Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian in sync [1]: | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu. Besides having more time to make Squeeze a great Debian release, one could also revisit the need to support skip-upgrades if the freeze would be postponed. In his blog Lucas highlights the similarity between the next Ubuntu LTS and the next Debian release, but he also points out the need to differentiate us from Ubuntu. This sounds contrary. He also asks how we are relevant but does not give an answer [2]: | after the releases (both Ubuntu’s and Debian’s), users will get to | choose between two very similar distributions. We need to think about | how Debian will differenciate itself from Ubuntu: what should we | emphasize? How are we relevant? I hope he does not want to imply that we should let Ubuntu release for us anytime in the future. Some pros and cons of such a step have already been discussed in our wiki years ago [3]. Carsten * Or freeze again in December 2012 if one and a half year is not enough time between two Ubuntu LTS releases. [1] http://derstandard.at/fs/1246541995003/Interview-Shuttleworth-about-GNOME-30---Whats-good-whats-missing-what-needs-work [2] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=375 [3] http://wiki.debian.org/LetUbuntuReleaseForUs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:28:52PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: I also believe that December freeze is quite difficult for all parts involved. Another team that will have bigger problems is the security team but it is not yet clear how they will manage to support an extra release. Actually, the security team will probably have a hard time during the one-shot we allow skipping squeeze phase, but afterwards they will probably profit from being just a little behind Ubuntu. The rest of Debian won't. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian in sync [1]: | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu. I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
Neil McGovern maul...@halon.org.uk (30/07/2009): I disagree. The images for the males are just as suggestive. I have no issue at all with these. Ditto. Thanks for the nice work, Agnieszka! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Marc Haber wrote: I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. +1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
* Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de [2009-07-30 09:16]: I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. Couldn't have it phrased better. +1 Yours Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16, Marc Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian in sync [1]: | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu. I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. Absolutely +1 -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 07:56:31PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
I don't like much the illustration and prefer Kalle's design.
About the logo, I like current logo and don't see why we need a new one.
Well, there are arguments for having *some* changes to our current
logo. In particular we usually use the same image of it and simply
scale it up or down depending to the needs. On the contrary, usually
good logos (or icons FWIW) should have different versions meant to be
bigger or smaller. That way the smaller one can be simpler and look
better when printed. [1]
Those however are not good arguments to change a logo tout court,
especially if there is a logo which have been agreed upon by voting.
I wonder why, given those graphical talented people that we have
around, we don't come with precise requests, like: can you please
provide smaller version of our logos that look good when printed?.
Cheers.
[1] actually, we have some smaller and simpler version of our logo
around, but AFAIK we have never make official any of them
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Marc Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian in sync [1]: | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu. I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. I don't get why do you consider 18-to-24-month release cycles a desirable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. Is this just to stay out of sync with another deb-based distro? We are definitely not only major supplier to any other deb-based distro, and you act our end customers are really happy with not even knowing the date when we will freeze to our next release. Could you please also point out why that's bad to a set of our end customers? regards, -- Gustavo stratus Franco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:58:30AM -0700, Gustavo Franco wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Marc Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian in sync [1]: | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu. I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. I don't get why do you consider 18-to-24-month release cycles a desirable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. Is this just to stay out of sync with another deb-based distro? If we work _this_ hard to allow Ubuntu to get their LTS releases in sync with out stable releases in a way that allows Ubuntu to get a later KDE _and_ a later GNOME[1], things are running in the wrong direction. Why continue releasing stable in the first place then? We could freeze in December, thus missing both KDE and GNOME, and unfreeze when Ubuntu has detached itself before their release. Nobody would even think about using Debian stable when there is Ubuntu LTS with more recent software _and_ commercial support by its vendor available. That way, Debian would deteriorate into what OpenSUSE is for SLES and what Fedora is for RHEL - the technical playground for the unpaid developers who iron out the kinks from what will be the basis of the commercial release. I don't think that this is desireable. We are definitely not only major supplier to any other deb-based distro, Yes, currently. With the new release schedule, we will be. and you act our end customers are really happy with not even knowing the date when we will freeze to our next release. I do not think that we were too late with announcing our freezes in the past. What we did in the past was just fine, and I was very satisfied with the way etch and lenny were released. No need to change the system which we _FINALLY_ got running. At least we do not need to change if there is no advantage for us, only for our competitors. Greetings Marc [1] Assuming that KDE continues releasing Januar and July and GNOME continues releasing March and September -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote: In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't agree that doing it is only for Ubuntu's advantage. Nobody in Debian would have taken such a decision, we are Debian developers and have no interest in helping only Ubuntu. What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the sum of individual parts”. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. The synchronization with Ubuntu is not going to remove our identity. We'll keep our user base and the possible improvements in both distributions will help us do better in the competition with other operating systems (proprietary or not). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37, Raphael Hertzoghert...@debian.org wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote: In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't agree that doing it is only for Ubuntu's advantage. Nobody in Debian would have taken such a decision, we are Debian developers and have no interest in helping only Ubuntu. What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the sum of individual parts”. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. The synchronization with Ubuntu is not going to remove our identity. We'll keep our user base and the possible improvements in both distributions will help us do better in the competition with other operating systems (proprietary or not). Cheers, Me wholly agrees. Adding to that, the mighty Ian Murdock once stated that if Ubuntu wins, then Debian wins, that Ubuntu is like a variety of Debian. Ubuntu has got their market which Debian failed to capture anyways (desktop), so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing Debian as their upstream, so much the better, why not. And Ubuntu will keep growing whether Debian co-operates or not by the way, cuz their leadership is damn solid. There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So why worry about losing relevance. -- my place on the web: floss-and-misc.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:51:22PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: Hi, Agnieszka Czajkowska has presented this morning at DebConf a very nice redesign proposal off the Debian logo and the Debian website. She has been working on this all the last year as part of her master thesis in Design. You can take a look at her presentation at: https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz Watch first the deb_redesign-talk*.jpg images then debian_illustration*.jpg What do you think? :D I like her ideas. :-) The new simplified swirl looks cleaner, and it would be nice to move to a free-er font. The example changes to the website made it look much nicer, but there will clearly be a lot of work beyond the mock-ups to actually implement changes that we can use. Agnieszka, I hope you're talking already to Rhonda and the other debian-www folks to help work out those details... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com C++ ate my sanity -- Jon Rabone -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote: In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't agree that doing it is only for Ubuntu's advantage. Nobody in Debian would have taken such a decision, we are Debian developers and have no interest in helping only Ubuntu. I don't see the advantage for Debian short of probable ease of work for the security team (which doesn't seem to have commented yet). What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the sum of individual parts”. What kind of synergy could Debian get from Ubuntu which it couldn't get in the past? I surely haven't seen any in the past. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. The synchronization with Ubuntu is not going to remove our identity. It is going to harm our identiy. We'll keep our user base That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable? and the possible improvements in both distributions will help us do better in the competition with other operating systems Which improvements could Debian get from Ubuntu? An installer that doesn't ask any questions, or non-free proprietary (graphics) drivers? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing Debian as their upstream, google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually inside ubuntu.com. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 16:51, Ana Guerreroa...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Agnieszka Czajkowska has presented this morning at DebConf a very nice redesign proposal off the Debian logo and the Debian website. She has been working on this all the last year as part of her master thesis in Design. You can take a look at her presentation at: https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz Watch first the deb_redesign-talk*.jpg images then debian_illustration*.jpg What do you think? :D I love the website look and the logo (nice simple font and the swirl replacing the dot on 'i'), except I will really miss the splattered look of the current swirl. Please don't change the swirl. -- my place on the web: floss-and-misc.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16:26AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
hard to make it look like that.
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours.
No. I personally couldn't care less about what Mark and/or Ubuntu
want for their releases and corresponding release times.
*BUT*
I'm de facto already synchronizing with specific people working on
Ubuntu packages derived from packages I maintain in Debian. For
instance, that happens in the OCaml team (maintainer for about 100
source packages): after various years of completely rotten and often
unusable OCaml libraries in Ubuntu, now there is someone on the Ubuntu
side which cares about them and work with us. That's good, they sync
with the OCaml team periodically and contribute back patches.
The state of the art is that, to keep the advantages of collaboration,
I'm interested in satisfying requests like « can you please be
stable at DDMMYYY so that we can synchronize? ». According to the
release team plan I will need to do that a bit less frequently and I
like the idea.
Sure, I'm _scared_ like everybody else about having a freeze coming up
a few months after the summer. And hey, we have also ongoing very big
changes in all OCaml packages (basically we have completely changed
the dependency scheme and switched to automatic dependency
computation).
