Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Kevin Kreamer [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use Debian NBSD/NBSD basically having the first half signify which libc is used. Wouldn't that be a major retcon? AFAIU the GNU/ in Debian GNU/Linux says that we're using GNU userland tools such as cp, mv, diff, cc, make, nroff, etc. That's prominently visible to users; the libc is a technical detail that most users wouldn't care about unless it breaks. -- Henning Makholm Jeg har tydeligt gjort opmærksom på, at man ved at følge den vej kun bliver gennemsnitligt ca. 48 år gammel, og at man sætter sin sociale situation ganske overstyr og, så vidt jeg kan overskue, dør i dybeste ulykkelighed og elendighed.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:03:55AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Kevin Kreamer [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use Debian NBSD/NBSD basically having the first half signify which libc is used. Wouldn't that be a major retcon? AFAIU the GNU/ in Debian GNU/Linux says that we're using GNU userland tools such as cp, mv, diff, cc, make, nroff, etc. That's prominently visible to users; the libc is a technical detail that most users wouldn't care about unless it breaks. Hardly. Guess which *roff, gcc, diff, tar, etc. is there in *BSD? And considering the state of coreutils... not much to boast there. About the only thing that gives any real weight to GNU/ stuff is glibc - the rest is either common on all free Unices (and GNU doesn't see that as grounds for claim on renaming *BSD to GNU/*BSD) or... well, less than impressive, to put it mildly. IOW, about the only way GNU/Linux as a port name makes sense is what libc do we have here/what kernel does it run on.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect So which civil rights are you referring to? Details in a private reply So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public? Yes, that will work well, methinks. -- Henning Makholm However, the fact that the utterance by Epimenides of that false sentence could imply the existence of some Cretan who is not a liar is rather unsettling.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:54:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:13:03PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote: If we're really worried about this, we can always use the names of the Dwarves in the Hobbit. Most (all?) of those names are from Icelandic sags, IIRC. So is Gandalf. All of them. I suppose they even have enough of the right letters to do the first-letter trick, at least once per. Oin/Ori Nori Fili For instance. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden Remember, outside the Free Software community, copyright is Branden used only as a destructive weapon, not a tool for promoting Branden cooperation and harmony. It looks like not only outside Free Software community, considering this very thread. ~velco
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p It is not about fear, just some uneasiness inside. IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be named and so one ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:37:56PM -0600, Kevin Kreamer wrote: [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Dec 17, 2003, at 10:20, Branden Robinson wrote: Given that we're going to be saddled with with a comprehension problem anyway, I say we abandon the effort to be descriptive in the product name. I proposed having a correlation between the first letter of the product name and the underlying BSD variant simply as a mnemonic convenience for people who already know what the products are supposed to be. We don't have to *completely* give up the effort to be descriptive. How about just calling it: Debian GNU/NBSD Debian GNU/FBSD Debian GNU/OBSD (if there's ever an OpenBSD port) It would have the advantage of being recognizable to most people, without actually using 'NetBSD' or so anywhere in the name. [ The following suggestion is possibly flameworthy. Please consider the above separate from the below. ] In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use Debian NBSD/NBSD basically having the first half signify which libc is used. However, if Debian is always going to use the GNU/ prefix, then perhaps make it something like Debian GNU/NBSD/NBSD with the third part signifying the libc used. I would better say that the second part be the libc, and that it can be omitted if it is the same as most userland. That said, we don't have only GNU stuff as userland. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Am 18.12.03 um 11:05:36 schrieb Sven Luther: That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be named and so one ? Exactly: Debian GNU/First one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Next one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Other one that shall not be named Even the right letters. -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. Of course lots of vicars won't share that opinion. But in urban areas it's pretty common to shop around for a vicar who's opinions agree with yours anyway. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:10, David Palmer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supply all of the relevant, and none of the extraneous:- Debian GNU/Free Debian GNU/Net Debian GNU/Open I disagree. Debian GNU/Linux is free, it works well on the net, and it is open. I think that your naming suggestion will create confusion. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 20:08, Michael Piefel wrote: Am 18.12.03 um 11:05:36 schrieb Sven Luther: That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be named and so one ? Exactly: Debian GNU/First one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Next one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Other one that shall not be named Even the right letters. Supply all of the relevant, and none of the extraneous:- Debian GNU/Free Debian GNU/Net Debian GNU/Open No one need be upset at that. Just leave the BSD part off. It is understandable that the people at the various BSDs have some level of proprietary 'pride' in their creation. I don't think that this minimal association would upset them, the market knows what it is getting, and Theo De Raadt won't kill anybody because his distro is being associated with some kind of glorified fairy. Regards, David.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nunya) wrote on 17.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:35:54AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: | You are totally rationalizing. *sigh* From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names: We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot is the cute and devilish daemon), with the first letter shared by the demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. Once again, the stated intent /was/ a punning reference to the BSD daemon. Like I said, go right ahead. I really want to see how this plays out. You really are trying to be as offensive as you could possibly be. In another part of this thread you claim you're not a fundamentalist. Yet you object to the same things a Christian fundamentalist would, you use the same twisting of what others wrote that I see from fundamentalists in Usenet debates all the time ... It it walks like a duck ... Anyway, *plonk*. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sven That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then Sven differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be Sven named and so one ? Indeed ! GNU/First one that shall not be named GNU/Next one that shall not be named GNU/Other one that shall not be named ~velco
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: ... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's more than two of 'em). There's more than one actual difference between the two statements, though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large). Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of hate speech, at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering. If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like admit it, you're just practising hate speech als hate speech, though, even though it is actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem. Y'all are going to bust a vein on this one. So far, on *.debian.org, I've found a great many people who actively hate Jesus, this german who apparently has familiar views on Jews (as does frighteningly much of Europe), and a whole bunch of college professors who actively hate America. And everybody has communistic views on the business world. And, for third parties reading this in future, just look at what they're getting ready to do to *me*. Just for those keeping a scorecard. (I just want to be able to link to this post in future to completely destroy your credibility).
