Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021017 00:51]: In particular, I note that you seem to be grinding your axe about the issue from Bug#97671. No, you do me a disservice. That was not Debian's first severity war and it probably won't be the last. For new Developers the text might provide useful in their first ploddings around the BTS when they come across a paticularly nasty bug that is either hampering their package work and/or their work at a job. Some people initially think that the severities are really a great tool to gain priority if their defect matches (however vaguely) a list of standards. I would suggest that the documentation definately allows a reporter to set a severity as an initial suggestion, but leaves it after that point up to the developer. Obviously, RC-ness of any bug regardless of severity should be left up to the Release Manager. I'm saying this after being in at least one stupid flip-flop where I really didn't feel good about my actions after I really realised what the deal was. I would not presume to trump the authority of the BTS admins, to the extent that they choose to exercise it. However, they probably wouldn't like to make decisions in a vacuum, so I have offered my perspectives on I also agree. I would think the BTS admins would like this to be agreed upon in a social sense of etiquette rather than from upon high. -- Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ Many voters assume that their political leaders are hard at work on these issues. They are not. _Editorial: Time to choose / Who will deliver on transportation?_ http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3367890.html
Re: Microsoft's plans to kill open source: TCPA
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021103 23:38]: On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 12:19:44PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: FUD! FUD FUD FUD FUD!!! This is completely all wrong. Recently a talk was given at MIT by one of the designers of Microsoft Palladium (their trusted computing initiative) at MIT. I was at the talk, which received lots of coverage on sites like slashdot and arstechnica. I reel at your credulity, sir. No less a personage as Steve Ballmer has described FS/OSS as enemy number one, or words to that effect. Microsoft has bent its every division to a single goal in the past; it would be foolish to assume that they aren't doing so this time. I'm guessing that someday that TCPA disabled-ability could go away much now Microsoft has slowly made sure 'Per Connection' type licenses erode into 'Per User/Per Seat' licenses. (See: Terminal Services licensing for Windows 2000) Someday the only option will be that, if not only for the reason of non-TCPA hardware not having legit reasons for existing. In a world where most everyone is expected to be a consumer, and the consumer is best utilised as an income source via restrictive hardware, and perhaps the only software avaliable is for restricted hardware enablers like TCPA, why bother making full featured hardware for a small percentage of the market that isn't consumers? It should be quite easy at that point to institute some 'developer' fee such as the console manufacturers do to get the 'development' hardware that costs some horribly insane amount of money. Luckily, if this happens to x86 some day, everyone in 'Free' communities will have a damn good reason to leave this platform in droves. :) I doubt PPC will ever have this sort of issue. Of course, perhaps some other x86 platform companies (I think AMD is in the TCPA ring, right?) would most likely come up with some cool hardware to fill the void. Many users have happily changed licensing and EULA tolerances to use products that mean a lot to them. I don't think drastic changes in hardware freedom will change the masses significantly. Heck, worse yet, perhaps they can filter in some security misnomer-crap at some point to market it to the masses. At this point, however, it is in their best intrest to make sure their technology gets in place to accept the masses without alerting the technologically knowledgable. TCPA could easily become better 'law' than anything based on mass acceptance and market forces. -- Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ Many voters assume that their political leaders are hard at work on these issues. They are not. _Editorial: Time to choose / Who will deliver on transportation?_ http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3367890.html
Re: Microsoft's plans to kill open source: TCPA
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:35:17AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote: Luckily, if this happens to x86 some day, everyone in 'Free' communities will have a damn good reason to leave this platform in droves. :) From what I've read, this won't actually work: TCPA enabled systems will still run obsoleted operating systems like Linux and Windows XP, they just won't allow you to access some secret keys stored in tamperproof hardware. But OTOH, non-TCPA systems won't have the secret keys either, so you don't buy anything from switching. I doubt PPC will ever have this sort of issue. Mac hardware will if this gets remotely off the ground. There's no point trying to protect all your movies for online distribution if people are just going to spend a couple of grand on an Apple and Rip, Mix, Burn anyway. Of course, all you need is a security hole in your browser or OS, and