Still, my current attitude is « hey, let's try if we can do that, if
we can it will be really cool ».
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So why worry about losing relevance. Because if you lose relevance, you lose users (might them be individuals on the desktop or corporate entities on the server). When you lose users you lose contributors and you finally lose developers. In the end, the momentum (sic) slows down and you die. It *might* be that losing relevance on the desktop side is of little importance (which I believe it is _not_), but if corporate entities turn to use Ubuntu LTS because insert a bunch of valuable reasons instead of Debian stable, I fail to see how developers from these corporate entities will contribute to Debian and not to Ubuntu. A distribution without users is just worth nothing, no matter how irreplaceable its culture might be. In the end, synchronising Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS freezes will only make Debian stable appear as weaker (no commercial support, older software, not-so-greater stability, no longer support, less fancy) than Ubuntu LTS. Why would _anybody_ reasonable (and outside of the cultural thing) choose Debian stable over Ubuntu LTS ? Regards, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11, Marc Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing Debian as their upstream, google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually inside ubuntu.com. Greetings Marc debian site:www.ubuntu.com gives me over a hundred -- my place on the web: floss-and-misc.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11:12AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
inside ubuntu.com.
Search better: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian .
The page is one link away from the main Ubuntu site (follow
philosophy).
FWIW, that page has been added, rather quickly, after a precise
requests of ours, the history is available at
http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2007/10/debian_on_ubuntu_com_just_a_bug/
Bottom line: I have no particular problem with Ubuntu bashing, but
please get the facts right.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:28:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 30/07/09 at 11:17 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: It *might* be that losing relevance on the desktop side is of little importance (which I believe it is _not_), but if corporate entities turn to use Ubuntu LTS because insert a bunch of valuable reasons instead of Debian stable, I fail to see how developers from these corporate entities will contribute to Debian and not to Ubuntu. Seriously, do we just fear that synchronizing with Ubuntu will instantly remove all good reasons to use Debian? I'm a bit shocked that Debian developers seem to take for granted that the next Ubuntu LTS will be of better quality than Debian. That depends on what you define as better quality. Ubuntu LTS will definetely look better than Debian in magazine tests (because the installer looks better, doesn't ask any confusing questions and immediately delivers a graphical desktop on the nVidia graphics card that the test box has) and at distrowatch and its clones because it has more current KDE and GNOME, and probably a later kernel. In the end, synchronising Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS freezes will only make Debian stable appear as weaker (no commercial support, older software, not-so-greater stability, no longer support, less fancy) than Ubuntu LTS. Why would _anybody_ reasonable (and outside of the cultural thing) choose Debian stable over Ubuntu LTS ? If we can't provide an answer to that question, maybe we should make Debian a derivative distribution of Ubuntu? :-) That's what we have just made a huge step towards. I mean, Mark Shuttleworth already takes vital decisions for Debian and talks about them to the press before Debian even knows. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:28:01AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11:12AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually inside ubuntu.com. Search better: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian . That's the one hit I was refering to. FWIW, that page has been added, rather quickly, after a precise requests of ours, the history is available at http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2007/10/debian_on_ubuntu_com_just_a_bug/ So that page wasn't even their idea. Bottom line: I have no particular problem with Ubuntu bashing, but please get the facts right. I do. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17, Didier 'OdyX' Rabouddid...@raboud.com wrote: Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So why worry about losing relevance. Because if you lose relevance, you lose users (might them be individuals on the desktop or corporate entities on the server). When you lose users you lose contributors and you finally lose developers. In the end, the momentum (sic) slows down and you die. It *might* be that losing relevance on the desktop side is of little importance (which I believe it is _not_), but if corporate entities turn to use Ubuntu LTS because insert a bunch of valuable reasons instead of Debian stable, I fail to see how developers from these corporate entities will contribute to Debian and not to Ubuntu. A distribution without users is just worth nothing, no matter how irreplaceable its culture might be. In the end, synchronising Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS freezes will only make Debian stable appear as weaker (no commercial support, older software, not-so-greater stability, no longer support, less fancy) than Ubuntu LTS. Why would _anybody_ reasonable (and outside of the cultural thing) choose Debian stable over Ubuntu LTS ? You make some strong points here, but how is non-cooperation helping Debian? Debian releases are often behind Ubuntu upstream versions anyways (GNOME, KDE, Linux), so how did that help Debian? If Ubuntu benefits more than Debian, so what. Aren't we in this together? It's like stiffling progress in order to try remain relevant, and isn't that what non-free software vendors do? Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon. That's part of the irreplaceable culture that will ensure Debian's continued existence. -- my place on the web: floss-and-misc.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:58AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: We'll keep our user base That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable? You believe that Debian, releasing with approximately the same set of packages as an Ubuntu LTS but with a requirement to only release when ready instead of releasing on a fixed schedule as Ubuntu LTS will, offers no relevant differentiation at all for users? Doesn't this imply that everyone who continues using Debian today does so merely as an accident of the release schedule and the particular set of packages that land in a given Debian release? OTOH, perhaps you're saying that you think that the proposed sychronization will be successful, and as a result Ubuntu's quality will come up, eliminating a key differentiator between the two at present? and the possible improvements in both distributions will help us do better in the competition with other operating systems Which improvements could Debian get from Ubuntu? An installer that doesn't ask any questions, or non-free proprietary (graphics) drivers? There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers contribute fixes back to Debian today? While never committing to keep any given package in sync with Debian, Ubuntu developers certainly are actively engaged in pushing their changes upstream to Debian. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the sum of individual parts”. What kind of synergy could Debian get from Ubuntu which it couldn't get in the past? I surely haven't seen any in the past. As you might have noticed, Ubuntu is used by lots of people and they start having some influence on upstream projects. Those projects do some effort to ensure that Ubuntu has a good version of their software (sometimes by using a version that does not come from Debian sid). If Ubuntu and Debian used the same version, the incentive would be even bigger to publish a really good version because it's going to be used very widely in the next 3 years. Also in many cases, Ubuntu and Debian teams can't fully collaborate because they do not target the same upstream version, freezing at the same time should make it possible to achieve this goal. There are certainly challenges to turn this possibility in a reality but if we don't do the efforts to even make it possible, we're sure to get nothing out of what would be possible. We certainly have to see whether Ubuntu is going to do some efforts to go in the same direction, but I certainly hope that they will. We'll keep our user base That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable? Why are you using Debian and not Ubuntu? For me: - Debian is where we shape the future - Debian's goals/principles are in sync with my own values - Debian can be used on embedded targets - Debian is stable and more tested (even if we freeze at the same time, we're likely to release after Ubuntu with way more fixes than Ubuntu) This is not going to change and as long as that's true, Debian won't die as we will keep an active development community. I'm also quite convinced that by doing better communication/marketing that explains what we are, we can continue to attract new users and new developers. World domination does not start with competing with Ubuntu but with competing with all the proprietary systems out there and for this we would certain benefit from more cooperation with Ubuntu. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Thomas Viehmann wrote: After the talk Bdale commented about the length of the freeze and the made observation (actually had a complaint) that the length of the freeze is something were not the release team, but the project at large should ask itself what to do better. That has not happened. And that why you have so many RC bugs, including so many trivially fixable ones. This is actually my main worry regarding the very early freeze date. For both Etch and Lenny, although the actual full freeze was somewhere around December, the start of the whole freeze and release process was *way* earlier: around July! That means: we're already too late. IMO freezing in December without adequate preparation will only mean that we'll end up being frozen for most of 2010 and release somewhere at the end of 2010, not in April. I expect that a lot of developers will simply continue with their current plans based on the original 18-24 months release schedule, especially given the totally botched way this new plan was introduced. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:19:58AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
The problem of lenny's long freeze was in part that there was so few
people working on the release and on fixing RC bugs. And that
deficit also shows in the quality of lenny. If people feel that
flamewars are needed to keep Debian relevant, how about flaming the
people sitting on their unfixed RC bugs instead of always focusing
on the release team?
snip
You know what another great way is to make Debian irrelevant? Make
sure that releases are impossible because nobody wants to be the
release manager.