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Momchil Velikov wrote: Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sven That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then Sven differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be Sven named and so one ? Indeed ! GNU/First one that shall not be named GNU/Next one that shall not be named GNU/Other one that shall not be named Loosely abbreviated: GNU/Fotsnoben GNU/Notsnoben GNU/Ootsnoben yeah, sounds very mystic. Probably means elk spit in some nordic language, too. I vote for that. cheers, dalibor topic
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Patrick) wrote on 18.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: | | Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what | you hate. | | Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like | this... | | If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate | speech? No, but if you say you hate Jews, then many would claim you are. If you wanted to be cynical, you could point out which side won the second world war... ... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's more than two of 'em). There's more than one actual difference between the two statements, though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large). Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of hate speech, at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering. If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like admit it, you're just practising hate speech als hate speech, though, even though it is actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Baker) wrote on 17.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect of Christianity under most circumstances, but drawing from the same traditions). Somehow, though, I find this unlikely. I haven't bothered to look closely at the smaller and more fundamentalist sects. The Unitarians might have a different position; they seem the most likely. But they don't have enough voting members to succeed against the above. Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. If I were a betting man, I'd bet I can guess what exactly it is - what the Anglicans are currently in not-quite-civil-war about. Of course, don't expect Nunya to ever get it. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. What would Henry VIII do? -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning Makholm) wrote on 18.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect So which civil rights are you referring to? Details in a private reply So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public? Given that the one he replied to already *has* backed them up, I don't see your point. Yes, that will work well, methinks. It does. It tells me which one of you two to killfile. Hint; it's not Joel. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:30:57PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? Universal Unitarians. Sort of a cross between Christianity Lite and Pagan Lite; a very feel good religion, for the most part. One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. Of course lots of vicars won't share that opinion. But in urban areas it's pretty common to shop around for a vicar who's opinions agree with yours anyway. Well, yes. Like I said, many individual persons don't have any problem with what I do, particularly not once they see the relationship for any length of time. It's the collective that has issued policy statements condemning it, and *that* tends to influence a lot of people's assumptions. In other words, it's very much like someone saying Black people are all stupid and evil. Present company excepted, of course. (Note that I'm not trying to claim the breadth or depth of bias that was, and often still is, directed against that particular group; it's just an example that most people will be able to put into context.) -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgphcwJHC8GoO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Which is why the phrase In God We Trust is engraved or printed on all the US currency. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase, Under God.. Yeah, adamant. -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgpBTIrBp9QEP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:52:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Baker) wrote on 17.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. If I were a betting man, I'd bet I can guess what exactly it is - what the Anglicans are currently in not-quite-civil-war about. Not quite, but it is a related issue somewhat further along the spectrum. One which, by it's nature, probably can't be addressed at all until the current fracas is settled (in a manner I'd consider favorable). It may be that, at some point in the future, the doctrinal statements change, especially that of the Anglicans; they seem one of the more likely. But, to date, it hasn't. Of course, don't expect Nunya to ever get it. No comment. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpBHiOYpRFkx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:49:06 -0800, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote: | I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans | intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. ... and in some cases justified. Who are you to pass judgement on others? judgment? I see an expression of an opinion. And he is a living, thinking being, and thus has opinions. Are you saying you have none? manoj -- And the crowd was stilled. One elderly man, wondering at the sudden silence, turned to the Child and asked him to repeat what he had said. Wide-eyed, the Child raised his voice and said once again, Why, the Emperor has no clothes! He is naked! The Emperor's New Clothes 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
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:21:23AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect So which civil rights are you referring to? Details in a private reply So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public? Yes, that will work well, methinks. Anyone who wishes to: 1) Email me privately and ask 2) Read my livejournal (hint: it's obviously named, and should show up trivally with Google) 3) Recall comments made on #debian-devel in IRC 4) Read comments made in other posts to Debian lists in the past or 5) Do other basic Googling will be able to figure out exactly what topic I'm talking about. It isn't that I refuse to discuss it in public; it's that I'm tired of discussing it in this thread, on this mailing list. The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such) is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal decrees (which may be, but almost certainly isn't, the same set as their followers; most people disagree with at least one doctrine of their chosen church, in my unscientific, empirical observation). But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private. I just don't particularly care to keep debating it on this list, at the moment, particularly given how far off-topic we've come. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgprMcf3j43X9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:48:31AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. What would Henry VIII do? Ck | N K,S And, from my upbringing, Wherever you find three or four Episcopalians, you'll find a fifth. (To those under the dominion of the Metric system, I apologize; this probably won't seem very funny...) -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpUt26d9tWQn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:13:52 -0500, Branden Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think the fundies should crawl back into their spider holes to
await the Apocalypse, while us heathens and sinners who don't TRULY
know the saving grace of Jesus Christ can get back to making the
world a better place.
If you accept the definition of pagan as:
--
Pagan \Pagan\, a. [L. paganus of or pertaining to the country,
pagan. See {Pagan}, n.]
Of or pertaining to pagans; relating to the worship or the
worshipers of false gods
--
that makes the various sects of the judeo-christian belief system
pagans as far as my parent's belief system is concerned (personally,
I find most these belief systems indistinguishable from village ojhas
in India; [witch doctors who believe in gods of thunder, lightning,
electricity, etc, and who believe in exorcism as the proper
treatment for snake bites], but who am I to come between people and
their superstitions).
