Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Lee Winter  wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> > Are you aware that there is a useful (from the perspective of
>> freedoms) distinction to be made between physical property and
>> so-called 'intellectual property'?
>
> No.  In fact hell no.

You are either severely misguided or strongly entrenched in a position
on which I vehemently disagree.


> Consider if you please (or use the Socratic defense of not listening) the
> definition of property.  How does something become property?  Materials in
> the "wild" are not property.  So how does it become property owned by some
> person(s)?
>
> I like John Locke's answer  in the labor theory of property/ownership/first
> appropriation.  Natural materials become owned when a person, who
> automatically owns their ownself and thus their own labor, mixes that labor
> with the natural materials.  So plowing a field, digging a well or a mine,
> or cutting down a tree are all ways of mixing one's labor with raw land,
> which combination is the basis for all property.  Even unimproved land can
> be characterized as property if the would-be owner is willing to defend it.
...

I like that :)

When I pick up the stone, or the stick, it has become my property, due
to the fact of my picking it up (or fashioning the stick with the
stone etc etc).


> Intellectual property is the most pure form of personal property.

I hear your proposition. But a proposition is all it is. You have
already used the term 'intellectual property' and related it to
'purity' and 'personal property', as though intellectual thoughts,
ideas and images are 'things' and somehow not only property, but a
pure form of property, heavenly so to speak.

So, you'll have to try harder than presume the term you are trying to
define. As I said, that sort of thing is not going to work in these
parts.


> It involves skull sweat.

Now there's a new term - I usually find my skin sweats, although to be
honest I'm really not sure about my skull, since it's hidden from my
immediate view.


> There may be little or no physical property or even no
> tools involved in the creation of the intellectual "stuff".

To get really specific, we can talk about ideas, algorithms,
compositions or computer programs. But until they are manifested in an
implementation or performance, or even in a conversation sharing the
idea with another human, then 'it' only exists in the mind of the
thinker.

At least 'stuff' is better than 'property'.

I suggest using the common term though - thoughts.

So you had a thought. Good for you. You can call that an item of your
personal property all you like. Doesn't make a twat of difference to
me.


> But it is absolutely and unconditionally the fruit
> of human effort.  Mental effort.

Thoughts are the fruit of mental effort.

I can agree with that.


> Now perhaps a farmer or blacksmith might opine that thinking is not labor.
> But they would be wrong.  The fruits of thinking are bought and sold every
> day.

Sure, where:
fruits = manifestations, performances, compositions in writing etc

> As a software engineer and as an entrepreneur  I sell my thinking
> every day.

Wrong.

You sell the 'fruits' of your thinking (to be generous with your
terminology), or rather, the output of your fingers on a keyboard and
mouse (or punched card if you still live in the '60s) - if you produce
nothing by your physical labour (of fingers etc), I suspect your
so-called 'programming' job won't last so long.

On the other hand, you may be able to by-pass fingers with an EEG
headset. Sure, you are still producing lines of code in a computer - a
semi-physical or on-computer digitally-represented manifestation - the
point being, it is still in this physical world, you have produced the
line(s) of code.

Those lines of code are even used to value companies angling for an
IPO. Not your thoughts, but the lines of code you managed to get into
the computer by some means.


> I said above that intellectual property is the most pure form of property.
> That statement is based on the fact that intellectual property is nothing
> _but_ human labor.

Again, you are continuing to use the term intellectual property in
your defense of, that's right, the term 'intellectual property'.

Some might 'ohh' and 'ahh' and 'how eloquent was he', but it don't
work for me :)


> Just not physical labor.  There is no natural or "wild"
> physical material mixed with the thinking.
> So the property is _only_ human labor.

You can say thinking==property 1000 times,
yet it shall never make the two the same.


> And we have an unlimited supply because, while real estate is a finite
> supply, the scope of human thought is not finite.  So no limit applies.
> And there is no barrier to entry.  One cannot erect a fence to prevent
> people from thinking the way one could erect a fence to protect a field
> against trespassing.

Here you are saying things I basically agree with.


> Intellectual property is the mos

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Reco]

Hi.

