Re: complaint about a #debian chat operator
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 15:42, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Francis Crick wrote: > > I'll let the transcript speak for itself: > > > > ... foobarbaz is now known as pipeline > > ... pipeline was kicked off #debian by nagual (no status nicks, last > > warning) > > Which #debian (ie, on what network) is this, anyway? > > [Since this nagual person isn't on FN or OFTC.] > > > Don Armstrong > > -- > Frankly, if ignoring inane opinions and noisy people and not flaming > them to crisp is bad behaviour, I have not yet achieved a state of > nirvana. > -- Manoj Srivastava in [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu > I heard somewhere it was efnet.
Re: complaint about a #debian chat operator
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Francis Crick wrote: > I'll let the transcript speak for itself: > > ... foobarbaz is now known as pipeline > ... pipeline was kicked off #debian by nagual (no status nicks, last warning) Which #debian (ie, on what network) is this, anyway? [Since this nagual person isn't on FN or OFTC.] Don Armstrong -- Frankly, if ignoring inane opinions and noisy people and not flaming them to crisp is bad behaviour, I have not yet achieved a state of nirvana. -- Manoj Srivastava in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: complaint about a #debian chat operator
also sprach Francis Crick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.12.16.2344 +0100]: > bottom line: nagual shouldn't be an op in #debian i agree. sorry for the inconvenience. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
complaint about a #debian chat operator
I'll let the transcript speak for itself: ... foobarbaz is now known as pipeline ... pipeline was kicked off #debian by nagual (no status nicks, last warning) hey all :) i am pretty new to debian, and would appreciate anyoens help on sorting out a screen resolution problem i have, i have a nvidia mx400 graphics card and can't get bigger then a 800x600 resolution, can anyone assist ? ... pipeline [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined#debian nagual: "No status nicks, last warning" ? http://www.google.com/linux?hl=en&lr=&q=nvidia+mx400+resolution&btnG=Google+Search dont change nicks in here nagual: What the hell is that supposed to mean? That was for loststryk wanna be rude to me? thank you GenNMX am looking now Why doesn't the automated ban message just say "don't change nicks in #debian" ? :P just dont do it. please abide by these rules or leave Problem solved ... pipeline [EMAIL PROTECTED] has left #debian [Leaving] yeah you need to update that message buddy it says "no status nicks" which is something completely different from "don't change nicks" when i want your opinion ill ask for it look you don't have to be so rude just because you have kicking priveleges doens't mean you should make snide comments like that ... SignOff loststryk: #debian (Quit: Leaving) you think its rude that i tell you i dont really care about your opinions about how we run this channel? 'when i want your opinion i'll ask for it' is rude in any context nagual: you *are* rude haha ... mode/#debian [+b [EMAIL PROTECTED] by nagual >>> You have been kicked off #debian by nagual (nagual) ... [#debian] Banned from channel ... [#debian] Banned from channel bottom line: nagual shouldn't be an op in #debian
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > SPI already exists, and already owns Debian's trademarks. > > It holds them in trust. That is not the same thing. Right, that means it holds them but can't do anything unless directed by Debian. Kind of a catch-22 there. > > I don't believe that there's an absence of > > control and I find it amusing that you seem to think there is. > > You're delusional. > > Nobody in the project can tell me what to do. That's written into the > constitution. That wouldn't change. Funny enough, ideally we'd be *less* vulnurable to the whims of (certain) companies. > You have clearly been taken over by aliens. This shameless attempt to > turn Debian into a puppet of the US corporate government will not be > permitted to succeed. *I'm* delusional? Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some > > > thoughts along these lines before, I imagine. > > > > You're thinking about founding a corporation. There are plenty of > > those already. It is not necessary to hijack Debian's name and trademarks > > in order to do this. > > > > That corporation cannot and will not be the organisation currently > > referred to as 'Debian'. Nor could it do what Debian does. The absence > > of control is fundamental to our organisational structure. > > SPI already exists, and already owns Debian's trademarks. It holds them in trust. That is not the same thing. > I don't believe that there's an absence of > control and I find it amusing that you seem to think there is. You're delusional. Nobody in the project can tell me what to do. That's written into the constitution. You have clearly been taken over by aliens. This shameless attempt to turn Debian into a puppet of the US corporate government will not be permitted to succeed. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source (was: Google ads on debian.org)