manoj
--
Honorable, adj.: Afflicted with an impediment in one's reach. In
legislative bodies, it is customary to mention all members as
honorable; as, the honorable gentleman is a scurvy cur. Ambrose
Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
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
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
This one time, at band camp, Tom said: Y'all are going to bust a vein on this one. So far, on *.debian.org, I've found a great many people who actively hate Jesus, this german who apparently has familiar views on Jews (as does frighteningly much of Europe), and a whole bunch of college professors who actively hate America. So far all i have observed you to find is your inability to either read or write. I guess you just like to hear yourself talk, which is fine, but would you mind doing it in a local bar, instead of where I expect to get some work done? And everybody has communistic views on the business world. I would suggest rereading. And, for third parties reading this in future, just look at what they're getting ready to do to *me*. ??? - this is a mailing list - what can they possibly do to you? (Besides individually kill-filing you, which I am doing now). Just for those keeping a scorecard. (I just want to be able to link to this post in future to completely destroy your credibility). Or yours. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpFDAHEyjA5A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu 12/18/03 08:43, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Which is why the phrase In God We Trust is engraved or printed on all the US currency. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase, Under God.. Yeah, adamant. Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0]. But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2]. And there is no _seperation_ of church and state. There is simply the freedom to choose your own religion, and the federal congress has no authority to make laws regaurding religion. However, this is the federal government, states (depending on their constitutions) can make laws as they see fit [3]. [0] Due to the definition of a religion. Satanism is generally described by the masses as a cult, rather than a religion. [1] Ok, it was really the 9th circuit of the US superior court (me thinks, but close enough. [2] I'm too lazy to check. [3] Well, almost, we did have a civil war over this. -- | Josh Lauricha| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Bioinformatics, UCR | |--|
Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0]. But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2]. No, not overturned. Waiting on appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes its Own Sweet Time to do anything.
Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
What are the UUs? Unitarian Universalists. Possibly the most liberal church in existence. I think they're great. ;-) They don't require adherence to any doctrine (you can even be a UU atheist; although it started out as a Christian group, that's now optional). They're very big on social justice and equality. Right-wingers would probably call them the politically correct chuch.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:31:17AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Somehow, I don't think Branden will mind being told his dislike of parochial religious fundamentalists is showing. I suspect he'd be proud of it. But you'll see for yourself, soon enough. I've known some quite nice people who had parochial fundamentalist beliefs, and who didn't let their conviction that I was going to Hell prevent them from cultivating a friendship with me. I try to fight meme wars on designated meme battlefiends, like public discussion forums on the Internet. -- G. Branden Robinson|People with power understand Debian GNU/Linux |exactly one thing: violence. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Noam Chomsky http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:25:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0]. But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2]. No, not overturned. Waiting on appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes its Own Sweet Time to do anything. Well, I was the one who said it first but in fairness I'll admit you're right: there's about 5 more things like that: congress starts each day with a prayer, god is named during the president's swearing in, c. The atheists win that point.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:39:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:49:06 -0800, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote: | I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans | intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. ... and in some cases justified. Who are you to pass judgement on others? judgment? I see an expression of an opinion. And he is a living, thinking being, and thus has opinions. Are you saying you have none? I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that: It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people. We don't buy that shit here.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:19:28PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, simply asserting it to be true. Until you research it, you don't know it. You only believe it. You've rejected both inductive and deductive arguments, so I think it's clear that you will accept no path to the stated conclusion. You're welcome to your dogmatism, but don't be surprised if no one else cares to share it. -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:33:48PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:24:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: | Demons are evil, | | Demons don't exist. Consequently, their moral value is undefinable. I claim that their moral value /is/ definable in the context of a particular mythology even if they don't exist. In the case of the Christian religion, demons are generally believed to be evil. Well, sure. It is an essential characteristic of mythological belief systems to ascribe existence to the unmeasurable, unprovable, and unfalsifiable. Since the Debian Project is a large and diverse organization, and since mythological belief systems have a tendency to be mutually contradictory, I assert that we cannot be guided by the proscriptions of any particular mythological belief system. -- G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember the laws Debian GNU/Linux |of science are condemned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |rediscover some of the worst ones. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Harold Gordon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:17:03AM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:31:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:23:39PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. That's another opinion expressed as a generalization. I think you better quit while you're ahead. It seemed inductively valid, but easy enough to disprove. Anyone care to provide a counter-example? Do any non-Christians wish to express personal discomfort or offense with the names I proposed? Muslims and Jews also believe in demons. Witches believe in demons. African nature-religionists also believe in demons. Do they all mean the same thing by demon? From my amateurish dabblings in comparative religion, I seriously doubt it, especially in the case of the non-Abrahamic religions listed, which have seen less of a dualistic, Zoroastrian influence (not surprising given that Wicca claims to be grounded on Celtic traditions, and both the Celts and Africans are far from the Middle East, whereas the Abrahamic religions all originate there). Face it dude, you're hatred and unfairness towards one specific group of people is shining through. I try very hard not to hate *people*. I do, on the other hand, think some belief systems are highly inimical to critical and rational thought. How am I being unfair? I have asked people why the Debian Project should make product naming decisions within constraints imposed particularly by the Christian religion, and I have yet to receive an answer. It would be unfair indeed if the Debian Project were to place the biases of the Christian religion (or, more likely, the biases of the proponents of some particular sect of it, who happen to be making noise on this mailing list). I propose we disregard the biases of all religions equally. I don't think this project is so enlightened after all. If your notion of enlightment is one which is derived from divine revelation, then I suspect you're right. -- G. Branden Robinson|Somebody once asked me if I thought Debian GNU/Linux |sex was dirty. I said, It is if [EMAIL PROTECTED] |you're doing it right. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Woody Allen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:18:41AM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:39:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:49:06 -0800, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote: | I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans | intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. ... and in some cases justified. Who are you to pass judgement on others? judgment? I see an expression of an opinion. And he is a living, thinking being, and thus has opinions. Are you saying you have none? I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that: It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people. We don't buy that shit here. plonk -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpvHNnwDnYau.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Oh, is *that* who Tom Ballard is? I'd heard about this guy. Stuff is starting to fall into place now. -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote:
Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what
you hate.
Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like
this...
If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate
speech?