you should be able to bootstrap your preferred OS on top of that. Doing so would probably be in violation of the DMCA and similar acts in non-US lands, though. At this point, however, it is in their best intrest to make sure their technology gets in place to accept the masses without alerting the technologically knowledgable. TCPA could easily become better 'law' than anything based on mass acceptance and market forces. TCPA doesn't have to become law. All you need is: * enough content providers to think the mechanism is effective, to make it so that if you don't have it you miss out on lots of cool stuff. Try spending a couple of weeks without, say, mp3s, flash, quicktime and realvideo for a while to get a taste. The big distributors are already addicted to obscene amounts of control, although people like Baen books (http://www.baen.com/) look like they're having good experiences gathering evidence for the opposite point of view. * technical measures that are difficult to reverse engineer, which is what TCPA is all about. * laws to make exploiting security bugs illegal even on your own system, which we already have or are getting in most of the free world. TCPA: propping up yesterday's business models, today. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.'' pgpuy65VrZqWH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microsoft's plans to kill open source: TCPA
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 05:29:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: * enough content providers to think the mechanism is effective, to make it so that if you don't have it you miss out on lots of cool stuff. Try spending a couple of weeks without, say, mp3s, flash, quicktime and realvideo for a while to get a taste. For what little it's worth, I'm not aware of anything significant that I've missed by not having flash, quicktime, or anything from real networks available on any of my systems. MPEG is another matter, though. [Things written in flash are usually devoid of content. Quicktime is too expensive for most people, and realvideo looks *awful* compared to mpeg 2 or 4]. Content providers tend to be more interested in apparent quality (not actual quality) than technology buzzwords or security. This probably won't help matters any if TCPA can wrap any media type, however. Somebody should think up something cool that would appeal to the mass market and that can't be done with TCPA. A really good media player that doesn't support it should do the trick. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgp1B3fKD8gNC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get upgrade
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:00, ..::jdb78::.. wrote: hi, i was just wondering why apt-get update /apt-get upgrade wont update ANY files since lets say about 2 months? are there new source.lists or is there no update anymore? I presume apt-get updzte reported some errors. What did they say? -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD; and the fruit of the womb is his reward.Psalms 127:3
Re: apt-get upgrade
Oliver Elphick wrote: On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:00, ..::jdb78::.. wrote: hi, i was just wondering why apt-get update /apt-get upgrade wont update ANY files since lets say about 2 months? are there new source.lists or is there no update anymore? I presume apt-get updzte reported some errors. What did they say? Or your source.list point to a obsolete mirror. Check http://www.debian.org/mirror/list and ev. update your source.list file
Re: apt-get upgrade
On Mon, 04 Nov 2002, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: I presume apt-get updzte reported some errors. What did they say? Or your source.list point to a obsolete mirror. Check http://www.debian.org/mirror/list and ev. update your source.list file Or you're running woody.. Martijn -- Ik BEN een search-engine - JHM
Re: apt-get upgrade
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Martijn van de Streek wrote: On Mon, 04 Nov 2002, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: I presume apt-get updzte reported some errors. What did they say? Or your source.list point to a obsolete mirror. Check http://www.debian.org/mirror/list and ev. update your source.list file Or you're running woody.. ...without security add-on. Check if you have something like the following in your /etc/apt/sources.list: deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free - Jonas -- Jonas Smedegaard (+45 40843136) http://dr.jones.dk/~jonas/ Spiff ApS (= IT-guide dr. Jones ApS) http://dr.jones.dk/ Debian GNU/Linux developer http://people.debian.org/~js/
Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the disputes document draft with me
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:06:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the -Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators. +A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, and the +Project Leader. As long as we're here, the the should be condensed to a single the. -- - mdz
Re: Microsoft's plans to kill open source: TCPA
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:30:20PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: AS [Things written in flash are usually devoid of content. I generally agree with your sentiment against all these proprietary media formats, but I'd also like to point out that, while we have Ogg Vorbis (and now Tarkin), we don't have free dynamic vector graphics format that could be used as a replacement for Flash. We may need no Flash, but we can't replace it with SVG :( -- Dmitry Borodaenko
Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the disputes document draft with me
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:06:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the -Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators. +A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, and the +Project Leader. Well, perhaps Ian will include this change in his next draft. Anyway, if following the proposed disputes between developers guidelines isn't enough to get the disputes about the document itself resolved, it's obviously not good enough as is. I've done my best to abide by the principles in the document as I understand them in the course of my conversation with Ian. He is unwilling to deal with me and cites only subjective grounds for the foundation of his decision. In my personal opinion, that stance fails to live up to the goals expressed in his draft. If that's the case, maybe someone who is afraid of disagreeing with Ian -- even though they'd already have the unsubtle precedent of both Branden and Manoj -- could speak up, and we could use that information to write a *better* document about resolving disputes. Personally, I haven't noticed Debian types to be particularly afraid of dissin' authority figures. Given no evidence to assume that it is, though, maybe we shouldn't leap to it as a conclusion just yet? I hadn't reached it as a conclusion (I can think of several other explanations, which are not mutually exclusive, maybe). I proposed it as plausible explanatory factor, and not even necessarily the sole one in operation. Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all inflated notions of the importance of this issue. Maybe most developers are willing to put up with the flamewars we have. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpayCUtQiiFv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the disputes document draft with me
Ian == Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: b) I objected to document being written apparently with the ratification of the *technical* committee, despite this not being a technical issue; and that too was dismissed with ``it is important to do so''; despite no other member of the committee ever having expressed any desire to expand the role of the committee beyond the initial charter. Ian Constitution 6.1(5) Ian 5. Offer advice. Ian The Technical Committee may make formal announcements about its Ian views on any matter. ((Individual members may of course make Ian informal statements about their views and about the likely views Ian of the committee.)) I posit then that there is no indication that these are anywhere close to the views of the techmnical committee, since there has been absolutely no discussion of far less the contents, but even the intent of creating such a document on the committee mailing list. Can I too start writing up documents and claim that they ar4e joint recommendations of the Technical committee? Since we are no longer restricted to technical issues, I have a few choice things to say about the dcma, the us senate elections, and a local councilman, (not to mention Kashmir and Iraq), and I'd love to have the tech ctte seal on these pronouncements. The right thing to have done, if you wanted the stamp of the committee, was to actually have sounded out the committee to see if the members were comfortable witht he intent, and the wording, of this documents. As one such member, I am comfortable with perhaps the former, but certainly not the latter. Ian Well, no-one but me is doing this. And there lies the rub. This is a social problem, and the solution must needs be social, not something that no one but you is doing. Ian I've tried talking to Branden and I've found it unproductive. Ian So, what I ought to do at this point is refer it to the project Ian leadership, but the project leader isn't answering his mail. So this document's recommended practices are already falling flat on their face. Sounds like we need better mechanisms, don't you think? Ian So I'm going to press ahead. Wonderful. I am in a dispute, I can't work it out, so I'll just press on ahead and do what I want. I notice that that is not what this document recommends -- so it is do what I say (even though it did not work for me), not as I do. Ian If you want to do it some different way, go ahead. In Ian particular, if you think this ought to be a GR then go and write Ian one up and see if you can get your sponsors to agree, and we can Ian end up having all the developers vote on every clause. We nee4d to have a decent document, with input from more than one person, to present to a GR. I note that you have ignored most of the people with concrete concerns that have actually posted here. Ian Personally I think that deciding process questions (like whether a bug Ian should be open or not under some circumstances) by voting is a very Ian bad idea. That's what we have the leadership for. What leadership exactly are you talking about? Ian I'm going to digress here somewhat on the `lurkers support me in Ian email' question: I a going to outright reject that these hypothetical lurkers have any bearing on a public social document that is supposed to govern the behaviour of the project members. A document like this needs to be processed in the public arenas; if these groupies actually do exists, I suggest they make their voices heard. I am tired of the impression that people have that important business in the project gets conducted behind closed doors by cigar chomping old boys of the cabal. So please stand up and be counted, people. manoj -- The question is, why are politicians so eager to be president? What is it about the job that makes it worth revealing, on national television, that you have the ethical standards of a slime-coated piece of industrial waste? Dave Barry, On Presidential Politics 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: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the disputes document draft with me