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 08:51:13PM +0200, Filip wrote:

> There are other reasons to boycot GNOME though. Look at the latest
> 'feature' in they put in GTK+ 3.12:
> 
> http://redmine.audacious-media-player.org/boards/1/topics/1135

The misfeature in question is:

a) Already fixed in GTK+ 3.12.1.

b) Does not bother anyone in GNOME actually (problem surfaced running
GTK+3 in xfce).

That would be the reason to avoid GTK+3 applications, but GNOME -
hardly.

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519055647.GB17161@x101h

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Carl Fink  wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:50:44PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, Lee Winter  wrote:
>
>> > But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real
>> > and
>> > worth protecting.
>>
>> RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.
>>
>> RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.
>>
>> PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to this
>> point.
>
> RMs said to me, personally, that "intellectual property" does not exist
> except legally and should not exist legally. Cite: personal communication.

Thank you. That's good, anecdotal as it is. Here are some more
official FSF materials:

The short version:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

Which includes the following para:
"The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the
way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy
with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical
property."

This is an unpacking of what I was referring to in an earlier email as
"conflation" of terms.

The next para is: "When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards
the crucial difference between material objects and information:
information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while
material objects can't be."

And the final para (I have not quoted them all) says "The hypocrisy of
calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the World
“Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.
[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html]";
 - I find that link interesting indeed.

The long version is here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

Quoting its first paragraph: "It has become fashionable to toss
copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different
entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a
dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The
distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.
Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way
out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. "

And these: "Some of these alternative names would be an improvement,
but it is a mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other
term. A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as “intellectual
property”—it is a mirage. The only reason people think it makes sense
as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term has misled
them. "

"People often say “intellectual property” when they really mean some
larger or smaller category. For instance, rich countries often impose
unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them. Some of
these laws are “intellectual property” laws, and others are not;
nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because
it has become familiar to them. By using it, they misrepresent the
nature of the issue. It would be better to use an accurate term, such
as “legislative colonization”, that gets to the heart of the matter. "

"Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for
unexamined assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such
as that amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do
not, and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that
copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs
support life-saving research. "

I recommend reading the whole statement though...

Cheers,
Zenaan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsqcjr-xfc3qtvjd+4szy4airb+fy2mmdbempjragip...@mail.gmail.com

Re: GPT and SSDs

[Reco]

Hi.

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:48:00AM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
> This led me into partitioning. I thought that GPT pretty much gave
> you proper partition alignment, but now I think I was mistaken on
> that point. gdisk shows my first partition starting at 34, with the
> fdisk info showing 255 heads, 63 sectors/track. That doesn't come
> close to 4k alignment.

EFI label requires 34*512 disk sectors, so first partition starting on
34 sector is not unusual.


> Anyway, my gdisk data is:
>   Disk /dev/sda: 234441648 sectors, 111.8 GiB
>   Logical sector size: 512 bytes

This. Note that your disk's logical sector is 512 bytes.


> Before I haul out sysrescuecd and move my partitions around, I
> thought I'd ask for suggestions. Should I move the filesystem to
> something that is a multiple of 8, do something else, or look
> elsewhere for a solution to my problem?

Aligning disk against 4096 sector would be needed if your disk had 4096
physical sector (or 4096 logical one). This does not seem to be the
case, although you can check disk sector sizes with:

cat /sys/block/sda/queue/logical_block_size

cat /sys/block/sda/queue/physical_block_size

If both of those return 512 - you have nothing to worry about.
If either of them returns 4096 - you'll need to align your partitions.

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519055045.GA17161@x101h

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Lee Winter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

Are you aware that there is a useful (from the perspective of
> freedoms) distinction to be made between physical property and
> so-called 'intellectual property'?
>

No.  In fact hell no.

Consider if you please (or use the Socratic defense of not listening) the
definition of property.  How does something become property?  Materials in
the "wild" are not property.  So how does it become property owned by some
person(s)?

I like John Locke's answer  in the labor theory of property/ownership/first
appropriation.  Natural materials become owned when a person, who
automatically owns their ownself and thus their own labor, mixes that labor
with the natural materials.  So plowing a field, digging a well or a mine,
or cutting down a tree are all ways of mixing one's labor with raw land,
which combination is the basis for all property.  Even unimproved land can
be characterized as property if the would-be owner is willing to defend it.

