I'M NOT MEMER OF YOUR MAILING LISTS. MY MAIL IS : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED] IS ONLY FORWARD FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
WHY THIS MAILS COME TO ME?
EVERY DAY COME TO ME 200 MAILS FROM YOUR MAILING LISTS.
CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WITH IT?
THANK YOU.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I certainly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that
> >> this statement of mine is dishonest;
>
> David> I didn't mean that perjoratively, but I did mean it
>
> How can an accusation of dishonesty be anything _but_ pejorative?
>
> David> logically. There are two justifications for supporting many
> David> architectures on the table:
> David> (1) We wanna.
>
> Yup.
>
> David> (2) It's for the good of the users.
>
> Nope.
>
> David> (1) may well be true, but it's not exactly part of Debian's
"marketing
> David> rhetoric" as embodied in the social contract.
>
> All if Debian is done just because we wanna. And, once we are
> doing this, we do put concern for the users as an goal (an abstract
> user, instead of any individual or group). We do not say that we
> shall favour any group of users because of their number; we do not
> want to go the microsoft way.
>
> Popularity does not figure in this. And if it is a matter of
> selecting between two sets of users, the discretion lies with those
> doing the work. People who work on porting are doing so of their own
> free will (I have not spent a second doing so, really, in the last
> year or so). People who do chose to work so can't be reassigned
> merely for the benefit of users on an architectyure that maintainer
> does not want to work on.
>
> There is a similarity for the argument: My taxes pay for the
> gummint. So the gummint works for me. You work foir the gummint, so
> you work for me. So I order you, mr police man, not to write that
> ticket for speeding.
>
> What works collectively, in the abstract, does not work in the
> specific; and unlike an elected governement, in Debian people who are
> not part of the project really have no franchise. Even Debian
> leadership cannot tell a developer what to work on -- and that has
> ever been the case.
>
> David> (2) is just not true.
>
> Was never meant to be.
>
> David> Now, if your justification is really only (1), then of course
> David> this arguement is irrelevent.
>
> I am glad we concur.
>
> manoj
> --
> We question most of the mantras around here periodically, in case you
> hadn't noticed. :-) Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
