Re: Possible violation of the Debian trademark
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:52:53 +0200 Martin Loschwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I noticed that the whole content changed and that by now, they are offering Hosting services as well as Consulting -- with debian-desktop.org as domain. Wow, did it ever. I too noticed this domain a while ago, but given the simple nature of the page as well as the disclaimer and lack of any commercial interest, I decided not to bring it up. Now, though. Yeah. Definetly need to talk to them. Somebody should ask Martin (the DPL, not the guy who does everything else around here ;), he's taken care of such things in the past. -- Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it. OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption
Sid-specific list?
A fair number of people I know who aren't heavily-involved in Debian run Sid these days. Some of that, probably, is me begging them not to run Sarge (for the obvious reasons). I've been telling them that they should be fine, so long as they double-check with somebody in the know before upgrading (whether on a daily or semi-daily basis). I've been wondering if maybe it would be worthwhile to have a mailing list specific to any humdrum issues that show up in Sid. Something moderated so there isn't a huge amount of traffic for these people to keep up with. Two or three posts a day, I'm thinking. Thoughts? -- Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it. OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption
Re: Sid-specific list?
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:57:49 +0200 Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David B Harris wrote: I've been wondering if maybe it would be worthwhile to have a mailing list specific to any humdrum issues that show up in Sid. Something moderated so there isn't a huge amount of traffic for these people to keep up with. Two or three posts a day, I'm thinking. Such are sent and discussed on debian-devel in the past. I believe this is still adaequate, especially since we keep telling people that they should not run sid when they don't subscribe to debian-devel and -announce. I would have agreed last year. I don't know if I've just lost patience for it, but it seems to me like debian-devel is just way too heavy for this sort of thing. I have serious trouble drumming up interest for a full 85% of the traffic there, and I'm a maintainer and somebody who's active in the community. -- Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it. OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:14:20 + Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 12:03]: If it is the flirtation that is the problem, and the problems do not go beyond that to the extend of persistent harassment, then the solution is simple; let Erinn bring more of her female friends to the channel to spread the load. The channel is called #debian for a reason; it's not called #debian-flirt or #horny-debian-geeks. #debian is about user questions and communication related to Debian; if you want to flirt, don't do it on #debian because you're off-topic. Though, of course, #debian is part of a community, and a community in its own right. off-topic is a bat used to beat the heads of trolls or people being deliberately offensive - a certain amount of off-topic bantering and discussion is required for the good function of any community. -- Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100 Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote: Is this just a game to you? I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice. I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ended up being flamewars about correct debating etiquette, style, and reason :) -- Aruing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:42:24 -0500 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway, something we've done for d-i is tried to redirect users who are having installation problems specifically with d-i to #debian-boot, which is much lower volume, and full of people (though often absent hacking/sleeping) who are knowledgeable about the problems. I wonder if #debian could be split up in more ways, and become more of a redirector channel, possibly even not open to general discussion. There could be a #debian-talk for that. Actually, we tried to do that some time ago, but the idea (at the time) didn't fly with the network administrators. They might be more amenable to it now, however. It's something I'll look into, but for the time being, let's just try to make it a friendlier place period. -- Aruing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:02:42 -0500 David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:15:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's #debian as a Project resource. Well, given that the number of actual Debian Developers who hang around in there regularly is two (Laurence Lane/ljlane and David Harris/ElectricElf) and neither is in there that frequently these days in my experience. joshk is there from time to time, but I feel like I'm the only one with a package in the archive who's actually present frequently and for long periods of time. Basically there is no help from those officially involved in the project, which is unfortunate in my opinion. I don't think whether or not people have a package in the archive is particularily relevant. What matters is that the people who actually have privilege (in the permissions sense), the