All other forms of physical property are created by that same process.
They are usually the fruits of owned land. Picking fruit from a wild
orchard may not involved ownership of the orchard.  But it certainly
involves ownership of the picked fruit.

Intellectual property is the most pure form of personal property.  It
involves skull sweat.  There may be little or no physical property or even
no tools involved in the creation of the intellectual "stuff".  But it is
absolutely and unconditionally the fruit of human effort.  Mental effort.

Now perhaps a farmer or blacksmith might opine that thinking is not labor.
But they would be wrong.  The fruits of thinking are bought and sold every
day.  As a software engineer and as an entrepreneur  I sell my thinking
every day.

I said above that intellectual property is the most pure form of property.
That statement is based on the fact that intellectual property is nothing
_but_ human labor.  Just not physical labor.  There is no natural or "wild"
physical material mixed with the thinking.  So the property is _only_ human
labor.

And we have an unlimited supply because, while real estate is a finite
supply, the scope of human thought is not finite.  So no limit applies.
And there is no barrier to entry.  One cannot erect a fence to prevent
people from thinking the way one could erect a fence to protect a field
against trespassing.

Intellectual property is the most human form of property.  Many animals
will defend their own territory, often by marking, but always by attacking
interlopers.  Real estate predates humanity, probably by over a billion
years.

It sounds like you are somewhat pro-freedom, yet from my position, to
> use the word "property" as Jerry (and here you) are using it, in
> relation to 'intellectual' things (like say mathematical algorithms),
> is actually a conflation brought into our language by the pro-monopoly
> pro-drm etc lobby groups.
>

No.  Your history is wrong.  And your example is silly because mathematical
algorithms cannot be protected whether by copyright, patent, or trademark,
They can be protected by trade secrecy,but that does not prevent anyone
else from coming up with the same secret.  But _stealing_ a trade secret is
theft.  Theft of what?  Property.


> Do you see this?
>

I see it.  Your conclusions are wrong.  Probably because you are weak on
facts, law, and history, which weakness  isleading you to false premises.


> I can hold a stone, or a stick, and whilst I hold it, it is mine. When
> I put it down, it could be argued to no longer be mine, but that leads
> to fights too easily, so in my community, we acknowledge that
> ownership of _physical_ property is something that ought be respected.
>
> As a programmer, and a pro-GPL programmer at that, I say that the
> greatest good, in general, for my community as a whole, is to license
> the software I sell, under the GPL.
>

So you are a socialist.  The truth comes out.  I should have known.  Please
take your drivel elsewhere.

> But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real and
> > worth protecting.
>
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.
>

Yes he did. To me.


>
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.
>

Yes he did.  To me.


> PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to this
> point.
>

I am not unsure. I am absolutely certain.

At the World Science Fiction Convention in Boston (cirra 1980) he made a
presentation about his then-recent efforts.  He also took  questions from
the audience.  I asked whether he believed in intellectual property at
all.  He said no.  At that point further discussion became pointless and I
left.

> Otherwise I would consider every GPL "protected" product
> > to have a BSD or an MIT license.  It is my respect for the owner's
> ability
> > to set terms of use for their property that protects GPL'd products. Not
> > the terms of that or any other license.
>
> Try telling that to J

Re: set higher verbosity in exim4 output

[David Guntner]

David Guntner grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> Harry Putnam grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
>> Never used exim but trying to get it setup since the latest version of
>> sendmail seems to have some problems I don't understand on a new debian
>> install.
> 
> Just as a matter of curiosity, why aren't you trying Postfix instead?
> It was pretty much designed as a drop-in replacement for Sendmail, so if
> you already know the sendmail options that you need to do what you want,
> you could probably just provide them to the postfix-supplied sendmail
> program.

Ok, that was *really* badly worded on my part.  My bad.

It's certainly not a "drop-in replacement" in terms of the configuration
files, etc.  But it was designed with a high degree of compatibility
with sendmail, and from an end-user's standpoint (once it's up and
running), there's not a lot of difference.