Applause.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:51, Raphael Hertzoghert...@debian.org wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote: That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable? Why are you using Debian and not Ubuntu? For me: - Debian is where we shape the future - Debian's goals/principles are in sync with my own values - Debian can be used on embedded targets - Debian is stable and more tested (even if we freeze at the same time, we're likely to release after Ubuntu with way more fixes than Ubuntu) This is not going to change and as long as that's true, Debian won't die as we will keep an active development community. This is what I call the great and irreplaceable Debian culture, or what Martin Krafft calls The Debian System. Sorry if I sound like a fanboy, but it's with good reason. World domination does not start with competing with Ubuntu but with competing with all the proprietary systems out there and for this we would certain benefit from more cooperation with Ubuntu. Excellent points you put up here. Wow! -- my place on the web: floss-and-misc.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:19:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: The new simplified swirl looks cleaner, and it would be nice to move to a free-er font. The differences between the free/not-free fonts in the sample logos are so small that I seriously doubt anyone other than a font geek would (a) notice, or (b) bother looking... Regarding the risque-ness of the illustrations: it's possibly a shame that debian_illustration1.jpg is the first in the sequence (it somewhat sets a level of expectation); but it's also a shame that people seem not to have noticed the tagline at the top left - for that image it's software with passion and the image is a play on those words. Having read much of this thread before I had chance to view the images, I find I like them more than I expected to. I'd be happy to see them used to advertise Debian. Cheers, Dave -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: Hi, The new simplified swirl looks cleaner, and it would be nice to move to a free-er font. I'm sorry to say, but the simplified swirl sucks plain and simple and the free font is so bad I'd be ashamed to use it for a logo (actually it's so bad I'd rather use Comic Sans). Also that font is so standard it's not recognizable; it doesn't have anything special, eye-catching like our current logo has. It's a FAIL. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - jbla...@debian.org Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: Hi, I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. For the record: I concur fully with Marc's statement above. Changing our release policy to match Ubuntu's LTS, changing our well-established, well-recognized logo for a simplified crap that has nothing special to it... What next? If some of our core teams members feel like they'd rather work on Ubuntu, then, by all means, please go ahead and arrange that with Shuttleworth. You'll be better for everybody. Turning Debian into Ubuntu's bitch, however, is not a viable way forward for anybody involved. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - jbla...@debian.org Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:27, Julien BLACHEjbla...@debian.org wrote: Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: Hi, I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. For the record: I concur fully with Marc's statement above. Changing our release policy to match Ubuntu's LTS, changing our well-established, well-recognized logo for a simplified crap that has nothing special to it... What next? So much anger! The logo thing is mere proposal. If some of our core teams members feel like they'd rather work on Ubuntu, then, by all means, please go ahead and arrange that with Shuttleworth. You'll be better for everybody. Turning Debian into Ubuntu's bitch, however, is not a viable way forward for anybody involved. Don't you think you should have kept quite instead of cursing like this? Did you read Steve Langasek's and Raphael Hertzog's points for one? Did Ubuntu eat your kittens? -- my place on the web: floss-and-misc.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:21:43PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: I'm sorry to say, but the simplified swirl sucks plain and simple and the free font is so bad I'd be ashamed to use it for a logo (actually it's so bad I'd rather use Comic Sans). Also that font is so standard it's not recognizable; it doesn't have anything special, eye-catching like our current logo has. It's a FAIL. Thank you for your positive contribution, much appreciated. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
So what? [Was: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes]
After one day and more of flaming about the subject, may I summarize - with my John Doe Debian Developer hat on - what it seems a few points catched and ask RMs about their thoughts on them? I woud prefer the project did a little step forward instead of flaming and complaining only. - A freeze every two years could be viable/appropriate to many, or at least it seems so. This is basically not so different from the current 'unofficial' policy. - A freeze in December for squeeze is probably too early for many teams. Maybe next spring/summer is more appropriate and acceptable? - A so long support and roadmap for squeeze and squeeze+1 is probably not justifiable/difficult to support/what else... - Next time, any team that would take a decision which impacts the whole project have to be fair and consult the project as a whole, before unilateral actions. That's appropriate even if the team is acting within its own limits of decision making, as in this case. This appears as responsible and appropriate to the most. This is a general recommendation and does not require comments, probably. Folks, be pragmatic and do required steps to find a common shared idea. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Hello, On ketvirtadienis 30 Liepa 2009 11:37:46 Raphael Hertzog wrote: I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't agree that doing it is only for Ubuntu's advantage. Nobody in Debian would have taken such a decision, we are Debian developers and have no interest in helping only Ubuntu. What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the sum of individual parts”. Debian might not bleed too much in terms of existing users, but it might not attract more new ones. You fail to sees that Ubuntu has a huge marketing machine behind it which will overshadow Debian. And why wouldn't they? They make (most?) money from LTS which is in fact aimed at corporate workstations and servers - the majority user base of Debian stable users. Since Ubuntu will do their best on this front so it might make sense to avoid this disadvantage (since we objectively can't do better in marketing). What is more, we are indeed forgetting that Ubuntu releases each 6 months. Whenever Debian freezes, it already benefits some Ubuntu release(s) (and vice versa). So this is just a proof that this freeze date is aimed specially at Ubuntu LTS. Actually, I don't see much wrong with that (despite concerns I expressed above) and this could very well be a future goal (for Dec 2011). But no, Debian has (for some unknown reason) to do this now (Dec 2009) and in my humble opinion mess up developers' plans (which might result in demotivating them), end up in long freeze due to huge number of RC bugs, planned but not done/rushed transitions (demotivated people, less work done) and finally release in the end of 2010 with old software. In addition, now Debian puts more burden on security team and everyone requiring to support both lenny and squeeze of their packages which would have been plain unnecessary if the next release date would not be rushed and so badly communicated (which for some reason is not admitted either). So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and aim for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten me why Debian needs to rush _this time_. If synchronization is so badly wanted for the next Debian release, why not to synchronize with Ubuntu 10.10 (as an experiment)? By the way, why isn't it obvious that Debian developers _want_ to be informed about important decisions in advance, not from the press *after* the fact or any other source outside the project? We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. The synchronization with Ubuntu is not going to remove our identity. We'll keep our user base and the possible improvements in both distributions will help us do better in the competition with other operating systems (proprietary or not). Synchronization will not remove Debian identity. However, what's badly needed here is *official* position about Debian vs. Ubuntu relationship. Currently, there is absolutely no clarity about that (some hints are coming only from Ubuntu side which is frustrating). It is obvious to anybody that Dec 2009 was chosen to accommodate Ubuntu LTS release cycle, yet any official announcement failed to mention that (is Debian afraid of it?). On the other hand, Mark Shuttleworth said this openly (which means, he thinks it is good for Ubuntu). Let's just make this relationship clear one day. Everybody would benefit from that even if they do not like it. -- Modestas Vainius modes...@vainius.eu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Debian redesign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:19:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: The new simplified swirl looks cleaner, and it would be nice to move to a free-er font. The example changes to the website made it look Might it be worth considering using the new font so on even if we end up keeping the current swirl? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: So what? [Was: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes]
Hello, On ketvirtadienis 30 Liepa 2009 13:49:42 Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: After one day and more of flaming about the subject, may I summarize - with my John Doe Debian Developer hat on - what it seems a few points catched and ask RMs about their thoughts on them? I woud prefer the project did a little step forward instead of flaming and complaining only. - A freeze every two years could be viable/appropriate to many, or at least it seems so. This is basically not so different from the current 'unofficial' policy. - A freeze in December for squeeze is probably too early for many teams. Maybe next spring/summer is more appropriate and acceptable? - A so long support and roadmap for squeeze and squeeze+1 is probably not justifiable/difficult to support/what else... - Next time, any team that would take a decision which impacts the whole project have to be fair and consult the project as a whole, before unilateral actions. That's appropriate even if the team is acting within its own limits of decision making, as in this case. This appears as responsible and appropriate to the most. This is a general recommendation and does not require comments, probably. Folks, be pragmatic and do required steps to find a common shared idea. +1 to all points. Very well summarized my POV. -- Modestas Vainius modes...