people who actually get to decide who's in and who's out, are good people ... see below :) Instead what has happened is that bitter users have largely taken over the channel, mwilson being the most notable of those, and they tend to piss off more new users than they help. There are very notable exceptions to this (Rob Weir/bob2, Peter Samuelson/peterS, Don Armstrong/dondelelcaro, Simon Raven/simonrvn) but they are often drowned out by the angry users. With the exception of peterS, all the good people you mention are channel operators and are perfectly capable of simply removing the ability for the angry users to speak. Ask why they don't do that before you suggest that they do. I think that having #debian as an official resource should not go away. There is no better way to find out what users on the frontline are having troubles with. The problem is a lack of involvement from people in the project who are well connected to what's going on. I've thought about creating a #debian strike force for a while now (we almost have one in a way) but I haven't figured out a good way to do it. If anyone is interested in setting this up, I think it'd be worthwhile. #debian should still remain a part of the project. We actually do have one, and have had one for a good long while. It might not be composed entirely of DDs, but that's irrelevant. Being a DD doesn't automatically make you a good decision-maker when it comes to dealing with people's ability to speak freely in a support channel. Likewise, just because you're not a DD doesn't mean you're incapable of being a valuable resource. At the request of a number of Debian Developers and users, I'm going to spend more time in #debian and I hope to put forward some concrete recommendations in the near future. Probably a couple of months. -- Aruing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:36:29 -0600 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:05:01PM -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote: On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's #debian as a Project resource. Couldn't it be a good idea to form a Debian-specific IRC network? I'm just wondering it, not use FreeNode, but an specific network. What about OFTC, which already exists, is another SPI project, has a democratic process similar to Debian, and seems to generally be run by stable people with a clue? Hehe, this is funny. As a staff member of OFTC, and its current responsible-person for the IRC network (and indeed, most of the technical stuff save coding and the web site), and as a Debian Developer (this one is new :), and as the current Contact for #debian (in irc.freenode.net terms, the Contact is the person titularly responsible for a channel), I'd like to say that I like the idea of Debian running its own IRC server(s). OFTC would be more than happy to run the technical stuff for Debian, in addition to providing some staff to help those Debian-assigned people out in the first while, but there are definetly some advantages to having a seperate Debian network/server. I only mention OFTC being willing to run them as some Debian folk are afraid of Debian running its own. Debian's perfectly capable of running its own servers should it want it. -- Aruing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
Re: Co-maintaining Kaffe
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:56:40 -0500 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David B Harris wrote: Got a better suggestion then? With Ean's mail to -devel, it's pretty apparent that these two can't work it out amongst themselves. I would think that a group of people doing what the tech-ctte is supposed to be doing would be the ideal people to hear both sides and make an (enforced) decision on the matter. Maybe the tech-ctte needs to be upgraded before it deals with this particular case? Why do you want to broaden the scope of the technical committee? Are you not happy with our constitutionally elected DPL? See section 6.3 of the Debian Constitution. (Also, please respect the Reply-To: if you reply to this mail.)
Re: Co-maintaining Kaffe
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:55:38 -0500 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David B Harris wrote: Might I suggest taking this to tech-ctte? The tech in its name stands for technical. Technical, as in something you can file a bug to request[1]. This is not a dispute over a technical question, and it seems well on its way to being resolved anyway. Ean had the right idea in saying he'll refer it to Project leadership (DPL) if necessary. See section 6.1.3 of the Debian Constitution (sorry, in my other mail I said 6.3, it was a typo). (Also, please respect the Reply-To of this mail if you reply to it.)
Re: unauthorized upload of xfree86 4.3.0-1 to unstable
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:04:30 -0500 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This upload was done without advance notice to, or consultation with the rest of the X Strike Force (XSF) team I asked Branden for clarification on this, and the XSF consists of everybody subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's a quick grep from the commit log with 'uniq -c' applied: 758 branden (Branden Robinson) 116 daniel (Daniel Stone) 57 ishikawa (ISHIKAWA Mutsumi) 23 wt (Warren Turkal) 14 jch (Juliusz Chroboczek) 7 fabbione (Fabio Massimo Di Nitto) 5 rmh (Robert Millan) 3 fenton (Joel Baker) 2 daenzer (Michel Dänzer)
Re: How will this problem between SCO and GNU/linux....