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Anthony Given no evidence to assume that it is, though, maybe we Anthony shouldn't leap to it as a conclusion just yet? For the record, I am afraid of disagreeing publicly with aj. manoj -- Be self-reliant and your success is assured. 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: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the disputes document draft with me
Matt == Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matt On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:06:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the -Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators. +A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, and the +Project Leader. Matt As long as we're here, the the should be condensed to a single the. As lonfgas we are here, we should actually state: +A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the Chairman of the Technical Committee Hmm. Joint? with whom? +A *DRAFT* recommendation of the Chairman of the Technical Committee. There. manoj -- Dishonor will not trouble me, once I am dead. Euripides 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
apt-get upgrade
Thank you very much for your help. i got woody with 2.4.18 kernel and the following /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ stable main contrib non-free deb ftp://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free deb http://debian.tu-bs.de/debian/ stable main contrib non-free deb ftp://ftp.leo.org/debian/ stable main contrib non-free deb http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/debian/ stable main contrib non-free deb http://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/Linux/debian/ stable main non-free contrib deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free #deb ftp://ftp.de.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free #deb ftp://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib just me, J.D. ..::drowning in my tears again::..
debian cd-image mirrors and US export restrictions
Hi for several weeks now I am dealing with the different methods of downloading the official cd images of the debian distribution. The hundred of mirrors containing the debian packages are clearly separated into those, which are located in the US, and those, which are not, because of the non-us tree, they are containing packages from. In contrast to the package servers, the debian cd image mirrors are not separated according to this circumstances. Also the ones located in the US are containing the non-us variant of the first iso image. I dont understand why the US exports regulations seems to have no influence on the distributing of the cd images, which contain US sensitive software packages. If anyone has an idea on this topic, I would be gratefull for any remark. Regards, Harald Katzer PS.: Please indulge my possibly bad English and spelling mistakes!
Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the disputes document draft with me
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:27:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Ian I'm going to digress here somewhat on the `lurkers support me in Ian email' question: I a going to outright reject that these hypothetical lurkers have any bearing on a public social document that is supposed to govern the behaviour of the project members. A document like this needs to be processed in the public arenas; if these groupies actually do exists, I suggest they make their voices heard. I am tired of the impression that people have that important business in the project gets conducted behind closed doors by cigar chomping old boys of the cabal. So please stand up and be counted, people. I've been lurking on this issue, and I must voice my opinion AGAINST the proposal as it stands now. Firstly, it seems to me at least that it has been brought forth entirely by Ian Jackson, with little or no support from the Technical Committee he claims he represents. Secondly, logical suggestions from developers have gone unconsidered. If it were to be approved, I'd simply ignore it. However, I think this argument is somewhat pointless (and quite ironic). The argument right now is: Ian Jackson, and some other members of debian-project, say that everyone should try to get along, in a way that he proposes. Branden Robinson, and some other members of debian-project insist that we get along in a somewhat different way. Both want to fight over it. -- Duncan Findlay pgpI2r1L4IuN9.pgp Description: PGP signature
[no subject]
Si ce message vous importune et ne plus en recevoir. allez sur: http://www.freevisit.net/maillistregions/gestion.html et Mille pardons pour ce désagrément Gérard Pour vous désabonner, allez sur :http://www.freevisit.net/maillistregions/gestion.html