@vainius.eu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:51:22PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: Hi, Hi, Agnieszka Czajkowska has presented this morning at DebConf a very nice redesign proposal off the Debian logo and the Debian website. She has been working on this all the last year as part of her master thesis in Design. You can take a look at her presentation at: https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz Watch first the deb_redesign-talk*.jpg images then debian_illustration*.jpg What do you think? :D Personally I think it's a wonderful work, and a very interesting exercise in producing a debian marketing campain. I agree with the mixed feelings about the tout court logo changing (which, if it happens, should anyway be sanctioned by GR, as the last one was decided that way, as correctly recalled by someone) but the simplified swirl can definitely be used in a lot of situations, and the proposed website looks very nice! As for the images I don't share the concerns some have expressed, and think they're just a marketing campain. Some are probably better and to the point, and some might be less, but I don't think we should be offended by them. Just as an example I'll include a link to a picture for a commercial for the HTC magic (which I randomly happen to have on my laptop because, working for Google, I found it funny and took a picture of it): http://people.debian.org/~ultrotter/misc/q1050732.jpg I don't think people will be offended by looking at it, as they won't be offended by looking at pixelgirl's images. If it conveys or not its message I'm not 100% sure, but it's not for me to say (I'm not an expert in the field). In pixelgirl's case for example I think the reliable parner image is a nice pun, and goes to the point, while the software with passion one is less, and wouldn't put bugs in advertisement, but then someone else might think differently, and I don't think we should be in the business of censoring ideas/art! :) Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon. Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make them feel that they are working for him, which can be a great demotivation. That's part of the irreplaceable culture that will ensure Debian's continued existence. The culture may be irreplaceable, but irreplaceability does not ensure continued existence. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 01:09:35PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: For three, what happened to getting the firmware issue resolved early in squeeze's cycle [1]? It's evidently no longer early in squeeze's cycle, so maybe I just somehow missed the decision on that... [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/05/msg0.html For those who didn't see this post [womble] on Planet Debian already: [womble]http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/status-of-firmware-in-debian Status of firmware in Debian A question from AJ reminded me that I haven't said much about the changes to packaging of firmware in Debian, and in particular the separation of non-free firmware from the Linux kernel. Linux kernel packages There is an ongoing process upstream to move firmware blobs from drivers into a firmware/ subdirectory of the source, which is now almost complete. Since most of this firmware is non-free, we remove it from the source tarballs for kernel packages but use it to update the firmware-nonfree source package. We continue to patch some drivers to separate out firmware, and have been submitting our changes upstream. Most of these have been accepted though the DRI drivers matrox, r128 and radeon are notable exceptions. A few months ago I attempted to make a new inventory of the remaining firmware blobs [inventory] outside of the firmware/ subdirectory. I identified three that should still be addressed. The Linux-libre [libre] project, however, removes many other constant arrays from the kernel [arrays] (and disables the affected drivers) where I judged the array to be a plausible preferred form of modification. Firmware packages Much of the non-free firmware removed from the kernel is now available in the firmware-linux package in the non-free section of the Debian archive. Starting with Linux 2.6.31, we will build the DFSG-free firmware shipped with Linux into a package called firmware-linux-free, which will be recommended by kernel image packages. The contents of firmware-linux will be moved to firmware-linux-nonfree and firmware-linux becomes a meta-package depending on the other two packages. Many other firmware images [others] never distributed with Linux are also packaged for the benefit of users that require them. [inventory] http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing#Inventory [libre] http://linux-libre.fsfla.org/ [arrays]http://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/ [others]http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/firmware-nonfree Does that mean we can now pass something along the lines of [reaffirm] for squeeze and expect minimal (or no) effect on the release? If so, that seems like a major cause for celebration, no? [reaffirm] http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003#texta Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote: On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon. Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make them feel that they are working for him, which can be a great demotivation. That's why it would be interesting to hear some concrete ideas how useful this would be for the parties. How pros and cons balance? I'll start: Ubuntu == + Ubuntu always gets a frozen and pretty stable system even if they don't communicate at all with Debian. (This is just a mind exercise, I'm sure there is some collaboration.) + Better-quality LTS releases. Happier users and customers. + More collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu package maintainers and teams. Debian == + More collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu package maintainers and teams. - Debian developers may feel that it's Ubuntu which they are working for in the end. Possibly with the feeling that some of the decision-making escapes the Debian developer community. Can be demotivating. - OK, Ubuntu x.04 was released in April but because of their lower quality standards and the 6-month release cycle they most likely won't be helping Debian to fix the rest of the difficult RC bugs. They are already working on their next 6-month period. Ubuntu gets a lot of publicity because of the release but Debian always comes too late, literally always after Ubuntu. (It's worth the wait for many people but the possible negative publicity can be demotivating for Debian community.) A couple of months later eventually the RC bugs are fixed in Debian and there is a release. Ubuntu will apply some of the bug fixes to their LTS x.y.1 releases (3-month point release cycle). This can make some Debian developers feel that Ubuntu gets something for free again without contributing back. Can be demotivating. + Debian's quality probably won't decrease (except for Squeeze maybe). + [Please invent more concrete benefits for Debian developers and users.] Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. After all what do I know? I'm not a Debian developer, just a user. Thanks you, all developers! :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Teemu Likonen wrote: On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote: Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make them feel that they are working for him, which can be a great demotivation. That's why it would be interesting to hear some concrete ideas how useful this would be for the parties. How pros and cons balance? I'll start: Ubuntu == + Ubuntu always gets a frozen and pretty stable system even if they don't communicate at all with Debian. (This is just a mind exercise, I'm sure there is some collaboration.) + Better-quality LTS releases. Happier users and customers. + More collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu package maintainers and teams. Debian == + More collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu package maintainers and teams. - Debian developers may feel that it's Ubuntu which they are working for in the end. Possibly with the feeling that some of the decision-making escapes the Debian developer community. Can be demotivating. - OK, Ubuntu x.04 was released in April but because of their lower quality standards and the 6-month release cycle they most likely won't be helping Debian to fix the rest of the difficult RC bugs. They are already working on their next 6-month period. Ubuntu gets a lot of publicity because of the release but Debian always comes too late, literally always after Ubuntu. (It's worth the wait for many people but the possible negative publicity can be demotivating for Debian community.) A couple of months later eventually the RC bugs are fixed in Debian and there is a release. Ubuntu will apply some of the bug fixes to their LTS x.y.1 releases (3-month point release cycle). This can make some Debian developers feel that Ubuntu gets something for free again without contributing back. Can be demotivating. + Debian's quality probably won't decrease (except for Squeeze maybe). + [Please invent more concrete benefits for Debian developers and users.] + Security fixes prepared for Ubuntu will be (sometimes ?) applicable directly to Debian, which would be a reduction in workload for the Debian Security team. (Or phrased differently: Debian and Ubuntu security teams will be able to prepare security fixes together, for the same frozen versions.) - At the release date, the gap between released software and upstream development versions is bigger in Debian stable than it was in Ubuntu LTS when it released. This gap is maybe not important for stability and for the quality of Debian stable, but it can be in the users' eyes. Remember that most non-corporate Ubuntu users will use the latest released version of Ubuntu. By such, they are getting stabilised versions 3-4 times during one Debian stable release cycle. Having Debian stable outdated (with regards to upstream released versions) is normal and intended. But having the releases synchronised will IMHO make Debian and Ubuntu LTS very similar. I initially thought that this would favor Ubuntu, but it might not be necessarily true in the end. Thanks you, all developers! :-) Thank you for summarizing my thoughts in a somewhat more constructive and calm way than I did. Regards, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: + Security fixes prepared for Ubuntu will be (sometimes ?) applicable directly to Debian, which would be a reduction in workload for the Debian Security team. (Or phrased differently: Debian and Ubuntu security teams will be able to prepare security fixes together, for the same frozen versions.) I doubt the Release Team will accept a new GNOME, KDE, X, and Kernel after the freeze in December, in which case Debian and Ubuntu LTS won't have the same major components, since e.g. in the case of GNOME, we would ship the GNOME released in September, and Ubuntu would ship the one released in March. So unless we freezed way later, this wouldn't be true AFAICS. Cheers, Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Teemu Likonen wrote: Debian == - The completely voluntary nature of the project does not really lend itself to hard timelines. If it turns out on the planned date of the freeze that there are still major issues open, we need to be flexible enough to delay the freeze. Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the success of both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks to flexible starts of the incremental freeze stages. Given Debian's release history it is IMO wishful thinking to expect to be able to freeze on a set date. There is simply no way you can direct anybody to work on specific issues *now* because the freeze is coming. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On 2009-07-30, Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: I don't see the advantage for Debian short of probable ease of work for the security team (which doesn't seem to have commented yet). The synergy is negligable, since the most time-consuming elements (testing, handling the buildds and the release) need to be done individually anyway. Also, Ubuntu supports only a subset of Debian with security updates. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: So what?