On Sun, 18 May 2003 13:24:35 +0800 Silence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, How will the claims raised by SCO against GNU/Linux affect the Debian project? Ask again when SCO has substantiated any of their claims. Until then, it's nothing but heresay. pgpIS5EuUhOtn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:50:43 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hubs are much less bandwidth-intensive than leaf nodes, because they don't have to repeat a message once for each user that receives the message (think channels). Leaf nodes will end up replicating a lot of messages and sending them out, but it's pretty unavoidable at the moment. It's unavoidable, period. Those clients need to receive the data. I get surprised every day :) I'll not rule something out. IP multicasting may take off. Anyhoo, a T1 could typically handle that many users without breaking a sweat. Hardware-wise, something very modest (think P233 or so) could handle it. That's bottom-end hardware for a server on that scale, even with a highly efficient daemon. Yeah, I redid the calculations based not on average user usage, but on average _Debian_ user usage. In the low-end, yeah. I figured 500kB/s to be safe, after I re-figured how much bandwidth the average Debian user on such a node would likely use. pgpg0ExU9bzBk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 03:08:10 -0400 David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the low-end, yeah. I figured 500kB/s to be safe, after I re-figured how much bandwidth the average Debian user on such a node would likely use. Grrr Typo; added an extra 0. Make that 50kB/s. Which would still be fine for a T1, but starting to get worrying. pgpwo3o2lG8An.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:42:13 -0400 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We already have servers, and bandwidth, and it would seem to could create a small, stable irc network that could handle our modest load of ~700 concurrent clients. I don't know how well irc scales; could a single server handle that load? Yeah. You're talking about what we refer to as a 'leaf' node. ie: a server that primarily handles end-user traffic. Hubs are much less bandwidth-intensive than leaf nodes, because they don't have to repeat a message once for each user that receives the message (think channels). Leaf nodes will end up replicating a lot of messages and sending them out, but it's pretty unavoidable at the moment. Anyhoo, a T1 could typically handle that many users without breaking a sweat. Hardware-wise, something very modest (think P233 or so) could handle it. Pro-network: We can avoid the necessary work of keeping the network running and maintained and dealing with the attacks and bad behavior that irc engenders, as the network has people who do that. Just like to point out that it'll be less likely for a small Debian IRC server to be attacked than a large Deban channel on a heterogeneous network. #debian is usually attacked because it's the biggest channel on OPN - not because it's #debian. On the other hand, a single Debian IRC server _would_ be in more trouble than a network if it was attacked. I think the tradeoff would be worth it, though, if the person sponsoring the hardware and bandwidth was able to filter packets at their ISP. Anti-network: As has been mentioned, we have debian developers who do that work on OPN and other networks already. So we know how to do it and we have people who could do it if they desired to do so. Agreed. Myself and others have volunteered on numerous occasions. A single server would be less of a target than an entire irc network. Compare with lists.debian.org, which we could after all farm out to yahoo or something and put up with advertising, but we instead, and quite rightly, host it ourselves, and deal with administration ourselves. I agree. One of the things people will say to this is yeah, but mailing lists are essential. Instant communication a la IRC is nice, but it' hardly essential. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Pro-network: Part of a larger community, cross-fertilization, etc. Anti-network: What Wichert said, plus see all the politics that has been dragged into this thread by people who seem to be part of some different, conflicting communities in addition to their membership in the debian community. And quoting Bdale: Actually, what I observed was that of the various IRC channels that I spend time on personally, the ones that seem to be the least irritating and the most useful are the ones where a single, non-IRC-networked server is hosting the channel. What Bdale witnesses, I think, is the lack of cross-fertilisation :) (I mean, it can be a good thing ... and it can be a bad thing :) Pro-network: Specifically pro OPN is that they really want to replace irc with something better, and they really badly seems to need to be done. I'd be careful about this; IRC is popular because it works. There are lots of things that could use changing, but most of them are technical, back-end issues. IRC _has_ been replaced, sort of, by ICQ and