There's an article at:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=24688

that can give you some comparison information.  You might find it worth
reading.

 --Dave





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: set higher verbosity in exim4 output

[David Guntner]

Harry Putnam grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> Never used exim but trying to get it setup since the latest version of
> sendmail seems to have some problems I don't understand on a new debian
> install.
> 
> I've pounded along googling and scanning the exim documentation on
> board for a couple of hours tonight... but I have yet to find a simple
> straight forward explanation of how to get more verbose output so I can
> tell what is happening in smtp conversation.
> 
> Running mailx -v email@address  that the message was `delayed'.  Not very helpful I want to see what
> is happening at the smarthost regarding authentication.
> 
> I understand one can send messages with exim directly from the command
> line like sendmail but could not find any examples of that.
> 
> the exim manpages appears to be devoid of basic examples.
> 
> And apparently my google strings are not clever enough to unearth some
> examples.
> 
> How would I send a message directly with exim4 from the command line and
> at the same time set verbosity to a much higher level?
> 
> I saw the -d switch but no example of sending from cmdline, to try it
> with.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why aren't you trying Postfix instead?
It was pretty much designed as a drop-in replacement for Sendmail, so if
you already know the sendmail options that you need to do what you want,
you could probably just provide them to the postfix-supplied sendmail
program.

 --Dave





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

GPT and SSDs

[Gary Dale]

I'm trying to solve a problem where my computer locks up every few 
minutes for a minute or so. I thought possibly it might be related to 
the SSD that has my / partition since I haven't been able to find any 
program that is doing it. Top and IOTop don't show any unusual activity.


This led me into partitioning. I thought that GPT pretty much gave you 
proper partition alignment, but now I think I was mistaken on that 
point. gdisk shows my first partition starting at 34, with the fdisk 
info showing 255 heads, 63 sectors/track. That doesn't come close to 4k 
alignment.


There is a linux mag article (http://www.linux-mag.com/id/8397/) that 
talks a lot about this, and seems to like using cylinder alignment 
instead of just starting the partition on a sector that is 8*512.


Anyway, my gdisk data is:
  Disk /dev/sda: 234441648 sectors, 111.8 GiB
  Logical sector size: 512 bytes
  Disk identifier (GUID): 
  Partition table holds up to 128 entries
  First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 234441614
  Partitions will be aligned on 1-sector boundaries
  Total free space is 0 sectors (0 bytes)

  Number  Start (sector)End (sector)  Size   Code  Name
 1  34   232542884   110.9 GiB8300  Linux 
filesystem
 2   232542885   234441614   927.1 MiB   EF02  BIOS boot 
partition


Before I haul out sysrescuecd and move my partitions around, I thought 
I'd ask for suggestions. Should I move the filesystem to something that 
is a multiple of 8, do something else, or look elsewhere for a solution 
to my problem?



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53798d00.6040...@torfree.net

set higher verbosity in exim4 output

[Harry Putnam]

Never used exim but trying to get it setup since the latest version of
sendmail seems to have some problems I don't understand on a new debian
install.

I've pounded along googling and scanning the exim documentation on
board for a couple of hours tonight... but I have yet to find a simple
straight forward explanation of how to get more verbose output so I can
tell what is happening in smtp conversation.

Running mailx -v email@address https://lists.debian.org/87sio62xt1@newsguy.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Carl Fink]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:50:44PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 5/19/14, Lee Winter  wrote:

> > But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real and
> > worth protecting.
> 
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.
> 
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.
> 
> PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to this point.

RMs said to me, personally, that "intellectual property" does not exist
except legally and should not exist legally. Cite: personal communication.
-- 
Carl Fink   ca...@li-con.org
Chair, LI-CON, March 29-30, 2014, Rockville Centre, NY
Con Site: http://li-con.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519042029.ga11...@panix.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Richard Hector  wrote:
> On 19/05/14 15:28, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> Oh Richard, bless you. Now you've taken away my excuse to pretend I
>> didn't really know what Jerry was saying and continue to mock his lack
>> of precision :)
>
> I'm one of those you mentioned that has trouble resisting reading every
> email. Deliberate trolling does _not_ make my life easier ... even when
> it can be entertaining :-(

Ahh, self-discipline eh?