Francesco P. Lovergine fran...@debian.org writes: - Next time, any team that would take a decision which impacts the whole project have to be fair and consult the project as a whole, before unilateral actions. That's appropriate even if the team is acting within its own limits of decision making, as in this case. This appears as responsible and appropriate to the most. This is a general recommendation and does not require comments, probably. Thank you for saying it, since it does seem to get overlooked too often (not only on this issue). -- \ “Sometimes I — no, I don't.” —Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:49:48AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: Doesn't this imply that everyone who continues using Debian today does so merely as an accident of the release schedule and the particular set of packages that land in a given Debian release? That and the fact that upgrades between Debian stable releases are easier (or, at least, more officially supported) than from Debian to Ubuntu. At the moment I could recommend Debian stable over Ubuntu LTS because it has more recent packages (2009/02 release versus 2008/04 release), or because it's an easier upgrade for people with existing Debian systems. With synchronised releases, both those reasons to run stable disappear. OTOH, perhaps you're saying that you think that the proposed sychronization will be successful, and as a result Ubuntu's quality will come up, eliminating a key differentiator between the two at present? I'm not aware of any apples-to-apples comparisons of Debian's and Ubuntu's quality; but personally I haven't seen much evidence that Debian's is significantly superior (NB: I haven't used Ubuntu LTS personally, though). The tradeoffs to me seem to be: Debian stable Ubuntu LTS 2 year rel cycle 2 year rel cycle 3 years security 3 years desktop security, 5 years server guaranteed freeze dateguaranteed release date support for all pkgs support for main, best-effort for universe stabilise from testingupgrade support from previous Ubuntu 6mo release upgrade from oldstableupgrade support from previous Ubuntu LTS (?) support for 6-12 archssupport for 2-3 architectures availability of pre-installed systems full-time security support staff commercial quality support larger userbase some additional packages Having stable and LTS have mostly the same packages makes apples-to-apples quality comparisons easier, which might be good or bad for Debian depending on what the difference is. It'll make cross-grades from Debian to Ubuntu fairly easy, removing most of the lock-in on Debian's behalf; and probably vice-versa. For otherwise unsupported packages in Ubuntu universe, any security problem that Debian notices can be copied straight into Ubuntu due to synced package versions, making best-effort mean at least as good as Debian, so there's no drawback to using packages in universe. So afaics, Ubuntu LTS looks to be the better system to use in all but niche cases (non-x86/amd64 machines). There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers contribute fixes back to Debian today? Ubuntu has a well-defined and efficient process for accepting changes from Debian (pull from unstable regularly), Debian doesn't have a similarly efficient process for getting contributions from Ubuntu (Ubuntu folks file a bug, maintainer eventually incorporates it), and that'll presumably be made worse if there's a Debian freeze for most of the LTS development cycle. So yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect Debian won't get that many benefits from work on Ubuntu LTS into the corresponding stable release. Testable/refutable claim: my impression is most changes developed for an Ubuntu release don't make it into Debian testing/stable until after that release is out. I'm not particularly bothered by this in and of itself -- if Ubuntu LTS becomes better in every way than Debian stable is now, well great: let's all use that instead! Benefits of free software, etc! But if stable doesn't get used much because LTS releases (or short-term-support Ubuntu releases) are way better, I expect that will have a flow-on effect making testing and unstable less useful/effective, which in turn will make Ubuntu less useful/effective. That doesn't sound like a fun outcome for anyone to me. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote: So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and aim for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten me why Debian needs to rush _this time_. If synchronization is so badly wanted for the next Debian release, why not to synchronize with Ubuntu 10.10 (as an experiment)? Luk explained in the RM keynote that they do not want the freeze to conflict with debconf so that developers are free to work on new stuff aimed at unstable in this (usually productive) week. That said, I do not think that this concern alone is enough for us to rush a squeeze release and I agree that it would also be reasonable to just target a freeze somewhere in the middle of next year and leave an opportunity to cooperate with Ubuntu for their 10.10 release. It would mean that their next LTS release that would be in sync with Debian 7.0 will be 12.04 which is less than their 2/2.5 years release cycle for LTS. They can probably cope with that though. By the way, why isn't it obvious that Debian developers _want_ to be informed about important decisions in advance, not from the press *after* the fact or any other source outside the project? It really depends on the decision, for example the decision to join opensource for america was taken without prior discussion and it's ok for me. But something that has such a direct impact on the work of DD ought to be discussed a bit and at least announced to DD at the same time that it's announced to the users/press... but with content that is adjusted for them so that we do not have to read between the lines (I knew the context because I was at the keynote where this has been presented but not everybody was there). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: So what?
Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 23:17 +1000 schrieb Ben Finney: Francesco P. Lovergine fran...@debian.org writes: - Next time, any team that would take a decision which impacts the whole project have to be fair and consult the project as a whole, before unilateral actions. That's appropriate even if the team is acting within its own limits of decision making, as in this case. This appears as responsible and appropriate to the most. This is a general recommendation and does not require comments, probably. Thank you for saying it, since it does seem to get overlooked too often (not only on this issue). Anyone remembers the `Kicking off Squeeze' mail to d-d-a? [0] Here some quotes from it: The main aim of the Release Team is to help the Project deliver a release the developers will be proud of, with a development process they’ll find satisfactory, and with a balanced timeline that will meet the needs of developers and end-users. So, here’s our deal for the Squeeze development cycle, during which we will: * actively seek and act upon feedback and criticism from the developers, in order to prevent past mistakes from happening again, and improve the interaction between the RT and the rest of the project. * engage in discussions with the developers at large, as well as particular groups and teams, to get a clear picture of what their concerns, objectives and proposed solutions are. What I understand from following this topic about it, this isn't exactly the truth with the new squeeze release cycle. I don't know if it's good or not to have a fixed freeze date synced with Ubuntu, but I agree that the way this was decided and communicated to the developers wasn't that great. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/03/msg00011.html -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote: Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the success of both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks to flexible starts of the incremental freeze stages. The staged freeze has been a major pain for anyone working on the packages affected by the first stage of the freeze. For dpkg/dpkg-dev we could not go forward for almost 8 months. There's no reason why we can't freeze all at the same time (or really have very short delays between each stage of the freeze). The fixed date makes it much more easy for everybody to remember when the freeze starts and plan accordingly. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote: Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the success of both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks to flexible starts of the incremental freeze stages. The staged freeze has been a major pain for anyone working on the packages affected by the first stage of the freeze. For dpkg/dpkg-dev we could not go forward for almost 8 months. I agree that the first freeze stage was started too early (when the list of open issues was clearly still to long) and that the delay between the stages could and should be shorter. There's no reason why we can't freeze all at the same time (or really have very short delays between each stage of the freeze). The fixed date makes it much more easy for everybody to remember when the freeze starts and plan accordingly. Well, we've had fairly clear announcements for when the freeze was supposed to start for the past three releases. And we did not make them. I personally don't think a fixed freeze date is really going to change that. I could be wrong though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 03:24:03PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote: So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and aim for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten me why Debian needs to rush _this time_. If synchronization is so badly wanted for the next Debian release, why not to synchronize with Ubuntu 10.10 (as an experiment)? Luk explained in the RM keynote that they do not want the freeze to conflict with debconf so that developers are free to work on new stuff aimed at unstable in this (usually productive) week. That's probably a good point to avoid that. But given that Squeeze is going to be an exception by the short release cycle anyway, why can't we add another exception that the first freeze is not December, even if it means the other implied exception is that we are in freeze for Debconf *10* (and not for every Debconf)? -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:52:43AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:19:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: The new simplified swirl looks cleaner, and it would be nice to move to a free-er font. The example changes to the website made it look Might it be worth considering using the new font so on even if we end up keeping the current swirl? I'd be happy to consider that, yes. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site... -- Simon Booth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
Guido Trotter ultrot...@debian.org (30/07/2009): Personally I think it's a wonderful work, and a very interesting exercise in producing a debian marketing campain. I agree with the mixed feelings about the tout court logo changing (which, if it happens, should anyway be sanctioned by GR, as the last one was decided that way, as correctly recalled by someone) but the simplified swirl can definitely be used in a lot of situations, and the proposed website looks very nice! As for the images I don't share the concerns some have expressed, and think they're just a marketing campain. Some are probably better and to the point, and some might be less, but I don't think we should be offended by them. Just as an example I'll include a link to a picture for a commercial for the HTC magic (which I randomly happen to have on my laptop because, working for Google, I found it funny and took a picture of it): http://people.debian.org/~ultrotter/misc/q1050732.jpg I don't think people will be offended by looking at it, as they won't be offended by looking at pixelgirl's images. If it conveys or not its message I'm not 100% sure, but it's not for me to say (I'm not an expert in the field). In pixelgirl's case for example I think the reliable parner image is a nice pun, and goes to the point, while the software with passion one is less, and wouldn't put bugs in advertisement, but then someone else might think differently, and I don't think we should be in the business of censoring ideas/art! :) I guess I'm not used to do that very often, but that would those little “+1” characters. We discussed that quite extensively with Guido during last dinner, and I totally share his opinion. Sounds like a very well performed marketing campaign. Again: thanks, Agnieszka. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: Debian stable Ubuntu LTS 2 year rel cycle 2 year rel cycle 3 years security 3 years desktop security, 5 years server guaranteed freeze dateguaranteed release date support for all pkgs support for main, best-effort for universe stabilise from testingupgrade support from previous Ubuntu 6mo release upgrade from oldstableupgrade support from previous Ubuntu LTS (?) support for 6-12 archssupport for 2-3 architectures availability of pre-installed systems full-time security support staff commercial quality support larger userbase some additional packages Debian stable has commercial quality support as well, but it is significantly harder to find companies offering such and it requires corporate entities to actuall think (*gah*) and take a choice, both of which is mostly undesired in current commerceland. Plus for Ubuntu, since one can simply go to canonical without having to decide. Greetins Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: What is preventing Debian from being fully free at this moment?