friends. I think fixing would be better :) So I don't see much benefit to us in using a large network managed by someone else, unless politics and apathy keep us from hosting our own. I say all this as a long-time and mostly happy user of OPN, who has known lilo in RL and likes him and admires his stated goals, and who has been much more bothered by all the netsplits than the advertising, and who would continue to use it for a few other channels anyway. But in retrospect the decision to point irc.debian.org at OPN didn't buy us much. Yeah, I'd love Debian to run its own IRC server :) (There's no need to run more than one given our load, and that'd result in the same technical problems an IRC network runs in to.) pgpAdipX9HzqY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:07:00 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Side note: be wary of the OFTC web pages. There's plenty more bullshit on them, read them with the scepticism that everything on the web deserves.] Feel free to point us at anything that's unclear :) We've done our best to be as plain as possible while still making ourselves understood. We would very much appreciate feedback :) pgp4wIfI1ybp2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
they have a closer server than rotation, they want to use IPv6, or whatever. The conversion won't just be clean-cut (doubly so if you consider DNS TTL issues), it'll be rather hairy. Yeah, correct. Actually, me and a few #debian ops discussed it, and nobody there plans on permanently leaving the channel. We'll continue to provide top-notch tech support to people on both networks (I haven't been doing so much of that as I'd like, lately, but hopefully I'll be able to pick it up again). Some people might think I'm bitter because of my bad experiences with OFTC and its leadership. I'm not really that bitter and hung up about it, but I've seen it from day 1, right up until they launched (it was still basically private when I was sacked, hence my being mystified at the reason for my being sacked). I'll leave that alone. OFTC have also painted themselves as being very kind and nice. This is not, however, true. For a while, #iamacow (the disgruntled group of OPN admins before we decided to form a new network) toyed seriously with the idea of making a hostile takeover of OPN; ElectricElf and cdlu also seriously floated the idea of putting pressure on lilo's creditors to force him to repay his loans, hence sinking OPN. Thankfully, neither of those strategies came to the fore. Those statements are blatantly false. Dave (other Dave :) made a joke once about what would happen if Rob Levin's creditors went after him. That was all for that. We did discuss what options would be available if Rob Levin cut the strings - one of those was getting ahold of all the server sponsors and rebuilding the network. Yeah, that's a takeover, I guess. But we ended up dismissing it, because a) it was pretty much impossible to find out who the current server sponsors were, and how to contact them, and b) we didn't think rebuilding it under a different domain name would really have been rebuilding it after it had been cut to the ground. I just think that moving to OFTC would be a bad and very ill-considered move. I think Debian should stay on OPN because OFTC is in so grave a situation. It's not in a grave situation. I wouldn't expect that to change your opinion, though. I think this thread is dead. We've all had our says, I think. -- David B. Harris OFTC, Ombudsman and handyman On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:20:37 +1000 Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway. I was an OPN staff member for 3-4 months (I honestly can't remember exactly how long), and left to join a disgruntled group of ex-OPN staffers that would later make up OFTC. Well, let's start here. When you first showed up, we weren't ex-OPN staff. We were OPN staff. And disgruntled isn't the right word; we were brainstorming about what to do if Rob Levin cut the cords on the network. There weren't many options, as you'll recall. I was with OFTC for about 8 months, before its core committee asked me to leave (but more on that later). Indeed, I'm as much a founding member as David cdlu Graham, and David ElectricElf Harris. In that you happened to be present, yes. Your opinions were listened to and responded to, but they didn't reflect the final decisions made. I'm not saying this to belittle you, but if you're going to claim the title of founder, then you should at least understand that it was simply a result of your being there. I think that a move to OFTC would be somewhat counterproductive to Debian. Many people go around screaming OPN iz da k4b4l d00d!!. And they're correct, it is. ElectricElf's assertions that lilo once threatened to shut down the network are entirely correct; I've seen the log (a tarball of a couple of damaging logs was distributed as a new members' pack, back in the day). As someone (whom I have forgotten, apologies if it was you) said: OPN: We redefine Open. Come check us out!. Well, not once threatened .. several times :) The