Re: Debian in space
On 08/05/2013 13:27, Andreas Tille wrote: Debian seems to have some nice history at NASA reaching from very old news http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1997/msg5.html to quite hot news: http://www.zdnet.com/to-the-space-station-and-beyond-with-linux-714958/ (isn't this really cool?) It is! What's really disappointing is the lack of puns out there. I was hoping for a headline like Debian 6.0 finally sees some real space fun :p -Jonathan -- 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/518b79f6.6060...@ubuntu.com
Re: Debian in space
Debian: still in space http://www.debian.org/News/1997/19970708b -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- 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/20130509122338.gj4...@mavolio.codethink.co.uk
Re: Debian in space
On 09.05.2013 14:23, Lars Wirzenius wrote: Debian: still in space http://www.debian.org/News/1997/19970708b Apart, do (some) Debian Developers still go to space themselves? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian in space
It is! What's really disappointing is the lack of puns out there. Beam me up, NASA -- 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/caouqmsbmbylnmqw4ebyp8pz7zdbspzw8lh48kyupatd4keo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian in space
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 06:29:07PM +0200, Paweł Sadkowski wrote: It is! What's really disappointing is the lack of puns out there. Beam me up, NASA Upload me. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062 -- 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/20130509200941.ga16...@torres.zugschlus.de
Re: Debating difficult development issues in essay form
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 20:45 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: This e-mail is jointly from Lars Wirzenius and Russ Allbery. The executive summary: We'd like to see more thoughtful debates of important Debian development issues, and have created http://wiki.debian.org/Debate as a way to encourage them. A very good initiative. I hope it takes off. Looking forward to the posts there instead of at debian-devel. -- 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/1368131548.4595.37.camel@PackardBell-PC
Re: Debating difficult development issues in essay form
Hi, On 09-05-13 21:45, Lars Wirzenius wrote: We think discussions on Debian development mailing lists sometimes suffer from repetition of facts, opinions, and arguments. During a long discussion of a controversial topic, it is hard for anyone to keep track of what has been said, and so everything tends to get repeated. Such discussions also often become heated, and fast: those who participate most intensely tend to answer within minutes of each other. Even without repetition, following the discussion becomes a lot of work. This is probably true. However, I'm not convinced your proposal solves more problems than it introduces: - First, I find it extremely difficult to follow a discussion on a wiki page. Yes, there is a diff feature in most wikis (including ours), but that requires you to remember when you last read the position on the wiki page in question; this makes it prone to losing out. In contrast, when I participate in a mailing lists discussion, I simply have new information marked as unread and old information as read. That makes it much easier to figure out what's new and what isn't. - In my experience, when discussing controversial subjects, it is a mistake to believe that the number of 'sides' in a discussion is significantly smaller than the number of participants to that discussion -- or indeed that it is even possible to distinguish which 'side' one is on. I've often experienced during such discussions that I may fully agree with someone else on one detail of the matter at hand, but vehemently disagree with that same person on another detail. With your proposal, this would probably mean we'd either need to write smaller essays, one for each part of the matter at hand, so that people can sign off their own combination of details, or we'd need to write multiple mostly-but-not-quite similar essays. Both pretty much defeat the purpose of your proposal. - Most importantly, if you write down an opinion that multiple people then sign off on, it becomes much harder to change or restructure your opinion as a result of the debate. If you're discussing something in a mailinglist, it's okay to say yes, you're right, you've convinced me, even if some people may (wrongly) see that as losing face. Once you've done that, people will understand that your opinion is no longer what it once was. If you've got an essay form of your opinion, should you then rewrite that? But what about the people who (used to) agree with you? Should they agree with the rewritten opinion, too? Probably not. But you can't sign off on it anymore. Should you then write a new version of that essay? That brings us back to the 2nd problem I pointed out. - Even if that wasn't true, after having put a lot of effort in an essay, I think many people will become entrenched in that opinion. As a result, they may be less likely to consider opposing arguments and change or restructure their opinion based on these arguments. This would result in less discussion, and more flames. I do agree that sometimes, mailinglists aren't the best possible medium to hold a discussion. However, I'm not convinced that your proposal is the best way to fix that. I think that with all its flaws, mailinglists (and/or usenet) are still the best option we have for discussing important matters. There will be exceptions, of course, when people are flaming; but flames are an expression of an inner emotion, one that does not allow healthy discussion; adding structure to the way one performs a discussion isn't going to take that away. Sorry to be so disapproving; I do agree that we can do better, I just don't agree this is the best way forward. Regards, -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debating difficult development issues in essay form