When I said "I'm glad I brought that out of him [Jerry]", I really
mean it - he's a bit of a time-bomb and carries an intense anger or
something about him, he's so harsh to anybody he disagrees with. So
when he admits his own nature by saying "all your property will be
mine", then other people get to see that depth of his nature.

And, as you know, there are many who don't have that level of insight
into other people, and at least one of them has even chastised me in
the past "oh don't be so harsh on Jerry".

There are certain aspects of people that I believe it is good to bring
out into the open, so we can all know what we're dealing with.

Although I have the luxury of not enough time to read all the d-u
threads, so I just get to jump in when something looks juicy, or is of
personal interest, or something I think I can readily assist others
with (if it's not already answered).

All the best,
Zen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSTpWz5uchoDkjKo=emjejgdkh8tthkz1uz1uhqidba...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Richard Hector]

On 19/05/14 15:28, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Oh Richard, bless you. Now you've taken away my excuse to pretend I
> didn't really know what Jerry was saying and continue to mock his lack
> of precision :)

I'm one of those you mentioned that has trouble resisting reading every
email. Deliberate trolling does _not_ make my life easier ... even when
it can be entertaining :-(

Richard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53797d59.8060...@walnut.gen.nz

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Richard Hector  wrote:
> On 19/05/14 14:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> But if I catch you violating my copyright, I will have everything you
>> own.
>
> I don't think the law goes quite that far ...

:)

I'm glad I drew him out that far, personally.


> BTW I'd also like to see evidence for what law prevents linking to
> someone else's work.

Me too, me too.


> Overall, though, this argument seems fairly pointless, since you're both
> deliberately talking at cross-purposes: Jerry is talking about using the
> law to fight, while Zenaan is talking about fighting the law. Both are
> useful in different (and probably sometimes the same) circumstances.

Oh Richard, bless you. Now you've taken away my excuse to pretend I
didn't really know what Jerry was saying and continue to mock his lack
of precision :)

All good things come to an end eh :)

Thank you though. It's good to be brought back down to earth here and
there. I'm sure you never noticed, but I do get carried away
occasionally ... just occasionally.

Best regards,
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsr6a3r5svkqhfz0e1r1b7sneju592xtxs3q0ryavn5...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:50:44PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> I can hold a stone, or a stick, and whilst I hold it, it is mine. 

Unless you stole it ... hey wait a minute, where's my sticks and stones!

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519032434.GA26687@tal

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Richard Hector]

On 19/05/14 15:15, Gary Dale wrote:
>> So Gary, how do we handle this problem of lack of educated thinkers?
>> Cause that's the real problem as I see it.
>>
>> Regards
>> Zenaan
> That problem is not solvable, I'm afraid. That's why people who do think
> about issues have a duty to speak up about them. Stallman's GPL is a
> case in point. A work of true genius, it tries to keep things free.

One of the issues that needs to be talked about (and voted for, if you
have the opportunity) is better education, of course. For everyone.
Globally.

But OT, sorry.

Richard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379794e.9080...@walnut.gen.nz

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Lee Winter  wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> Those who (...whatever...) create content get to decide HOW THEY
>> DISTRIBUTE or otherwise SELL that content.
>>
>> No more. No less.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Once it's on my computer, on in my brain, it's mine. I can do with it
>> as I choose, and within the limits of my capacity.
>
> Wrong.
>
> The copyright holders continue to control your ability to

Logic huh?


> If the copyright holders say one backup copy then that's all you can make.

Wrong. I can make exactly 2 copies before I make a cuppa.

Oh, and after that, I can make more copies.


> If the copyright holders say no other media then you can

The power ... the pOWER !!! MWAHAHAHAHHA!!!

Oh, and more logic..


> your heart's content, but only on the medium allowed.  That means a floppy
> disk's contents cannot be copied

I keep getting lost..


> You do not buy the rights to a copyrighted work when you buy an instance of
> it.  You could buy the copyright holder's interest,

Wrong.