logs weren't specifically designed to be damaging; they were given to people whose opinions we respected at the time, so we didn't have to re-explain everything. If you'll recall, we asked the opinions from a wide variety of network people; mostly staff, ex-staff, and channel founders. We felt that their opinions should be heard, so that anything we approached Rob Levin with would truly be from the network's community. The logs were pretty complete. We really thought they would be better at bringing people up-to-speed than third- or fourth-hand accounts, or rhetoric. However, that doesn't mean OFTC is any better. If you read through David G's email that reads more like a press release than anything, and cut through all the layers of double-talk and manager-speak, you'll see one alarming word: pseudo-democratic. He talks about the staff choosing new people among themselves. Yeah, we still haven't figured out how to allow every user on OFTC to vote. So, for the time being, it's restricted to those who are staff. Since your departure, there've already been many new staff additions. Many server
Re: irc.debian.org
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:55:27 +0200 Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If such a thing happens, at least we have an option. An OFTC source which also prefers anonymity ;) told me that they wouldn't solicit moving irc.debian.org server CNAME to irc.oftc.net, but that they would gladly accept it if we asked. Actually, I needn't remain anonymous :) We (OFTC staff) discussed a long time ago what we're going to do about projects which could use OFTC services. We weren't sure how to let them know that we were available. In other words, we didn't know what kind of advertising we should use. We ended up deciding, none. OFTC is still just getting started. Our IRC servers are really quite good and almost 100% ready to go, but we've not implemented project registration, nor project mailing lists, nor project web space, ... you get the idea. Debian needs none of those things that aren't implemented, so obviously those features aren't particularily germane to the discussion, but I thought it was worth saying. Anyways, in the end we decided not to advertise, not to solicit projects in any way, shape, or form. There's too much room for misunderstanding. Right now OFTC only offers IRC, and IRC already has a reputation as not being a real communications medium. So we don't want the IRC part of OFTC to bring down the rest of it (the rest of it isn't in place yet, bear with us :). Would we do our best to support Debian if they started using OFTC's IRC services? Yes, of course. But we can't actually invite Debian, just because too many people would deliberately misinterpret the invitation as something unethical. -- \ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com / / [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://eelf.ddts.net \ \==/ / Clan Barclay motto: Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) \ pgpAWldELnJup.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:36:09 +0200 Noel Koethe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once again, what do you people think? I would like to see irc.debian.org moving to a IRC network without this daily requests for money/spam. Or maybe there are interested DD who want to setup and run a own debian.org/SPI IRCnetwork. Actually, I've suggested that myself a few times :) Bdale seemed quite interested in it; obviously with OFTC I haven't had the time to make up anything specifically for Debian, but I don't think it's a bad idea in and of itself. Unfortunately, the response you'll most likely hear is Debian doesn't do IRC. :) -- \ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com / / [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://eelf.ddts.net \ \==/ / Clan Barclay motto: Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) \ pgp9FhdPRwOtA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On 16 Aug 2002 17:32:01 -0600 Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, what I observed was that of the various IRC channels that I spend time on personally, the ones that seem to be the least irritating and the most useful are the ones where a single, non-IRC-networked server is hosting the channel. I've experienced the same myself. -- \ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com / / [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://eelf.ddts.net \ \==/ / Clan Barclay motto: Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) \ pgpARf4a2MQrN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (no subject)
On Sat, 4 May 2002 20:21:34 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi,how are you doing ? Can I be your webmaster ? Bwahahahah Muaahahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- \ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com / / [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://eelf.ddts.net \ \==/ / Clan Barclay motto: Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) \ pgphFgwQOeUXQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