On 2009-07-29, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote: frederiqu...@gmail.com wrote: I'd love to see Debian comply to real GNU/FSF freedom. When I visit the This will never happen, since Debian and the FSF have different ideas about what is free. And even within Debian there are diverging opinions if registry initialisation data provided in array form is something non-free that needs to be stripped from the kernel. Those people are also vocal outside the lists to market their impression that Debian is not all free despite our best efforts to keep it that way. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Hi *, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Marc Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian in sync [1]: | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu. I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try hard to make it look like that. In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. I do agree with what you have written. I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now, changing our way of working to satisfy what other says is not good, it's something that won't help us to improve anything. I wouldn't like to be bad understood because of what I have written. I am not blaming the release team nor saying that that was the fact which make them to take such a decision, but I can't see what the reasons were. I only read a message saying Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes. IMO, this time-based release will have a very important impact in how Debian is seen either by our users and the community since there not appear to have any consensus of the benefits of this decision for us. I am not sure if it'll be a bad or a good decision (because we haven't implemented it yet) , but given the way everyone is getting this, it will have a bad impact. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Frans Popelen...@planet.nl wrote: On Thursday 30 July 2009, Teemu Likonen wrote: Debian == - The completely voluntary nature of the project does not really lend itself to hard timelines. If it turns out on the planned date of the freeze that there are still major issues open, we need to be flexible enough to delay the freeze. This is the main reason why this announce is being that controversial. Debian is a voluntary-nature project, imposing this kind of time-lines, or even worse, forcing in some way to change the plans of DD's to carry out their changes to packages | goals for a release, it will cause this conflicts. We have had this kind of discussions before, and we always have been able to decide correctly. I hope this time we do it, too. Regards, -- Muammar El Khatib. Linux user: 403107. GPG Key = 127029F1 http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.org ,''`. : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote: I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now It has not. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: I'm not aware of any apples-to-apples comparisons of Debian's and Ubuntu's quality; but personally I haven't seen much evidence that Debian's is significantly superior (NB: I haven't used Ubuntu LTS personally, though). The tradeoffs to me seem to be: Debian stable Ubuntu LTS 2 year rel cycle 2 year rel cycle 3 years security 3 years desktop security, 5 years server guaranteed freeze dateguaranteed release date support for all pkgs support for main, best-effort for universe stabilise from testingupgrade support from previous Ubuntu 6mo release upgrade from oldstableupgrade support from previous Ubuntu LTS (?) support for 6-12 archssupport for 2-3 architectures availability of pre-installed systems full-time security support staff commercial quality support larger userbase some additional packages What do you intend to visualize with this comparison? After all its not really fair, to list a clear pro on the one side as a pro on the other side. To make distinction clear, you need a list which compares pros on the one side to cons on the other side. Your comparison fails this at least in architectures (2-3 is worse than 6-12). For otherwise unsupported packages in Ubuntu universe, any security problem that Debian notices can be copied straight into Ubuntu due to synced package versions, making best-effort mean at least as good as Debian, so there's no drawback to using packages in universe. Its not at least as good as Debian as appearently merges does not happen automatically. I track my packages in Ubuntu and noticed that security bugs (which I happened to have reported in Launchpad myself) where fixed by a maintainer-upload almost half a year, before Ubuntu *started* to fix it on their site. And then they decided to not fix some suites, because of EOL. There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers contribute fixes back to Debian today? Ubuntu has a well-defined and efficient process for accepting changes from Debian (pull from unstable regularly), Debian doesn't have a similarly efficient process for getting contributions from Ubuntu (Ubuntu folks file a bug, maintainer eventually incorporates it), and that'll presumably be made worse if there's a Debian freeze for most of the LTS development cycle. So yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect Debian won't get that many benefits from work on Ubuntu LTS into the corresponding stable release. Which is a fault on our side, obviously. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Hi, Teemu Likonen schrieb: Debian == [...] + [Please invent more concrete benefits for Debian developers and users.] + Settling on the same upstream versions will help maintaining them over the long period of time, so freeing valuable developer time from debian members. Jan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote: I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now It has not. How do you call what we have done since then if not working? I mean, we have our troubles and we are not always as fast as we would like ourselves to be, but we have always shelled out useable and stable releases. What more do you want, blood? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote: In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't agree that doing it is only for Ubuntu's advantage. Nobody in Debian would have taken such a decision, we are Debian developers and have no interest in helping only Ubuntu. I wish I could actually whole heartedly concur, but actual actions do not seem to mesh with the nice sentiment. What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the sum of individual parts”. Another nice sentiment. But the whole is not always more than the sum of the parts; and in this particular case, the synergy between the distributions is far skewed one way. I spend a log of time with my upstreams, and I am trying to implement the philosophy that any change in my packages be trated as a bug (whether or not it is in the bts), and sent upstream. I use upstream bug trackers, and upstream mailing lists, accommodating the author. Very rarely do I see such feedback coming from Ubuntu (the SELinux maintainers are the the pleasant exception). If Ubuntu were better at feeding back patches into the debian bts, well, what you say might have been true. We are not only major supplier to Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed that way. The synchronization with Ubuntu is not going to remove our identity. Anything to back up this assertion? We'll keep our user base and the possible improvements in both Why would the casual user select something that has old KDE/GNOME, has the same or more bug fixes (since bug fixes rarely migrate from ubuntu to debian, based on my experience), and does not have commercial support? While I personally care little about popularity, I do think this assertion that we will not lose our users is unfounded optimism. manoj -- Even if you persuade me, you won't persuade me. Aristophanes Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On, 07/30/2009 10:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote: I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now It has not. How do you call what we have done since then if not working? I mean, we have our troubles and we are not always as fast as we would like ourselves to be, but we have always shelled out useable and stable releases. What more do you want, blood? That's what I meant. I know we are not perfect, but we have survived to the pass of the time and I am sure that this is because of the decisions we have taken and that we do a good work. But it is really interesting to see the diversity of opinions. Regards, -- Muammar El Khatib. Linux user: 403107. Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1 http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.org ,''`. : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:58AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: We'll keep our user base That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable? You believe that Debian, releasing with approximately the same set of packages as an Ubuntu LTS but with a requirement to only release when ready instead of releasing on a fixed schedule as Ubuntu LTS will, offers no relevant differentiation at all for users? If ubuntu freeze starts later than the Debian freeze, and if fixes to Ubuntu do not often migrate back to Debian, I do see it likely that ubuntu LTS, combined with interim Ubuntu release, will make Debian irrelevant in the eyes of the common public (like, not distro geeks). With that comes a falling user base, and with falling interest we stop getting the creme de la creme of the developers (Oh, doubtless we'll keep getting people of second and third tier skills for a while). Doesn't this imply that everyone who continues using Debian today does so merely as an accident of the release schedule and the particular set of packages that land in a given Debian release? I am sure this is true of some portion of the user base. There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers contribute fixes back to Debian today? Exactly. As I mentioned in another message; I spend far more time rebasing changes made in debian to feed upstream, using their BTS and mailing lists, and modifying and tweaking patches to their satisfaction; and I rarely see this in the 25+ packages I still maintain from Ubuntu (exception: SElinux related issues). While never committing to keep any given package in sync with Debian, Ubuntu developers certainly are actively engaged in pushing their changes upstream to Debian. So they seem to be targetting my packages not to push changes to? kinda doubt that. manoj -- A sinking ship gathers no moss. Donald Kaul Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 17:20:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote: I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now It has not. How do you call what we have done since then if not working? I mean, we have our troubles and we are not always as fast as we would like ourselves to be, but we have always shelled out useable and stable releases. What more do you want, blood? No. I'm just saying that Debian hasn't worked for 13 years as it is right now. I'm pretty sure things have changed over the years, including in the release process, so opposing a change because the current way of doing things has worked for 13 years is bogus. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:32:54AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:19:38AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 23/07/09 at 01:10 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Inactive maintainers do not make harm by definition. The two are completely orthogonal. Also, I disagree that inactive maintainer do no harm; they do harm if you think they are still feeling responsible for a package while they are not. Sure, I meant that they do not harm the archive since they do not upload packages. Large numbers of them *do* harm the project since they raise the constitution's Q/K, but don't vote / second proposals / ... I don't think we are at the level where this is an actual problem, but it is theoretically possible. While this is true for Q, it is not true for K. K cannot raise beyond 5; and Q has not been a problem, ever. -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [OT] aggressiveness on our mailing lists.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:57:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 03:44:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : his is silly Manoj, I hesitated between answering in public or private, but since there are planned discussions at Debconf about aggressivity on the mailing lists, I will do it in public. In case you had any doubt about it, let me confirm: it hurts to read that kind of answer. I'm sorry, but in any discussion it is perfectly reasonable to sometimes say that an idea is not a very good one. Note that there is a difference between 'you are silly' and 'this is silly'. Manoj said the latter (one minor typo notwithstanding). If calling ideas silly is no longer allowed, then I am all for booting out all non-European developers from the project (because their laws suck). -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] aggressiveness on our mailing lists.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:40:50PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: la, 2009-07-25 kello 09:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti: You are making the assumption that the authors reaction to Bad is less negative than the reaction to Silly. While this is subjective, I do not think it is without contention: My hasty re-wording has now given the wrong impression, sorry. My main point is that it is often possible to express misgivings about things other people propose without exiting the realm of the polite. I hope I can claim that is true even though I failed to completely do so myself. I'm afraid you can't. I'm willing to go on record as saying that stating something negative about someone's ideas in such a manner that it will not offend them, regardless of their current emotions, state of mind, or whatever, is plain impossible. It's possible to make an attempt, of course; and I do not think that stating 'this is silly' without explaining why that is the case should be appropriate in any case; but just stating that an idea is silly /with full explanation/ should always be acceptable, even if it rubs people the wrong way. -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Cyril Bruleboisk...@debian.org wrote: We discussed that quite extensively with Guido during last dinner, and I totally share his opinion. Sounds like a very well performed marketing campaign. Again: thanks, Agnieszka. One that will make a statement that women in Debian should always wear deep cleavages, and men in Debian have sex with their laptops. Nice... I'm sorry, but I really can't accept this. It's not that some people might get offended, it's that some people ALREADY feel uncomfortable about the message being sent. Don't get me wrong, I do like the drawings, and I congratulate pixelgirl on her job, if it's only for her thesis. Also, I do consider that having some campaign like this would be nice. But PLEASE, not with this message. And please don't tell me that if I don't like it, then I'm free not to use the posters myself, cause I'm a part of Debian, and if a campaign that is supposed to promote Debian goes against my principles I can't simply ignore it. -- Besos, Marga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [OT] aggressiveness on our mailing lists.
* Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org [090730 18:18]: I'm sorry, but in any discussion it is perfectly reasonable to sometimes say that an idea is not a very good one. Note that there is a difference between 'you are silly' and 'this is silly'. Manoj said the latter (one minor typo notwithstanding). While addressing a person and an idea is an important difference, I think the example in question shows things are more complex: My English skill lack a lot, and my understanding of the meaning/usage of silly might also lack, but I guess I'm not alone how I understand it: Silly is mostly about missing intellectual skills, so applying it to actions, ideas or questions is mostly pars pro toto meaning the human it originates from. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [OT] aggressiveness on our mailing lists.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:42:04PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org [090730 18:18]: I'm sorry, but in any discussion it is perfectly reasonable to sometimes say that an idea is not a very good one. Note that there is a difference between 'you are silly' and 'this is silly'. Manoj said the latter (one minor typo notwithstanding). While addressing a person and an idea is an important difference, I think the example in question shows things are more complex: My English skill lack a lot, and my understanding of the meaning/usage of silly might also lack, but I guess I'm not alone how I understand it: Silly is mostly about missing intellectual skills, That's not how I interpret that word -- therefore I don't follow your reasoning. -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Margarita Manterola wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Cyril Bruleboisk...@debian.org wrote: We discussed that quite extensively with Guido during last dinner, and I totally share his opinion. Sounds like a very well performed marketing campaign. Again: thanks, Agnieszka. One that will make a statement that women in Debian should always wear deep cleavages, and men in Debian have sex with their laptops. Nice... IMHO you're seriously overreacting here. The posters as I see them do not make the statements that you read into them, that is entirely your interpretation of them. Not everything that is sensual is discriminatory. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Mi, 29 Jul 2009, Luk Claes wrote: The developers have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity to get stuff done before the release. It's true that developers should probably consider to already be careful about what to upload, but there is still opportunity to do changes till the freeze. Ok, for the Debian TeX Team that means that squeeze will contain TeX Live 2007, and will be like that till squeeze+1 in 2012. That is quite ridiculuos, but I cannot finish TL2009 packages alone and by December. So it be. That also means I can stop working on it at all now, and wait for TeX Live 2010 to come out and package that one. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining prein...@logic.atVienna University of Technology Debian Developer prein...@debian.org Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- What the hell, he thought, you're only young once, and threw himself out of the window. That would at least keep the element of surprise on his side. --- Ford outwitting a Vogon with a rocket launcher by going --- into another certain death situation. --- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:17:46AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I spend a log of time with my upstreams, and I am trying to implement the philosophy that any change in my packages be trated as a bug (whether or not it is in the bts), and sent upstream. I use upstream bug trackers, and upstream mailing lists, accommodating the author. Very rarely do I see such feedback coming from Ubuntu (the SELinux maintainers are the the pleasant exception). If Ubuntu were better at feeding back patches into the debian bts, well, what you say might have been true. Why do you assume that there are other modifications to your packages to *be* fed back? Here are the set of packages you maintain or are an uploader on that Ubuntu has modified versions of in karmic: Package: flex Version: 2.5.35-7ubuntu1 Package: libselinux Version: 2.0.82-1ubuntu2 Package: policycoreutils Version: 2.0.55-1ubuntu1 Package: setools Version: 3.3.5.ds-5ubuntu2 Three of these are SELinux packages, the fourth is flex; its changelog entry is: flex (2.5.35-7ubuntu1) karmic; urgency=low * Merge from debian unstable, remaining changes: - Don't run the testsuite on hppa (threaded tests hang). -- Muharem Hrnjadovic muha...@canonical.com Wed, 06 May 2009 18:10:12 +0200 You're welcome to this change if you want it - I'll pull a patch out myself and submit it to the BTS if you think it's relevant in Debian, but I don't see that flex has FTBFS in Debian - but in any case the Ubuntu hppa port has been EOLed for karmic, so Ubuntu would otherwise (ideally) drop this patch the next time there's a flex update to merge from Debian. You seem to have been operating under a misconception that the *majority* of packages in Ubuntu have been touched wrt Debian. They have not - the vast majority of packages in Ubuntu are unmodified Debian packages, as shown by the graphs on the bottom of https://merges.ubuntu.com/main.html and https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html - which is for the best given the relative number of developers working on each project. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:05:13PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: On Mi, 29 Jul 2009, Luk Claes wrote: The developers have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity to get stuff done before the release. It's true that developers should probably consider to already be careful about what to upload, but there is still opportunity to do changes till the freeze. Ok, for the Debian TeX Team that means that squeeze will contain TeX Live 2007, and will be like that till squeeze+1 in 2012. That is quite ridiculuos, but I cannot finish TL2009 packages alone and by December. So it be. Luckily it doesn't have to be. As just announced by Luk on d-d-a this freeze date is going to be revised and TL2009 still has chances. Even better that our Release Managers (who of course read this) now are aware of your concerns. That also means I can stop working on it at all now, and wait for TeX Live 2010 to come out and package that one. Please don't, please! :) Hauke signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: So what? [Was: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes]
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:49:42PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Folks, be pragmatic and do required steps to find a common shared idea. Ok, the current announce on d-d-a by Luk seems the right first step :-) Well done. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 19:12, Lars Wirzeniusl...@liw.fi wrote: ke, 2009-07-29 kello 12:46 -0300, Margarita Manterola kirjoitti: Discussing about this on irc, some people seemed to agree with my view that the female images are too sexual, and that the image of the notebook on the pillow is disturbing. I agree with Marga in that I don't think these images are appropriate for marketing Debian. This doesn't detract at all their artistic and other qualities, but I don't think we as a project should use sexuality, eroticism, or nude figures, to market ourselves. It is not just ethically wrong and degrading, it also tells people we have no substance. Relating to sexuality, eroticism or the human body is ethically wrong and degrading? I almost feel offended by that statement. You're not talking about sexism, objetification or anything but things that are common to almost everybody in this planet. -- Martín Ferrari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