___ ___ _ _
/ ___|/ _ \| _ \ \ / /_ _| \ | |
| | _| | | | | | \ \ /\ / / | || \| |
| |_| | |_| | |_| |\ V V / | || |\ |
\|\___/|/ \_/\_/ |___|_| \_|
Bah, but you probably did that on purpose, invoking the Deliberate
Invocation Corollary.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:53:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Oh, is *that* who Tom Ballard is? I'd heard about this guy. Stuff is starting to fall into place now. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html You guys usually argue circles around me. The fact that you're arguing so weakly out to tell you something.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:43:29AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Which is why the phrase In God We Trust is engraved or printed on all the US currency. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase, Under God.. Yeah, adamant. The under God bit was added to the Pledge during the Eisenhower administration as a token gesture against godless communists. Not sure about the currency, but we (the U.S.) didn't even *have* federal currency until the 20th century. Historical revisionism has never been more successfully practiced than by Christians and capitalists in the United States during the 20th century. -- G. Branden Robinson| Eternal vigilance is the price of Debian GNU/Linux | liberty. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Wendell Phillips http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:40:06PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that: It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people. We don't buy that shit here. plonk I've noticed that and the Godwin (with no mention of nazisim anywhere *near* being invoked, unless the phrase hate speech implies nazism, in which case I have quite a few people I'd like to plonk) have been invoked then the other side is making absolutely unjustifiable statements. Real good arguing there.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:44:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:19:28PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, simply asserting it to be true. Until you research it, you don't know it. You only believe it. You've rejected both inductive and deductive arguments, so I think it's clear that you will accept no path to the stated conclusion. You're welcome to your dogmatism, but don't be surprised if no one else cares to share it. Please prove to me the statement: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01536.html: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. Just show me real research that backs up the claim. All I see so far is an assertion that its true, without a single effort being made to prove it. (Hint: ask a muslim.)
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:13:29AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Cf. Jesux. ...which has gone for some years without attracting anyone who is both pious enough and clueful enough to develop it. I find this inverse correlation suggestive. :) Or, it could be that Jesux wasn't really meant seriously. Go to the Jesux home page and click on the word Jesux in the section title What is Jesux?. You'll see a real explanation. Given that, it's damn cool. :-) - Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:31:42AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:12:21AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: I think you trimmed away content that was crucial for understanding the parts you did quote, but whatever. If you need reptition or elaboration, I'll provide it. Please do. I found nothing in your article that seemed to provide answers to my questions. I thought I just did. One possibility would have been to not raise the trademark issues at all. Which would amount to saying We won't tell you why, but please change your name. I think that would be discouteous in the extreme. No, they simply could have said that they were worried that people would be confused that NetBSD was a product of the Debian Project. Compare Microsoft Word to Debian NetBSD. The habit, which the Debian Project practices extensively, of using the same proper noun to refer all kinds of different things, contributes to this. NetBSD has it, too. It is either an OS, a foundation, or a community, depending on context. Possible approaches include: 1) don't ask, don't tell 2) order us to stop 3) grant us a license 4) Ask us nicely to stop. Not compatible with mention of trademark. And (4). I don't think you have provided *any* evidence that (4) was not what they did, and I think that to react as if (2) was the case would be silly and excessively confrontational. There is no such thing as a common-law trademark. Telling someone that they are (or might be) diluting your trademark is putting them on notice that you think you have a potential tort claim against them. That's not polite in my book. In yours, for all I know, it's a means of romantic flirtation. I'm generally in favor of a use or lose it approach to intellectual property, but this is more like be an asshole or lose it. I still cannot see how you imagine that they could have *told* us about their misgivings at all in a way that you wouldn't equal with being an asshole. See above. -- G. Branden Robinson|No executive devotes much effort to Debian GNU/Linux |proving himself wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Laurence J. Peter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: The thought goes something like this: Well, the mascot of ALL the BSD derivatives is a daemon, in various forms (and, I will note, they are quite adament about it *not* being a demon, which is why the form is *always* a cartoony/stylized form) Pah, demon is just a corruption of daemon (should daemon be spelled with an ae ligature? if so, I think typography explains this orthographic shift). The only people I know of who make a distinction are the BSD people and the authors of the Dungeons Dragons game system, who decided to have some neutral evil beasties to put in between the lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons. Actually, I think daemons first showed up in the _Fiend Folio_, which means we have the British to thank for this confusion. ;-) Or maybe they showed up in a Gygax-authored dungeon module before being anthologized in the _Field Folio_, shifting the blame back to the U.S. :-) /me dons the mailing list charter cop uniform again and tasers himself Hey, if I keep up this self-flagellation, I'll end up a better Christian than those who object to my proposed naming scheme! Tee-hee. -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:02:29PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:43, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. I along with many others are looking forward to seeing John Ashcroft being kicked out. /me rises from the pew and says Amen! See? I can be religious. -- G. Branden Robinson| What influenced me to atheism was Debian GNU/Linux | reading the Bible cover to cover. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Twice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:20:46PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs, centaurs, etc. to choose from. Since the Greeks classified them as neither evil spirits nor deities, many of them would qualify as daemons in the classical sense. We could also go for species, especially if we wanted recognizable names: FreeBSD - faun NetBSD - naiad or nereid OpenBSD - oread I always liked licking the creamy center out of oreads before ingesting the crunchy carapace. -- G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a Debian GNU/Linux | crutch for weak-minded people who [EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:42:23 -0500 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I think daemons first showed up in the _Fiend Folio_, which means we have the British to thank for this confusion. ;-) What about Maxwell's daemon? This is usually thought to be the computer origin of the term. 19th Century. http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Daemon.html Jim Penny
