Re: Presentation of iso downloads - simpler like Fedora?
Steffen Möller steffen_moel...@gmx.de writes: Original-Nachricht Datum: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:41:15 +0200 Von: Michael Banck mba...@debian.org An: debian-project@lists.debian.org Betreff: Re: Presentation of iso downloads - simpler like Fedora? On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:59:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: On ven., 2012-08-10 at 14:01 +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: some binary software forced me into downloading a RedHat flavour, so I went for Fedora. I found it very easy to get an ISO. I mean - very very very easy. My suggestion is to copy that for our now pending release or to make it even easier - not that I would know how to do that. They even auto-picked a good mirror for me. http://fedoraproject.org What about the direct link on top right of http://www.debian.org ? Whatever the reason, a lot of people seems to miss that Download box. I mean it. Yeah, I did as well, when I last looked at it. This thread pointed me to it. The Getting Debian is what jumped at me. And I had a colleague next to me whom I wanted to stop from installing Ubuntu by downloading the iso quickly since he was already burning Ubuntu's. One is guided to the Ubuntu ISOs more easily than with Debian, too, just more nerve-wrecking than with Fedora because of the extra clicks. The download link did not allow to change to Wheezy, which these days might possibly be worthwhile to announce a bit more. This reminds me: While contrasting with Ubuntu, there is also the issue of Debian Live CDs which are close to impossible to find, and if you eventually manage to find them, turn out to be too big to fit on a CD. Since I've mentioned this to a few people in person, who then said Oh, that's easy, you just ... and eventually admitted that I'm right, I'll walk you through the process in order to save you all the effort of trying it yourselves. So, you stick Debian Live into your favourite search engine (duckduckgo.com in my case). and it takes you to http://live.debian.net/, a nice friendly looking site, with encouragingly cute icons -- clearly this is going to be easy, right? And the second link on the page is: Download releases: stable so let's try that... Hmm, directories: [DIR] amd64/ 10-Apr-2012 14:16- [DIR] i386/ 10-Apr-2012 14:18- [DIR] source/ 29-Jan-2012 15:43- well let's pretend that newbies are going to know that their Intel Core processor needs amd64, and click that... Another directory: [DIR] bt-hdd/10-Apr-2012 14:17- [DIR] bt-hybrid/ 10-Apr-2012 14:16- [DIR] iso-hybrid/10-Apr-2012 14:16- [DIR] net/ 07-Apr-2012 08:37- [DIR] usb-hdd/ 10-Apr-2012 14:17- [DIR] web/ 07-Apr-2012 08:54- I guess there's a vague chance that the iso bit of iso-hybrid would sound familiar, so we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and click that... [ ] MD5SUMS07-Apr-2012 08:29 1.8K [ ] MD5SUMS.sign 07-Apr-2012 08:37 836 [ ] SHA1SUMS 07-Apr-2012 08:29 2.0K [ ] SHA1SUMS.sign 07-Apr-2012 08:37 836 [ ] SHA256SUMS 07-Apr-2012 08:29 2.6K [ ] SHA256SUMS.sign07-Apr-2012 08:37 836 [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-gnome-desktop.iso 29-Jan-2012 12:12 1.1G [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-gnome-desktop.iso.list 29-Jan-2012 12:12 18K [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-gnome-desktop.iso.log 29-Jan-2012 12:12 359K [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-gnome-desktop.iso.packages 29-Jan-2012 12:11 31K [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-kde-desktop.iso29-Jan-2012 12:59 1.0G [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-kde-desktop.iso.list 29-Jan-2012 12:59 18K [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-kde-desktop.iso.log29-Jan-2012 13:00 302K [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-kde-desktop.iso.packages 29-Jan-2012 12:58 29K [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-lxde-desktop.iso 29-Jan-2012 13:28 753M [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-lxde-desktop.iso.list 29-Jan-2012 13:27 18K [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-lxde-desktop.iso.log 29-Jan-2012 13:28 208K [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-lxde-desktop.iso.packages 29-Jan-2012 13:27 21K [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-rescue.iso 29-Jan-2012 11:33 549M [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-rescue.iso.list29-Jan-2012 11:33 18K [TXT] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-rescue.iso.log 29-Jan-2012 11:33 236K [ ] debian-live-6.0.4-amd64-rescue.iso.packages29-Jan-2012 11:33
Re: Presentation of iso downloads - simpler like Fedora?
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: [Download experience on http://live.debian.net/] In contrast, http://mozilla.debian.net gives a really nice user experience that can possibly be adapted to live.debian.net or the Debian homepage. I just had a very quick glimpse at it (I do not understand much JavaScript) but there seems to be little magic involved. The lookup table part may even be auto-generated. Maybe the Debian Mozilla developers can comment on how they keep that up to date? Best regards, Manuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120813112053.GC4416@woodstock
Re: Presentation of iso downloads - simpler like Fedora?