> Are you really going to admit in this public forum that you regularly
> violate copyright law on purpose?

Are you someone who baits people regularly?


> Lee Winter
> Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)

Live free or die heh... sounds good.

BTW, I am a great fan of New Hampshire, and in particular the
http://FreeStateProject.org/


What an individual can do, and what the law permits them to do, are
entirely different things. I admit that these are easy to mix up.
Jerry seems to be figuring it out too. That's a good thing, because
that means we can get back to sane conversations rather than endless
rubbish (apologies to those who can't resist reading every email to
the list, I too am guilty of contributing to the high class of
communication).

Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsthkexh939x8+myp60jaoogjyh4nuzqhevszqzbqwd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Richard Hector]

On 19/05/14 14:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> But if I catch you violating my copyright, I will have everything you own.

I don't think the law goes quite that far ...

BTW I'd also like to see evidence for what law prevents linking to
someone else's work.

Overall, though, this argument seems fairly pointless, since you're both
deliberately talking at cross-purposes: Jerry is talking about using the
law to fight, while Zenaan is talking about fighting the law. Both are
useful in different (and probably sometimes the same) circumstances.

Richard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379773a.40...@walnut.gen.nz

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 08:42 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 5/15/14, Andrei POPESCU  wrote:

On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:

I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to provide
content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why not
use it?

Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
proprietary parts.

Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable.

Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading
iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances
that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.


To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.

There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
must be the choice of the user.

Freedom 0 (zero) if I remember rightly - the freedom to use for any purpose.

I guess the problem is education - most people click "yes, do
everything you possibly can to allow me to watch this popular thing
NOW and don't even THINK about making me think about concepts or
anything I want to be _entertained_ only".

So Gary, how do we handle this problem of lack of educated thinkers?
Cause that's the real problem as I see it.

Regards
Zenaan
That problem is not solvable, I'm afraid. That's why people who do think 
about issues have a duty to speak up about them. Stallman's GPL is a 
case in point. A work of true genius, it tries to keep things free.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379775d.2060...@torfree.net

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
...

endless pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSQgHexNNimAK1gC74eMaHba0TkUi02S-iCCNNjASx=b...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 06:40 PM, Tom H wrote:

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:

So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my neighbour
the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of your argument.

You ought to go in to politics because this is yet another ridiculous
parallel of the kind that politicians use to fool voters.

In what way are Mozilla, Adobe, or a copyright holder building a fence
on public property when a user freely installs a plugin on his/her own
computer in order to download restricted content? It's all done
without impinging on anyone else's property or liberty.
The Internet is public property in the same way the roads that connect 
us are. DRM is a fence. My right to use things that I pay for is 
restricted by DRM.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53797551.9090...@torfree.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Lee Winter  wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:
>> On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>>  On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale
>> >> garyd...@torfree.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install content that is
>>> restricted by DRM.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me
>>> from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly free to be
>>> as stupid as they want.
>>>
>>> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
>>> engineering, etc..
>>>
>>>
>>> Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free to dictate
>>> to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship to you in
>>> green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.
>>>
>>> Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them.  Or
>>> exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the DRM
>>> people about it in excruciating detail.  Whining about DRM is both
>>> unsavory
>>> and unsatisfying.
>>>
>>> You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the
>>> law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?
>>>
>>> Lee Winter
>>> Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
>>> United States of America
>>>
>>>
>>>  If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
>> legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
>> packaging be changed.
>
>
> Correct.  Andyou can demand that all day long from the content providers
> who use DRM.  But your demands are just that: requests.  Noeither you nor
> anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to accept andcomply with your
> demands.
>
> More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in ways
> other than the provider permits.  Like Micros~1, they can require that you
> hold your mouth a certain way.  Facing that requirement you are not free to
> violate it.

Actually you are free to violate it. It's the consequences that the
other party to the implied|whatever contract, may bring upon you, that
you are thereafter free to handle as you so choose (ignore and suffer,
pay a lawyer and suffer, present for yourself in court if the matter
goes to court, and suffer research and document preparation sufferance
cost).