Martín Ferrari wrote: You're not talking about sexism, objetification or anything but things that are common to almost everybody in this planet. So what? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian redesign
Hi all, I am still at DebConf and rather swamped so please excuse the telegraphese ... * I really want to have a concurrent design on the *.debian.org resources (webpages, packages, bugs, wiki, lists, ...) optimally even a slightly different one for all the *.debian.net stuff. Having a design that can even be taken to business cards, boot screens, wallpapers, DVDs etc ... even better! * Aesthetically I am fine with Agnieszka's design as well as kalle's. Slight preference for kalle since I saw more of his (from Agnieszka I only saw a small screenshot) and also because it's technical feasibility is already somewhat established. As others stated before though: I guess we could very well mix the two and have a nice synergy of Agnieszka's portability and recognisability and kalle's clean look and technical feasibility. * Like most DD's I have grown somewhat attached to our current logo. There is already a cleaner version of it in our official logo which is also used quite frequently (mostly without the bottle). Personally I don't mind that much. As long as it remains the swirl and keeps its color I am fine with it. * I didn't like what was said in the talk about the swirl *having* to be at this particular position (above the i) and nowhere else. Debian is a remix culture and as everything else our logo has been remixed a lot: by us (for example for the DebConf logos) as well as by others. There are 2-D and 3-D versions of it, it has been combined with the anarchy A, the GNU gnu and tux himself of course, it has been turned into a beer-logo, a six, a nine, a five, a brain, ... it has been over, under, next to and even overlayed with the debian name, and these are just the very obvious variations I found on the first couple google pages. So saying that the swirl and the debian are a fixed combination and may only be used exactly like this is in may eyes simply not implementable. (Especially since the logo should be put under a free license anyway.) I can very well understand how a designer would want this but I don't think it would work out.There are quite a couple of really creative Debian-enthusiasts out there and they will proceed with any new logo as they did with the old. * Regarding the posters, I like some of them, but not all. debian_illustration1.jpg is fine with me, so is debian_illustration2.jpg. I don't mind debian_illustration3.jpg either. Frankly a laptop on the pillow is not entirely unseen for myself. Though I do try to put it away before falling asleep ;) Seeing debian_illustration4.jpg my first impression was guy consuming porn, thinking about getting more using his trusted Debian. Very much NOT what I want to communicate or support. debian_illustration5.jpg is okay again, I like the inclusion of mobile devices in the campaign. debian_illustration6.jpg looks pretty weird to me, the dimensions and perspective don't seem to fit and I don't really see how a guy fighting bugs or wasps or something can advertise Debian. These are of course all first impressions, but I guess with posters those are most important. Picking up on the concerns expressed by Marta ... having all the posters side by side, yes, one does notice that while there were proper shirts and T-shirts for the guys there were apparently only rather flimsy spaghetti strap tops left for the (obvious) girls. (Some of the people I cannot really tell what they are, but I think that's actually okay. I also couldn't help but notice that the girls come with pink as the contrast color and the guys with blue. :)) If the poster's were meant to give an impression of the average Debian user base I guess it would be worth considering that there are also a couple of us living in cooler regions. Also you can still have a girl look like a girl, even without seeing the body at all (One very good example for this is http://deifl-web.de/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_debian-girl.jpg). Agreeing with many others though: As long as these do not become official Debian advertising material I don't mind that much. (And I don't think they will, as far as I remember Debian has never embraced any particular artwork apart from the swirl as being official.) So much for now, off to (my last DebConf) dinner. *sniff* Best regards, Meike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
* Ana Guerrero a...@debian.org [2009-07-29 17:35:40 CEST]: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 05:23:41PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Nice. Now we have two approaches on redesigning parts of Debian. I do like the design as proposed by Kalle somewhat better. Cool, Care to give a link? http://rhonda.deb.at/blog/debian/2009/07/28 So long, Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:49:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I have nothing against this in principle, but how is this any different from the people who manage the MIA database? The main difference is the automation of the process. MIA, which currently is 1 person, requires manual activity and efforts. If we agree that automatically, if you stop exercising your DD rights, you go away after 2 years, the energy which we currently spend in MIA [1] can be better spend in doing other QA activities. I really don't see the benefit in the added MIA layer. You stop working for Debian for a long period: you go away; the day you'll re-gain interest: you can come back. If it's going to be automated, does it behoove us to also send automated mails to DDs that are getting close to the two-year limit, warning them? Or is it your view that 2 years without activity is so far beyond what's reasonable that there's no reason to give such a warning? Just as a side note: I've been much less active in the last 2 years than I used to be, but I'm still involved in TeX packaging and reading some of -devel and -project, and I feel like a DD. I'm not sure when my last upload was before I did the oldstable uploads for teTeX and TeXLive a couple of weeks ago - and had that not become necessarz at a time where Norbert was VAC, it might have taken a couple of months more until my next upload. I did contribute to the uploaded packages, though, and wouldn't feel like going into emeritus state. Since there are not many DDs (and no DM so far) in the TeX team, I guess the existence of a second DD in the team is of value for the project too. Therfore, I would have appreciated a note about loosing upload rights if the rules discussed here would have already been in place. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:17:19PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: I think that the time framework is large enough not to have a warning. One of the reasons I think it would be useful to have warnings is that there are other ways in which DDs may be constantly contributing (e.g., contributing regularly to a package VCS), without *realizing* that they haven't done an upload in x years; so perhaps they haven't needed to do any uploads in that time, but aren't idle and shouldn't be idled out without warning. Well, I've no strong objection on that. Still, I'd prefer not to have to write such specific details on the text we are going to vote on. I propose to leave such details to DAM / DSA, would you be fine with that? Agreed, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [OT] aggressiveness on our mailing lists.
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote: Silly is mostly about missing intellectual skills, so applying it to actions, ideas or questions is mostly pars pro toto meaning the human it originates from. I beg to differ. I have had dumb ideas in the past, and even proposed them; but while admitting I occasionally may have dumb or silly ideas in no way means *I* think I am a dumb person (YMMV). Intelligent people may have dumb/silly ideas. Dumb people occasionally have brilliant ideas. One should not equate the quality of ideas to the quality of the proponent, unless one wishes to be unpleasantly surprised bvy the frequency of the error of ones ways. manoj -- Carmel, New York, has an ordinance forbidding men to wear coats and trousers that don't match. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
Hello, The art and design proposal are interesting. The logo should be discussed and voted as the current one was, and it is not essential to change. Some ideas behind its redesign could be backported to the current logo, as to choose some nice looking free font instead of a proprietary one, and good scaling capability. The posters do not send the right message about the values of Debian but were well crafted. They are proposals. A possible requirement for global posters could be suitability for different cultures, (something nice at Amsterdan could be offensive at Saudi Arabia, for example; something positive at NY could be depressive at China, another example). The site and imagery proposal (cards, cd covers, banners, templates, etc) is interesting and worth an evaluation by all. But why not join efforts with the www-team, also? I remember when Pixelgirl approached other debian-list and explained its concepts [3] and coordination problems were pointed already there [5]. The Project is in need of qualified people and welcome efforts, but these valuable efforts should be maximized without double, or conflicting, or un coordinated actions (as already stated by FAW and Rhonda). The Pixelgirl proposal is broader than a site redesign. And the site redesign is a giant task itself, with many many constraints and requirements [6], as Kalle is demonstrating [1]. The Project could consider the PixelGirl proposal as it is: a good proposal for discussion and improvements. Please, do not shoot the initiative in the head, but direct it to the right direction. Please, invite her to join the other teams involved [4][6][7][8] at the tasks covered by her work. Also, invite her to join efforts with Rhonda and Kalle advanced stage work. Regards. Andre Felipe [0] http://rhonda.deb.at/blog/debian/2009/07/28 [1] http://www.kalleswork.net/projects/debian/ [2] https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2008/08/msg00084.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2008/08/msg00097.html [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2008/08/msg00102.html [6] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWebSiteProject [7] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/ [8] http://www.debian.org/devel/website/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: At the moment I could recommend Debian stable over Ubuntu LTS because it has more recent packages (2009/02 release versus 2008/04 release), or because it's an easier upgrade for people with existing Debian systems. With synchronised releases, both those reasons to run stable disappear. I don't believe the kind of coarse synchronization that's been proposed for the releases would make Debian-Ubuntu crossgrades significantly easier. Most of the local changes that Ubuntu has today would still apply, and there are rebuilt binaries that share version numbers, introducing all kinds of fun possibilities. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