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[ Re-adding Cc to debian-bsd, since it's a serious naming proposal ] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:12:05PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:42:23 -0500 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I think daemons first showed up in the _Fiend Folio_, which means we have the British to thank for this confusion. ;-) What about Maxwell's daemon? This is usually thought to be the computer origin of the term. 19th Century. http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Daemon.html Debian Faraday, Feynman, Fermi, ... Debian Newton, Nobel, ... Debian Ohm, Oort, Oppenheimer, ... Ladies and gentlemen (and the rest of y'all, too) - I submit that this might well be a winner. For nearly every letter in the alphabet, we have multiple possibilities, a great many of whom will be casually recognizeable to any geek audience, and quite a few of whom are dead and unlikely to object. (Oh, and for those playing along, there are two other interesting letters to check...) Debian Hale, Halley, ... (jeez. Hurd folks will have so many good choices!) Debian Landau, Lawrence, Leibniz, Lorentz, ... (oh, man - Linux gets Lovelace!) Debian Mach, of course, must be reserved for a FreeBSD-on-Mach port :) -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpVvekXXZ7pw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such) is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal decrees Claiming that Christians are against civil liberties is slander in my book. You named, among other, a subset of Christians that I belong to, and claimed that our doctrinal decrees are against civil rights. I hold this to be untrue, and unless you can back up your claims, I am going to think of you as a liar. But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private. If you're not willing to back up your accusations in public, you shouldn't make them in public. -- Henning Makholm Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:31:42AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Which would amount to saying We won't tell you why, but please change your name. I think that would be discouteous in the extreme. No, they simply could have said that they were worried that people would be confused that NetBSD was a product of the Debian Project. Isn't that what they did? They added that such confusion might make it hard for them to defend their trademark. Is that a threat of litigation against Debian? I think not. It is simply an explanations of their misgivings. Possible approaches include: 1) don't ask, don't tell 2) order us to stop 3) grant us a license 4) Ask us nicely to stop. Not compatible with mention of trademark. Yes, because their trademark is one of the reasons why they would like us to stop. That is called being open, not being threatening. And (4). I don't think you have provided *any* evidence that (4) was not what they did, and I think that to react as if (2) was the case would be silly and excessively confrontational. There is no such thing as a common-law trademark. I don't see the connection between that and what I wrote. Telling someone that they are (or might be) diluting your trademark is putting them on notice that you think you have a potential tort claim against them. Perhaps it has that legal implication. You are claiming that this legal implication is *why* they told us about their misgivings. I find it hard to believe that, when the alternative explanation that they were just being polite is so much more likely. That's not polite in my book. I still don't see how you think they could have explained their problems in a polite way, then. Your book seems to say that being open is impolite. In yours, for all I know, it's a means of romantic flirtation. Please read what I wrote. Telling us why they are worried *is* polite. Just telling us that they are worred, and deliberately withholding information about why is impolite. -- Henning MakholmAnd why should I talk slaves' and fools' talk? I don't want him to live for ever, and I know that he's not going to live for ever whether I want him to or not.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:50:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such) is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal decrees Claiming that Christians are against civil liberties is slander in my book. You named, among other, a subset of Christians that I belong to, and claimed that our doctrinal decrees are against civil rights. I hold this to be untrue, and unless you can back up your claims, I am going to think of you as a liar. No, I claimed that the doctrinal decrees included condemnations of specific behavior which are turned into laws by a voting block that puts into power politicians who make laws based on those decrees, among other things. The end result of that process is one in which I am denied a specific civil right. But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private. If you're not willing to back up your accusations in public, you shouldn't make them in public. I already have, just not in this forum. Go read the other sources I listed. But if you want more context in which to read, I'll offer you two words: Civil union (I won't use Marriage, because I find the mention of it in law to be one of the primary examples of religion intruding upon the secular law). And no, it's not same-sex unions that are at issue (as I said elsewhere). -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpK6HUMUaVcO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] Alle 21:13, mercoledì 17 dicembre 2003, Nathan Hawkins ha scritto: If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs, centaurs, etc. to choose from. Here's the name index from Ovid's Metamorphoses. If the geek in you ;-) can live without Tolkien's names, take your favorite ones. http://www.tkline.freeserve.co.uk/Webworks/Website/Ovhome.htm Best Regards, Danilo - -- Danilo Piazzalunga [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Linux User #245762 | | ICQ #105550412 | Public key: search.keyserver.net ++ Fingerprint: D018 815E 8C7F 2AE2 5565 0C36 B5F6 DB20 B800 CB9F | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/4iqytfbbILgAy58RAiEOAJ0WqecR/nbslqy2Bz8pRSeMzlRNwwCeP++s U7OEnh4I64O7nLBALVZzOP4= =6/Ur -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: The Christian concept of a demon is a corruption (as it were) of the Greek concept of daemon Basically, no arguments with what you said, except I find inconsistent the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) FWIW I hate religious fundamentalists too. I try to be a libertarian and knock everybody with strong beliefs of any kind because I believe the fundamental problem to be psychologoical and related to power, *not* the specific content of the beliefs. Last post from me on this.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote: Besides, using Tolkien names is a long geek tradition. And that's what's wrong with it. The association of geeks and Tolkien is such a cliche[1] Same goes for Pratchett (not to mention he is rather overrated in my opinion.) No if you're going to go with demons try something more off the beaten path. How about characters from Michael Moorcock? Arioch Xiombarg Mabelode The conflict in his Eternal Champion stories isn't between good and evil but law and chaos both of which can be unwholesome when out of balance. Besides installing Debian requires blood and souls right? :-) [1] ...says the guy who went to see RotK at midnight. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And, pray tell, why is that? Hindu mythology had demons far longer than Christianity (indeed, probably longer than any of the faiths of the descendents of Abraham). If you are refering to Asuras, demon isn't quite the right word. They are more like a rival (losing) clan of Gods like the Greek Titans. Some of them (i.e. Prahlad, Bali) were quite benevolent. I'm content to cede demons to the Westerners :-) -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Nah, bullshit. I've heard enough racists use that kind of reasoning. It's no big deal. Face it, you have to respect people. OTOH, I myself am going to lighten up. :-)
[OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgp2BvcsJjaUc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 12:26, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p Of course an Ursula LeGuin reference would be that knowing an object's/person's real name allows you to control the object/person. sigh... I really do need to read the rest of the Wizard of Earthsea series. -- Stephen Depooter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:09:37AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible; of course, most of the sources on daemons say that they are, as a rule, without names in the origional Greek usage. So? The Greeks were heretical pagans and some of them were even (gasp!) atheists. *snicker* My sister is a neo-Classisist (with, oddly enough, a degree in Classics - one of the few things less useful when job hunting than an English degree). I'm quite familiar with the variety of religious beliefs in the culture. I was mostly pointing out (after having looked) that it may not be possible to find *daemon* names, which would be slightly more apropos (to the geek in me, anyway) than demon names. Very slightly. But slightly. :) If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs, centaurs, etc. to choose from. Since the Greeks classified them as neither evil spirits nor deities, many of them would qualify as daemons in the classical sense. If Homer isn't copyright and trademark free, nothing is safe. In my perception, there is a difference between placation and tact; one of the primary points being the amount of effort that goes into it. Placating requires one to make changes that cost you something appreciable; tact is simply choice one of a number of otherwise equal options such that it has a reasonable chance of being less offensive to the target audience. We have DDs who are, clearly, offended - even if I consider that to be a rather silly thing, given my own beliefs. And if we didn't have another option, I'd probably say tough noogies. But since we *have* had a couple of other