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: I can report this as a bug if that helps, but it seems to me that the debian-live folk need to have a chat with all the desktop packagers and come up with a solution between you (or declare it impossible, and put a warning on the live.debian.net front page that only DVD-sized images are available if you want to run a GUI) +100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120813113005.ga6...@thinkpad.gateway.2wire.net
Re: Review of personal information sources in Debian
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org wrote: I've recently done a review of personal information sources in Debian, which I'd like to share here both because I don't think this has been done before, and to check if I missed anything. Coincidentally, I've been thinking about this issue recently. While thinking about the design for the Whois project I'm planning [1], one stumbling block I find is that there are many unsynchronised sources of (public) personal information in Debian, and most important, that there is not a single identity provider to sync them. Sounds like you may be working on something like that, and in that case I'd be interested in being involved. I think a service that provides a centralised database of identities, which allows each person to tailor how their identity is exposed, would be very helpful, and would allow to improve many other services that currently rely on incomplete identity information, specially for non-D[DM]s. [1] http://beta.howtorecognise.mine.nu/blog/whois.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAL60Pd_Evc1eozaK2=WFtSLYA4gBbVtqP9SONYOsNhq_o=r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Review of personal information sources in Debian
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:22:02PM +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: Sounds like you may be working on something like that, and in that case I'd be interested in being involved. I think a service that provides a centralised database of identities, which allows each person to tailor how their identity is exposed, would be very helpful, and would allow to improve many other services that currently rely on incomplete identity information, specially for non-D[DM]s. Indeed: nm.debian.org is currently the authoritative database for the status of people contributing to Debian, and it already tracks, for example, DMs and people with guest account. It kind of lends itself to be such a centralised place. I've already been giving some thinking at allowing people to tailor how their identity is exposed, and that was one of the reasons for doing this review. Code is at http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=nm/nm2.git;a=summary What did you have in mind? Ciao, Enrico P.S. I did see your blog entry and wanted to get in touch, then I got sidetracked by other things. It's great you got in touch! P.P.S. Have you seen https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges ? -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: trademark policy draft
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:25:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Thijs Kinkhorst writes (Re: trademark policy draft): On Wed, August 1, 2012 18:54, Russ Allbery wrote: We can choose to abandon our trademark and make it indefensible, but we should do that intentionally and not under an illusion that we're just creating a better usage policy. I would not be in favour of this. FWIW, I agree with Ian's position here. Generally speaking, I think there is room in Free Software for project marks and that, in principle, there is nothing wrong with defending them. As observed elsewhere in this thread, it is just hard to defend them in a reasonable way, given that the law is what it is. Oddly enough, trademark policies that try to embrace Free Software principle are still relatively uncharted territory, which is slowly getting better in recent years. By giving it a try, working together with lawyers that do understand Free Software, I think we can actually contribute something useful for other Free Software projects out there. Down to the specificities of Debian procedures, I consider my duty to take care of Debian assets, including trademarks. I would not take the responsibility of acting in a way that --- according to our legal advisors --- might endanger them.. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: trademark policy draft
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:08:04PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: first of all, thanks for working on this issue, especially taking into account that the outcome could be a hopefully acceptable trademark policy and a DFSG-free Open Use Logo with Debian, as you mentioned in your latest bit from the DPL message [1]: […] As a general status update on this: - I've collected the comments I got from this thread and elsewhere (private mail, /query, etc.), and forwarded them to SFLC, asking for a new draft. (Tentative) ETA for it is this week. - to disentangle the issues of 1/ relicensing the logo under a better (copyright) license and 2/ defining a new trademark policy, I've also asked for a minimal patch to our *current* trademark policy that would allow the relicensing to happen in isolation. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: trademark policy draft
Hi Stefano, On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:07:02PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:25:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Thijs Kinkhorst writes (Re: trademark policy draft): On Wed, August 1, 2012 18:54, Russ Allbery wrote: We can choose to abandon our trademark and make it indefensible, but we should do that intentionally and not under an illusion that we're just creating a better usage policy. I would not be in favour of this. FWIW, I agree with Ian's position here. Generally speaking, I think there is room in Free Software for project marks and that, in principle, there is nothing wrong with defending them. As observed elsewhere in this thread, it is just hard to defend them in a reasonable way, given that the law is what it is. Oddly enough, trademark policies that try to embrace Free Software principle are still relatively uncharted territory, which is slowly getting better in recent years. By giving it a try, working together with lawyers that do understand Free Software, I think we can actually contribute something useful for other Free Software projects out there. Down to the specificities of Debian procedures, I consider my duty to take care of Debian assets, including trademarks. I would not take the responsibility of acting in a way that --- according to our legal advisors --- might endanger them.. Even if there was a clear consensus that endangering the trademark was the Right Thing To Do? I'm hoping to write a longer response to the proposed policy where I can do justice to the specifics, but for the moment, suffice it to say that I think that some of the recommendations for how to protect our trademark cross the line from things it's reasonable for everyone to do to protect their mark into jerky things that you do because there's some bit of case law somewhere that led to a mark being invalidated and you're paranoid that the same thing will happen to you. Sometimes the right answer is that the case law is *bad* and needs to be overturned - which never happens if no one is willing to take a stand against it. For a free software project like Debian, I believe it's more important to uphold the principle of not being jerky to our neighbors than it is to have an ironclad assurance that our trademark could never be invalidated. I don't think the argument we could lose our trademark unless we [...] is complete unless it also includes some examination of how likely that outcome really is. -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