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Currently: > > "We would like this to happen and can make it happen by donating hardware" > > Your proposed scenario: > > "We would like this to happen, and if we don't donate any hardware > then it will happen anyway because they'll just buy the kit" > > The only thing we gain in your scenario is the need to acquire > significant amounts of money on a regular basis. Not quite.. What I'd advocate is that we try to buy things we need first before asking for donations. If we have money available that isn't reserved or obligated for whatever then we should use it for whatever we need. If we don't have the funding available then we can ask for donations. I don't like the idea that we've got a bunch of money, and keep getting more, but don't spend *and* continue to ask for donations. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some > > thoughts along these lines before, I imagine. > > You're thinking about founding a corporation. There are plenty of > those already. It is not necessary to hijack Debian's name and trademarks > in order to do this. > > That corporation cannot and will not be the organisation currently > referred to as 'Debian'. Nor could it do what Debian does. The absence > of control is fundamental to our organisational structure. SPI already exists, and already owns Debian's trademarks. Sorry if you don't choose to believe it. I don't believe that there's an absence of control and I find it amusing that you seem to think there is. Regardless, even if there was I don't believe it's fundamental to our organisational structure (the fact that we *have* an organisational structure would imply the control you seem to feel doesn't exist). My feeling is that SPI and Debian should attempt to grow towards being self-sustaining, at least in terms of hardware and hosting and whatnot. I'm not saying the existing hardware/hosting should be dropped though, just that it'd be nice if we could afford to pay for it. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > I don't think we're talking about lottery-winning here. In my head > we're not talking about money going to developers either, initially. I > guess my vision is something like: > > Develop a dependable revenue stream unless current donation levels are > sufficient to act. > Begin to cover some of Debian's operating costs, mainly on-going costs > first, ie: bandwidth for master and other Debian infrastructure > machines, maintenance/upkeep for machines already owned, etc. > If there are requirements for additional machines and funds available, > then acquire those, if funds aren't available, then ask for donations of > hardware or money to cover them (this applies to everything, really). > Work to cover other costs- accounting help, asset tracking, etc, as > necessary. > Once Debian is covering it's normal operating costs (which, > unfortunately, probably aren't even tracked currently.. I don't know, > they should be tracked by SPI, really, but I seriously doubt anyone's > really thought about it at all) wrt bandwidth, equipment, accounting, > etc, *then* maybe look at possibly hiring on staff. No, it wouldn't be > possible to hire all developers at once or something silly like that. I > would tend to think infrastruture/coordination jobs would be first and > then, who knows, maybe someday we could all work for SPI on Debian- a > non-profit organization working in the public interest to develop and > build the best open-source operating system consistent with our SC. > > It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some > thoughts along these lines before, I imagine. You're thinking about founding a corporation. There are plenty of those already. It is not necessary to hijack Debian's name and trademarks in order to do this. That corporation cannot and will not be the organisation currently referred to as 'Debian'. Nor could it do what Debian does. The absence of control is fundamental to our organisational structure. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:59:55PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > The fact that Debian doesn't 'exist'... > > Organizations do not need to be incorporated to have legal existence. You can't sue it and it can't hold assets. It's just a group of individuals. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source (was: Google ads on debian.org)
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Debian is sustainable precisely because it operates without money. If > > we fall into the trap of just throwing money at problems then it will > > rapidly become the only way to solve any problem (how can we ask for > > hardware donations when we're willing to buy hardware?), and that > > isn't sustainable. > > Your hypothesis is, uhm, interesting. Ignoring the commercial aspect, > since you don't mention that as part of the concern here, you feel that > if Debian uses money from cash donations to buy hardware it needs that > companies won't donate hardware? I find it hard to believe that > companies who donate hardware to us only do it because they, > essentially, feel sorry for the poor street urchin. Currently: "We would like this to happen and can make it happen by donating hardware" Your proposed scenario: "We would like this to happen, and if we don't donate any hardware then it will happen anyway because they'll just buy the kit" The only thing we gain in your scenario is the need to acquire significant amounts of money on a regular basis. > > > Little hard to get much done when you don't have the involvment of the > > > largest (far and away) project- we've seen that before. > > > > That's SPI's organisational problem. We should not let it become our > > problem. > > > > Debian is not a part of SPI, and is not controlled by SPI. SPI seems > > to have difficulty in realising this. They hold our assets, nothing > > more. We need it to remain this way. SPI will just have to get used to > > it. > > This is (almost) amusing. I suppose Debian doesn't actually exist, > that's unfortuante, but perhaps that makes your hypothesis that it can't > exist if it has money almost make sense. What are you talking about? Debian is a loose affiliation of independent developers, whose assets are held in trust by various corporations, but which is not controlled by any of them. This is fundamental to how the project works. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: http://www.counterpunch.org/