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: This is probably true. However, I'm not convinced your proposal solves more problems than it introduces: - First, I find it extremely difficult to follow a discussion on a wiki page. Yes, there is a diff feature in most wikis (including ours), but that requires you to remember when you last read the position on the wiki page in question; this makes it prone to losing out. In contrast, when I participate in a mailing lists discussion, I simply have new information marked as unread and old information as read. That makes it much easier to figure out what's new and what isn't. The goal is not to have that sort of discussion on the wiki. The goal, indeed, is to have the wiki pages *avoid* that sort of discussion in favor of more comprehensive statements of position. Frequently, I expect those statements of position to converge on implementable proposals as the discussion continues. For back and forth, while wiki comments are available and may be convenient for some purposes, I expect that most of the real discussion will continue to happen on debian-devel and similar fora. However, the *results* of that discussion, as opposed to emerging nebulously from back-and-forth posts and watching who stops talking first, but rarely being stated outright, can be recorded in this format. My hope is that someone who was interested in the outcome but not horribly interested in the process would be able to skip the debate entirely and just read the resulting statements and still have enough data to make an informed decision. The debate will continue to be important for refining nuance. - In my experience, when discussing controversial subjects, it is a mistake to believe that the number of 'sides' in a discussion is significantly smaller than the number of participants to that discussion -- or indeed that it is even possible to distinguish which 'side' one is on. I've often experienced during such discussions that I may fully agree with someone else on one detail of the matter at hand, but vehemently disagree with that same person on another detail. With your proposal, this would probably mean we'd either need to write smaller essays, one for each part of the matter at hand, so that people can sign off their own combination of details, or we'd need to write multiple mostly-but-not-quite similar essays. Both pretty much defeat the purpose of your proposal. For most of these discussions, we have to, at the end of the process, converge on a single decision. For example, we're only going to have one release process. Therefore, while it's certainly true that each participant starts as their own side, and we need to provide room for that to evolve and change, I would strongly encourage authors to trim out the parts of their proposals that aren't reaching consensus and thereby create proposals that have a broader base of support. One of the advantages of the wiki pages is that they can record what parts of the argument people find essential and keep them separate from the inevitable digressions and debates about surrounding issues that, while interesting, don't need to be taken into account when making a decision. I think it's very difficult to tell, right now, what positions someone holds about a topic after a 50-post debate in debian-devel and (more importantly) which of those opinions they consider essential and which they consider incidental. - Most importantly, if you write down an opinion that multiple people then sign off on, it becomes much harder to change or restructure your opinion as a result of the debate. If you're discussing something in a mailinglist, it's okay to say yes, you're right, you've convinced me, even if some people may (wrongly) see that as losing face. Once you've done that, people will understand that your opinion is no longer what it once was. If you've got an essay form of your opinion, should you then rewrite that? But what about the people who (used to) agree with you? Should they agree with the rewritten opinion, too? Probably not. But you can't sign off on it anymore. Should you then write a new version of that essay? That brings us back to the 2nd problem I pointed out. In this case, I would check with the co-authors and see if they agree, or if you can reach agreement. If not, indeed, I'd remove my name (while leaving the document as-is) and either write a new document or indicate support of a different document, or possibly just bow out entirely, depending on the situation. This isn't a voting system; you don't have to sign any document. The point is to allow for co-maintainers to spread the work, not to have the signatories be an indication of support. Support will be determined by project consensus, not by counting co-sponsors. - Even if that wasn't true, after having put a lot of effort in an essay, I think many people will become
Re: Squeeze closer to the stars (Re: Debian GNU/Linux at NASA international space station laptops)
On 2013-05-08 22:03, Filipus Klutiero wrote: On 2013-05-08 21:48, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Andre Felipe Machado wrote: Read more about why NASA migrated the ISS laptops to Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.zdnet.com/to-the-space-station-and-beyond-with-linux-714958/ https://identi.ca/notice/100889633 http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/publicity/dpn/en/current/index.wml?view=co Wow... it's too bad wheezy didn't leave quite enough space to squeeze in that announcement while squeeze was still the Star! Paul Tagliamonte has contributed a pun more suited for a PR: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00025.html -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com -- 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/518c6179.8040...@gmail.com
Re: Debating difficult development issues in essay form
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: - First, I find it extremely difficult to follow a discussion on a wiki page. Yes, there is a diff feature in most wikis (including ours), but that requires you to remember when you last read the position on the wiki page in question; this makes it prone to losing out. In contrast, when I participate in a mailing lists discussion, I simply have new information marked as unread and old information as read. That makes it much easier to figure out what's new and what isn't. MoinMoin (used by the Debian wiki) offers the ability to subscribe to individual wiki pages and to ranges of pages using regexes. It will send you emails containing diffs of changes to pages you have subscribed to. There is also the option of using the RecentChanges RSS feed if you care about changes across the whole of the wiki. The RSS feed is slightly buggy though. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6fkh5_7c+prnuiy9hocferwwsgx_vzvppp_vcb3tad...@mail.gmail.com