options come up, which have yet to generate any statements of offense from anyone who's bothered to put it where I could read it, and those options work just as well in both a practical and a geeky sense, I have no problem with choosing one of them out of tact. Tact is downright vital on debian-bsd. Otherwise, we'd have never got anything done. Unfortunately, it seems to be largely unknown on debian-devel, which is part of why I seldom read it. As may have become clear, my favorite bid so far is for Tolkien names, since the only opinions on d-l that have been cogently argued, or backed up with citations, indicate that using the *names* isn't going to get us in trouble - and because they're already in quite widespread use in the same basic context we intend to use them for. And Tolkien's estate appears to have had many opportunities to raise objections, and hasn't ever done so, to the best of my knowlege. [snip] True. I think Tolkien's work is still covered under the ever-expanding Disney extensions, but then, as I pointed out and d-l backed up, we're using Disney character names for an even more significant naming scheme - releases. If we're really worried about being sued over such, I'd be far more worried about Disney doing it... I think Tolkien's estate has specific interests, and people using the names for hostnames or OS release names aren't the sort of thing they're worried about. In fact, I strongly suspect they'll be occupied for the next few years trying to squelch the commercial opportunism surrounding the movies. I read that they're blocking making a movie of the Hobbit, and haven't been at all happy about the movies that have been made. If we're really worried about this, we can always use the names of the Dwarves in the Hobbit. Most (all?) of those names are from Icelandic sags, IIRC. So is Gandalf. ---Nathan
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:21:24AM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: The Christian concept of a demon is a corruption (as it were) of the Greek concept of daemon Basically, no arguments with what you said, except I find inconsistent the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) Er, no. I'm not. I'm saying that Christian demons are derived from Greek daemons; that isn't the same statement as them being the same thing. I also said that I consider it polite to respect the general BSD wish to *not* be associated with demons, as opposed to daemons. It's a subtle point, granted. It's also why I'm willing to grant as much leeway as I am to folks who feel uncomfortable about using demon names - as long as we have reasonable alternatives. Which I think we do, at this point. Debian Nuggen, Debian Nienna, Debian Nori... hey, I like that last one, if it gets me sushi... -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgp3JaY584eqH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs, centaurs, etc. to choose from. Since the Greeks classified them as neither evil spirits nor deities, many of them would qualify as daemons in the classical sense. We could also go for species, especially if we wanted recognizable names: FreeBSD - faun NetBSD - naiad or nereid OpenBSD - oread I also like the street idea (though I've forgotten whose it was, sorry); does anyone who actually knows the area have suggestions? IIRC, there are a bunch of DDs in the Bay Area -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:54:28PM -0500, Stephen Depooter wrote: On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 12:26, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p Of course an Ursula LeGuin reference would be that knowing an object's/person's real name allows you to control the object/person. This is, in fact, shared to some degree in Rowling's work. Note how few people know Voldemort's real name - and how much power that seems to grant them, in dealing with him. Or maybe it's just that they remember him being an adolescent prat, like everyone else, and don't see him as all that different. :) Voldemort! Voldemort! Voldemort! See, nothing hap... sigh... I really do need to read the rest of the Wizard of Earthsea series. Yes, you do. Don't forget the latest compilation of short stories. It gives a huge amount of (very valuble) context to the history behind some major plot points in the main series. Like why Roke has the strictures it does about the gender of students, and what they're allowed to do. Oh, and it wraps up some loose ends, too. Like the Master Summoner. And no, those aren't spoilers. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpEcuEMWUlkM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:04:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) Er, no. I'm not. I'm saying that Christian demons are derived from Greek daemons; that isn't the same statement as them being the same thing. It's a subtle point, granted. [Picking nits here] Picking demon names to describe daemons only seems to be a good choice if they are closely related. Either it's a poorly descriptive name or you *do* believe they are the same. (Note: this now has nothing to with BSD. I'm just saying it's either a bad choice for a name or they are, for the purposes by which you think the name descriptive, the same).
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:13:03PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote: If we're really worried about this, we can always use the names of the Dwarves in the Hobbit. Most (all?) of those names are from Icelandic sags, IIRC. So is Gandalf. All of them. I suppose they even have enough of the right letters to do the first-letter trick, at least once per. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpvV7fizhNiu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Hey, we already covered Lovecraftian names... -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpFjnRw0Nhdt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:22:07PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:04:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) Er, no. I'm not. I'm saying that Christian demons are derived from Greek daemons; that isn't the same statement as them being the same thing. It's a subtle point, granted. [Picking nits here] Picking demon names to describe daemons only seems to be a good choice if they are closely related. Either it's a poorly descriptive name or you *do* believe they are the same. It's a poorly descriptive name, because (if you look back at the origional post), there *are* no names for proper daemons. Demons are the next closest thing, and do have names. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgp1Y0Eq2gbfa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:42:27AM -0800, Nunya wrote: IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Nah, bullshit. I've heard enough racists use that kind of reasoning. It's no big deal. Face it, you have to respect people. And way out from Right Field... OTOH, I myself am going to lighten up. :-) Excellent! Maybe this thread will eventually drop. Or maybe I'll just killfile it like I should have a week ago. -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgpSixT4XR20W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. That's another opinion expressed as a generalization. I think you better quit while you're ahead. No, I believe that's a factual statement, particularly if you read all of the parts of the statement, including words like primarily and in the context. I'm aware that there are other mythological contexts in which demon names would raise similar difficulties, but they don't tend to show up in these sorts of naming threads and they don't tend to get excited about these sorts of problems. This is hardly the first time that this has come up in the context of naming, and in my experience the overwhelming majority of the objections come from the context of Christian mythology. The most numerous and heated objections, again in my experience, come from people who self-identify as Christians. I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:21:40PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then There are very important distinctions between the following statements: Christians are stupid. Tenets of the Christian faith offend me. I consider a belief in X to be foolish/silly/stupid/whatever. Organized religion is meaningful only as a method of controlling people gullible enough to fall for it. [ ObDisclaimer: If you want to know which, if any, of the above are ] [ actually an opinion I hold, ask me in *private* email. ] One of these things is not like the others... one of these things is not the same. While the topicality is questionable (actually, it's not; it's pretty much completely off-topic), making assertions about behavior that happens to be a requirement for membership in a given group is not the same as making assertions about that group (for example, it applies equally to entities who are *not* part of that group, but exhibit the same behavior). -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpKOgpUatMr9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:00:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:21:40PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then There are very important distinctions between the following statements: Christians are stupid. Tenets of the Christian faith offend me. I consider a belief in X to be foolish/silly/stupid/whatever. Organized religion is meaningful only as a method of controlling people gullible enough to fall for it. I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html: (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith? No Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No Is It a statement about a Christian's belief? No That only leaves one alternative. Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, simply asserting it to be true. Until you research it, you don't know it. You only believe it.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:16, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:00:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html : (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. Godwin. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Godwin. Copout.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Dec 17, 2003, at 10:20, Branden Robinson wrote: Given that we're going to be saddled with with a comprehension problem anyway, I say we abandon the effort to be descriptive in the product name. I proposed having a correlation between the first letter of the product name and the underlying BSD variant simply as a mnemonic convenience for people who already know what the products are supposed to be. We don't have to *completely* give up the effort to be descriptive. How about just calling it: Debian GNU/NBSD Debian GNU/FBSD Debian GNU/OBSD (if there's ever an OpenBSD port) It would have the advantage of being recognizable to most people, without actually using 'NetBSD' or so anywhere in the name. [ The following suggestion is possibly flameworthy. Please consider the above separate from the below. ] In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use Debian NBSD/NBSD basically having the first half signify which libc is used. However, if Debian is always going to use the GNU/ prefix, then perhaps make it something like Debian GNU/NBSD/NBSD with the third part signifying the libc used. Kevin
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:16:18PM -0800, Nunya wrote: I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html: (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith? No Correct. Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No Semi-correct. It is a statement about a sub-set of organized religion (to wit, the fanatical sub-set). But, technically, correct. Is It a statement about a Christian's belief? No Correct. That only leaves one alternative. Since you're fond of URLs: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html (I believe that's even the website that keeps appearing in this thread) I never claimed that the four statements I listed covered all statements made. To do so would, in fact, be a ludicrous statement. The statement above is not *any* of the four statements in my previous email; it is a fifth statement (among even more than that, but I can't be bothered to make a precise count; I simply know that it is no less than six, because Ican think of at least one additional statement that has been made). Therefore, it does *not* leave only one alternative. It leaves at least two, one of them being the exact statement made (granted, the statement was made in a context of humor based on informal empirical observation, rather than a rigorous scientific study, but since you have cited no such study to refute it, and it's my damn mailbox, I stand by my right to summarize it as I see it). Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. As someone else already said, Godwin. It may, or may not, be a true statement that I have authored or spoken a statement that would qualify; in fact, given the number of things I have said or typed over the years, many of them ill-advised, I probably HAVE do so in at least one incident at some point, or something that could reasonably be taken as such. However, the statement in question is not, and in asserting that it is, you're attempting to argue from a point of emotion rather than logic. For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. It's certainly easy to *feel* like folks might just hate your beliefs, and often you for having them, when they're willing to go that far. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpW9weTJjL3f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 00:21, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then Stupid people are stupid. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like this... If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate speech? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, so it's pretty hopeless. I've tried to appeal to your sense of fair treatment to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent people. I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient percentage of people on their own.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:49:06AM -0800, Nunya wrote: | | I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans | | intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and | | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. | | ... and in some cases justified. | | Who are you to pass judgement on others? I am Cameron :-) Seriously, judging people and their beliefs and actions - and acting on these judgments, discriminating against people because of them - is something that everyone does, and I don't see it as /necessarily/ being a bad thing. Life is a series of these decisions, and some of them will almost certainly involve considering people's beliefs and attitudes as being inferior to others'. You are doing it yourself, judging Branden (and others) based on his attitude toward a certain group of people - an attitude which you obviously disagree with strongly, but which you have offered little convincing evidence against. | | Please explain to me the relevance of these names without the specific | | intent of discomforting people. The *intent* is clear. | | They are a reference to the BSD association with daemons. I thought | that was quite obvious? | | Yeah, and the Duke Blue Devils and the Wake Forest Demon Deacons have | references to them to. I think if they used these names for their | dormatories people would raise an eyebrow. | | You are totally rationalizing. *sigh* From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names: We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot is the cute and devilish daemon), with the first letter shared by the demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. Once again, the stated intent /was/ a punning reference to the BSD daemon. Cameron.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect of Christianity under most circumstances, but drawing from the same traditions). Somehow, though, I find this unlikely. I haven't bothered to look closely at the smaller and more fundamentalist sects. The Unitarians might have a different position; they seem the most likely. But they don't have enough voting members to succeed against the above. Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, so it's pretty hopeless. I've tried to appeal to your sense of fair treatment to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent people. Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient percentage of people on their own. I cannot respond to this in any fashion that is anything except pointless invective. While it would relieve some tension for me, it wouldn't really serve any long-term purpose. So, instead, I'll remove the source of tension. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpxelvR913qN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. Point to something general, and I'll say point to something specific.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:35:54AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: | You are totally rationalizing. *sigh* From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names: We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot is the cute and devilish daemon), with the first letter shared by the demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. Once again, the stated intent /was/ a punning reference to the BSD daemon. Like I said, go right ahead. I really want to see how this plays out.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: | | Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what | you hate. | | Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like | this... | | If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate | speech? No, but if you say you hate Jews, then many would claim you are. If you wanted to be cynical, you could point out which side won the second world war... Cameron.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Godwin. Copout. Yes, it is too bad he is copping (sp) out on discussing all sorts of things immediately relevant to the development of Debian. Can we please get back to some more pertinent flames? -- gram signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:43, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. I along with many others are looking forward to seeing John Ashcroft being kicked out. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect [...] Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. So which civil rights are you referring to? The Anglican church seems to be doing reasonably well in terms of civil rights recently (I think that they already have gay priests, and gay marriage is being debated). Quite a number of Anglican ministers and members of the congregation have defected to the Catholic church because of this (and they apparently are not missed at all). I haven't been following the matter closely, I haven't been an Anglican (or any type of Christian) for some time. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? -- gram signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect [...] Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. So which civil rights are you referring to? The Anglican church seems to be doing reasonably well in terms of civil rights recently (I think that they already have gay priests, and gay marriage is being debated). Quite a number of Anglican ministers and members of the congregation have defected to the Catholic church because of this (and they apparently are not missed at all). I haven't been following the matter closely, I haven't been an Anglican (or any type of Christian) for some time. Details in a private reply (and I'll send them to those who ask - privately; we're already so far off topic we're losing sight of dry land). The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as such, but they WILL recognize an oath of enduring commitment sworn before God, under their doctrines - or at least, that is the summation of the ceremony issue that I was given by a member of said clergy and long-time friend, about a month ago, after the ordainment of the Bishop that caused the latest not-quite-schism). My personal experience is, in fact, that most members of the Anglican communion that I have contact with are, at worst (for me), somewhat discomfitted by a clash between doctrine and principle. They are the same people who voted to allow the recent changes. Which is one reason why I take issue with organized religion far more often than with people who happen to be members of it, but don't have personal problems with my actions - they happen to be the most likely to vote (in secular elections) against the implied vote that the doctrinal statement would expect. Or, to steal a quote, A *person* is smart. *People* are dumb, stupid, panicky animals and you know it. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpdMydc6X9DA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Man, that is so fucking weak.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:12:21AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: I think you trimmed away content that was crucial for understanding the parts you did quote, but whatever. If you need reptition or elaboration, I'll provide it. Please do. I found nothing in your article that seemed to provide answers to my questions. I ask again: How do you suggest that the NetBSD people should have communicated their misgivings to us? One possibility would have been to not raise the trademark issues at all. Which would amount to saying We won't tell you why, but please change your name. I think that would be discouteous in the extreme. Possible approaches include: 1) don't ask, don't tell 2) order us to stop 3) grant us a license 4) Ask us nicely to stop. 1) is no longer on the table. They didn't do 3), though they might still. That leaves 2). And (4). I don't think you have provided *any* evidence that (4) was not what they did, and I think that to react as if (2) was the case would be silly and excessively confrontational. I'm generally in favor of a use or lose it approach to intellectual property, but this is more like be an asshole or lose it. I still cannot see how you imagine that they could have *told* us about their misgivings at all in a way that you wouldn't equal with being an asshole. -- Henning Makholm In my opinion, this child don't need to have his head shrunk at all.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:19:58PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:03, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be unacceptable about it, and why is it only a borderline
case? What would push it over the borderline?
Demons are evil, and the BSD mascot is a demon (albeit a stylised
Below is the first definition provided by the dict daemon command in
Debian.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Demon \Demon\, n. [F. d['e]mon, L. daemon a spirit, an evil
spirit, fr. Gr. dai`mwn a divinity; of uncertain origin.]
1. (Gr. Antiq.) A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a
middle place between men and deities in pagan mythology.
[1913 Webster]
I have no opinion either way, but, just to be fair, the full entry from
Webster's 1913 is:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Demon \Demon\, n. [F. d['e]mon, L. daemon a spirit, an evil
spirit, fr. Gr. ? a divinity; of uncertain origin.]
1. (Gr. Antiq.) A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a
middle place between men and deities in pagan mythology.
The demon kind is of an intermediate nature between
the divine and the human. --Sydenham.
2. One's genius; a tutelary spirit or internal voice; as, the
demon of Socrates. [Often written {d[ae]mon}.]
3. An evil spirit; a devil.
That same demon that hath gulled thee thus. --Shak.
--
gram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [snip] I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. Yeah, let's avoid conversation altogether, or only talk about the weather... [snip] /David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:24:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [snip] I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. Yeah, let's avoid conversation altogether, or only talk about the weather... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Damn, that was too easy.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:10:32AM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:24:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [snip] I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. Yeah, let's avoid conversation altogether, or only talk about the weather... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Damn, that was too easy. Sigh... It's obvious that it's hopeless to try to be ironic. Next time I'll do like anyone else and go for moronic instead. Regards: David Weinehall (Any bad mood on my part can probably be attributed to lack of sleep. A total of 5 hours the last few days isn't ideal...) -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Am 16.12.03 um 17:34:45 schrieb Will Newton: It is worth noting that any project name may also be used for associated domain names, file names etc., so ASCII is nice. Irrelevant with the advent of domain names containing arbitrary Unicode characters. Besides, as was said, there are easily identifiable ASCII-only versions of the proposed names (just like many people would recognize Smeagol, although that's not the way it's properly spelled). Bye, Mike -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:49:39PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 07:03:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:21:30PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote: I'll suggest Offler (or Om), Foorgol (I don't like Fate) and, um, some other god coming out of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, preferably whose name starts with an N. Or something like that. Mr. Pratchett's attorneys might take exception to that. If that's a real concern, then Ogg Vorbis is in a lot of trouble. :) Ah; I knew the Ogg Vorbis name came from contemporary fiction, but I've never read Pratchett (my two most recent reads have been _Blinded by the Right_ by David Brock and _Understanding Power_ by Noam Chomsky -- not the sort of works that are useful for mining code names :) ). Given that apparently unchallenged precedent, I'd agree it's unlikely that Pratchett names are risky choices. Still the nice thing about using old, old names like the ones I proposed is that you can be almost positive no one has a leg to stand on in any claim to own the name. -- G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:00:56PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:11:20AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Unfortunately, my experience with the topic tends to indicate that the same folks who care are very likely to consider there mere *concept* of a 'daemon' to be anathema, evil, foul, unclean, and all sorts of other descriptives. Cf. Jesux. ...which has gone for some years without attracting anyone who is both pious enough and clueful enough to develop it. I find this inverse correlation suggestive. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|No executive devotes much effort to Debian GNU/Linux |proving himself wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Laurence J. Peter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