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:38:04PM -0400, Jolanta Piorko wrote: > What the fuck is going on; is it your url? - http://www.counterpunch.org/ if > not get the fuck out of there I believe you're mistaken. Debian[1] is an international organization of volunteers who have made common cause to produce a freely-modifiable operating system and distribute it at no charge to the public. An operating system is the software which fundamentally operates a general-purpose computer. One component of an operating system can be a web server. If a web site is not configured with content by the people running it, a boilerplate page, such as the one you presumably saw, may be displayed instead. It is likely that Counterpunch's website experienced some technical difficulties. It is *not* likely that Counterpunch's website was defaced by the Debian Project or its members. We have no need to take through deception or intrusion what the many satisfied users of our operating system freely offer -- promotion of our cause and product through its use. But perhaps I need to speak in plainer language: If you're going to cop this kind of ignorant and hostile attitude to a worldwide, not-for-profit, cooperative venture, you'll probably find yourself more at home among frothy people like yourself -- political conservatives. You might find them at Little Green Footballs[2], example. I trust at such sites you'll enjoy the company of people addicted to slander, hysterical invective, and the aggrandizement of plutocratic corporate mercantilism much more than the comparitively sober, thoughful, and egalitarian fare that Mr. Cockburn and his colleagues produce. [1] http://www.debian.org/ [2] http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ -- G. Branden Robinson|It is the responsibility of Debian GNU/Linux |intellectuals to tell the truth and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |expose lies. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Noam Chomsky signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:40 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > said: > > > > Simple, the DPL selects them. We elected him, and that indicates > > > > that we trust his decisions on such matters as how to spend Debian > > > > funds in the best interest of Debian, etc. > > > > > > Hmm. I can just see DPL politics getting more vicious ... > > > > You'd prefer we send back the donations we're sent, or just accept them > > and not spend them at all? I don't like either of those. > > FWIW: I'd rather spend them when the time has come to spend them. *blink*, when's that? Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source
Stephen Frost wrote: > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:40 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Simple, the DPL selects them. We elected him, and that indicates > > > that we trust his decisions on such matters as how to spend Debian > > > funds in the best interest of Debian, etc. > > > > Hmm. I can just see DPL politics getting more vicious ... > > You'd prefer we send back the donations we're sent, or just accept them > and not spend them at all? I don't like either of those. FWIW: I'd rather spend them when the time has come to spend them. Regards, Joey -- No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly to answer. -- Perl book
Votre mail a Club-Internet
[English version below] Cher(e) internaute, Ceci est une réponse automatique à votre mail au webmaster de Club-Internet. Cette adresse est désactivée, votre mail ne sera donc pas lu. Afin de satisfaire votre demande, merci de bien vouloir utiliser le formulaire "Nous contacter" qui est disponible en ligne sur : http://www.club-internet.fr/ecriveznous N'oubliez pas que vous pouvez par vous-même gérer votre compte et trouver des réponses techniques en utilisant les sites ci-dessous : http://www.club-internet.fr/moncompte http://www.club-internet.fr/assistance Cordialement, Le Webmaster de Club Internet. __//__ Thank you for contacting Club-Internet's webmaster. In order to make this service faster and more efficient, we now invite you to fill out a short form at : http://www.club-internet.fr/ecriveznous and for abuse and incidents reports : http://www.club-internet.fr/hotline/abuse/?lang=en Thank your for your cooperation. Best Regards, Club-Internet Webmaster --- Extrait de votre message / Sample of your mail -- From: debian-project@lists.debian.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: M-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:17:10 +0100 Subject: Re: approved word document > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --=_NextPart_000_0016_6661.6AB2 > Content-Type: multipart/related; > boundary="=_NextPart_001_0017_6661.6AB2" > type="multipart/alternative" > > > --=_NextPart_001_0017_6661.6AB2 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="=_NextPart_002_0018_6661.6AB2" > > > --=_NextPart_002_0018_6661.6AB2 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="Windows-1252" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Authentication required. >
