like or whatever. Maybe that's the reason why a lot of debian developers aren't subscribed to this list. #debian-devel isn't anything better (I know it's not an official Debian communication medium, but we already lost a few DDs because of the hostility there), just some random quote which occured not so long time ago (I removed the nicknames so we don't get any personal flames). Person1 is just saying that there is something wrong in Debian (Person1 and Person3 are both debian developers for some time): ::: Person1 has joined: #debian-devel Person1 the linux packages should really be called linux and not kernel Person2 yeah Person3 Person1: oh, don't fucking start ... It could also have been: Yes, we know that, we are going to change that after woody. Please don't start the whole discussion again. IMHO Debian is clearly going the wrong way with all flaming. Oh, and if you don't react as an asshole and you read a thread first before jumping in and start discussing, and there still are a lot of people in Debian who know how you discuss, then this is not meant of you. To give an example how it should be, look at Ben's reaction, it just says in a professional way that I should not be offensive and don't speak on behalf of Debian etc. I agree with him, what I actually said was wrong. /rant Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpDSI25naDEa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:43:32PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ben Collins wrote: ...to bring in other fixes that aren't so easy to seperate from smaller ones. Lose the tone, it wont get you what you want. Nice is being fixed. I've said this in several of the bug reports. This whole thread just needs to die. You haven't said it here, until now. You can't honestly expect everyone in the world to read all bugs, to find out what you have said in a few of them. I can expect people who want to rant on a public list to know what the hell that are talking about before raising a big stink. If you want to argue about vmware breaking in libc6, go to the libc6 bug package and search for vmware. You'll find the bug reports, and my reponses. I'm not asking too much at all. The BTS is there for this exact reason. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Isn't the goal of Debian providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free software anymore? No, no, nonono, no, no, no. I'm done. Stephen pgpMjAfoXH8OQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Rant about the flaming here (Was: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0)
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: CAPSLOCK THE PROBLEM HE IS HAVING IS THAT VMWARE DOESN'T PROVIDE A PATCH FOR THE OLD VERSION HE IS USING. WITH FREE SOFTWARE, HE COULD JUST FIX THE PROBLEM ITSELF, WITH NON-FREE SOFTWARE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE CAUSE OF HIS PROBLEM IS THUS THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MODIFY THE SOFTWARE. /capslock His problem is that glibc changed and broke software he was using. Free vs. non-free has nothing to do with it. Sorry you missed that. Stephen pgp8wYNLptSLN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Well, I didn't expect to inspire such a vibrant thread! A couple of responses (not in anger, just adding some perspective). 1) free vs. non-free alternatives I use VMWare 2.0. If you think that bochs and Plex86 aren't viable alternatives yet, you can imagine the state of the world (2 years ago today) when I bought my license. At that time VMWare was being praised for bringing Linux into places where it never before existed. I have since felt slightly cajoled by the company to buy upgrades that I didn't feel that I needed, and I resisted. I am content with what I have, and satisfied to wait until a free alternative becomes viable. When I can start Plex86, drop in a Windows NT install disk (or any other OS for that matter) and install a system from scratch, I will be pleased to do it. I am in the end a free software zealot. 2) posting to ddevel I posted to ddevel for a few reason (perhaps in error, and I'm willing to concede that). - I read the list, and I have for a long time (so I don't actually need to be Cc:ed). - I was continuing a previous thread. The level seemed to be of a technical nature and relevant to the list. My question wasn't really of the user variety (how do I configure a fire wall, how do ... in dselect, etc.). That's it really, I'd much rather see Woody finished than have this thread continue very much longer. BTW, the fix was right on and I have passed it on to two colleagues who are also Debian users. I do appreciate the help -- Dr. Don Bindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Truman State University -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rant about the flaming here (Was: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:42:51PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: I'm getting sick of people who can't read. Let's say the same thing for the next time. Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is with your communication skills, not with the horde of people who find your messages offensive because they only see what is written, rather than what you meant? Maybe a lot of people on this list just need glasses, so I do it in upper case that you can easily read it: My, that was nice, wasn't it? Do you have a custom insult for those who already wear glasses? On a tangent, I'll take this opportunity to publically apologize for allowing my feelings about individual attitudes to cloud my responses toward the hurd project in general. I've already talked about that with some (rather nice) hurd developers in private. -- Mike Stone pgpcMF8nQ84Vu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes: Petr Vandrovec wrote: As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct, please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or @GLIBC_2.2.6 as it is in CVS only) for new nice() interface, so old applications will not break. Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz. It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 and for some 3.1 betas. If you are using VMware 2.0 and you suffer from this problem - sorry. It also fixes crash when you start vmnet-bridge with eth0 interface loaded, but down, and you'll not 'up' interface before eth0 interface disappears (by rmmod -a, for example) by fixing problem and not symptoms (like previous fix did). Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and this morning I discovered that it dies with: VMware Workstation PANIC: AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081 This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that leave me in the sorry category? (I would like to believe not, since my VMWare sessions are suspended, and to upgrade them to 3.x I would need to have them running in 2.0 to turn them off properly). Don -- Don Bindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: Hi Donald, Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and this morning I discovered that it dies with: VMware Workstation PANIC: AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081 This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that leave me in the sorry category? It is the same issue. You will need to get the latest patch from Petr, ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-any-update14.tar.gz It fixes the problem. Regards. Bao -- Bao C. Havoice: (310) 922-0137 8D66 6672 7A9B 6879 85CD 42E0 9F6C 7908 ED95 6B38 Primary Perpetrator of Slackware Linux Unleashed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes: Petr Vandrovec wrote: As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct, please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or @GLIBC_2.2.6 as it is in CVS only) for new nice() interface, so old applications will not break. Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz. It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 and for some 3.1 betas. If you are using VMware 2.0 and you suffer from this problem - sorry. It also fixes crash when you start vmnet-bridge with eth0 interface loaded, but down, and you'll not 'up' interface before eth0 interface disappears (by rmmod -a, for example) by fixing problem and not symptoms (like previous fix did). Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and this morning I discovered that it dies with: VMware Workstation PANIC: AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081 This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that leave me in the sorry category? (I would like to believe not, since my VMWare sessions are suspended, and to upgrade them to 3.x I would need to have them running in 2.0 to turn them off properly). I think it does leave you in the sorry category, yes. I had a similar problem (running 2.0.x) and have had to downgrade libc6 packages to work around it. When I have time I will build a chroot for vmware to run in and do it that way. Unfortunately right now I just don't have the cash to upgrade. Cheers, Stephen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1? Good luck Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Donald J Bindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: VMware Workstation PANIC: AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081 This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that leave me in the sorry category? Yes, you're screwed. If you have useful info in those saved sessions, downgrade libc and unsuspend... or just remove the std file and fsck/scandisk/whatever when/if you upgrade to 3.x. -- Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - In a variety of flavors! If wishes were horses, then beggars would be thieves. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:14:17PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1? That might have been an option if my VMWare sessions weren't suspended. To upgrade, they first have to be restarted with version 2.0 and shut down properly. Then they can be upgraded. (Yes all of my important data is backed up, but the hassle of a re-install of Windows is nice to avoid). Luckily the fix given above worked well. -- Don Bindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote: Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz. It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 and for some 3.1 betas. If you are using VMware 2.0 and you suffer from this problem - sorry. It also fixes crash when you start vmnet-bridge with eth0 interface loaded, but down, and you'll not 'up' interface before eth0 interface disappears (by rmmod -a, for example) by fixing problem and not symptoms (like previous fix did). Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and this morning I discovered that it dies with: VMware Workstation PANIC: AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081 This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that leave me in the sorry category? (I would like to believe not, since my VMWare sessions are suspended, and to upgrade them to 3.x I would need to have them running in 2.0 to turn them off properly). It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp3hs75dI4Dd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Bao C. Ha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: Hi Donald, Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and this morning I discovered that it dies with: VMware Workstation PANIC: AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081 This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that leave me in the sorry category? It is the same issue. You will need to get the latest patch from Petr, ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-any-update14.tar.gz It fixes the problem. I'd guess an alternative would be a simple LD_PRELOAD trick to override getpriority/setpriority, with the caveat that such tricks presumably don't work on setuid programs, so you'd have to be running as root? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) Jeroen Dekkers Maybe not the friendliest of opinions, but accurate. I made what I would consider an honest attempt to try both plex86 and bochs. They don't seem to be the plausible alternative that people would like them to be (i.e. I had very little luck with them, and I am more patient than most people). If either had actually worked for me, I would have used it. -- Don Bindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