But hey, try tellin that to Jerry :)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsqdvprtyhs_uguaa4tud2snbtlhwhkxw1ueemt8wsq...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Lee Winter  wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale  wrote:
> A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that
>> freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was
>> not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free
>> software while it accepts digital restrictions management.
>>
>> Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was
>> allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" to
>> choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be called
>> ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being bandied
>> about
>> in this discussion as if it made any sense.
>>
>> The Free Software Foundation got this one right.
>
> The above message contains good rhetoric and execrable reasoning.
>
> The above dogma confuses two basic categories of freedoms "freedom from"
> and"freedom to".  Freedom from is the ability to avoid undesirable
> situations. Freedom to is the ability to pursue desirable situations.

...
> The real argument is not about DRM restrictions.  Those restrictions are
> irrelevant.  The real argument is whether to allow DRM-restricted property
> (often called content) into one's own domain.

Lee, you are presenting quite a clear position. I appreciate that.

Are you aware that there is a useful (from the perspective of
freedoms) distinction to be made between physical property and
so-called 'intellectual property'?

It sounds like you are somewhat pro-freedom, yet from my position, to
use the word "property" as Jerry (and here you) are using it, in
relation to 'intellectual' things (like say mathematical algorithms),
is actually a conflation brought into our language by the pro-monopoly
pro-drm etc lobby groups.

Do you see this?

The reason I bother to highlight this at all, is that, if you wish to
do more than elucidate each side of an argument, but instead intend to
motive change into our world, then language terminology conflation is
actually a tool, often used by the forces for promoting restriction on
personal activities.

It's a tool we could potentially also use you see...


> Anyone who proposes to restrict my ability to choose, for or against,
> DRM-restricted property is making a proposition that I will _always_ res
> *ist.*  After all, it is about freedom.  Mine.  Not some wacko theoretical
> objection based on alleged principles, but a fully personal decision on a
> care-by-case basis about the property in question.

This is a clear way to put this, thanks.


> And, for the record, I do not consider intellectual property to be morally
> equivalent to a human being.  Owning property has been around for million
> of years.  And I approve of that practice (see Locke).  The distinction is
> that people are not and never have been property, much as some would like
> to think of other people as property.

I think historical precedent is not a strong argument against slavery,
or property ownership.

I can hold a stone, or a stick, and whilst I hold it, it is mine. When
I put it down, it could be argued to no longer be mine, but that leads
to fights too easily, so in my community, we acknowledge that
ownership of _physical_ property is something that ought be respected.

As a programmer, and a pro-GPL programmer at that, I say that the
greatest good, in general, for my community as a whole, is to license
the software I sell, under the GPL.

I acknowledge the laws we have, and that individuals can and will
choose by their will. We have the freedom to choose proprietary
distribution of our intellectual creations (again, I refrain from
using the word property).


> But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real and
> worth protecting.

RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.

RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.

PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to this point.


> Otherwise I would consider every GPL "protected" product
> to have a BSD or an MIT license.  It is my respect for the owner's ability
> to set terms of use for their property that protects GPL'd products. Not
> the terms of that or any other license.

Try telling that to Jerry :)



Regards
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSRF+2VjHVMMvP-gtMyaRKFh9VeaVpq=53i5dtnvywq...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Lee Winter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

Those who (...whatever...) create content get to decide HOW THEY
> DISTRIBUTE or otherwise SELL that content.
>
> No more. No less.
>

Wrong.


>
> Once it's on my computer, on in my brain, it's mine. I can do with it
> as I choose, and within the limits of my capacity.
>

Wrong.

The copyright holders continue to control your ability to make copies.
That, after all, is what "copyright" means.

If the copyright holders say no copies period, then you do not get to make
_any_ copies.  None for backup and none for your kids.

If the copyright holders say one backup copy then that's all you can make.

If the copyright holders say no other media then you can make copies to
your heart's content, but only on the medium allowed.  That means a floppy
disk's contents cannot be copied to a CD, DVD, or to a web site.  Period.
Nor to any other medium.  Only to other floppies.

You do not buy the rights to a copyrighted work when you buy an instance of
it.  You could buy the copyright holder's interest, but that tends to be a
complex transfer.  Such rights generally do not appear on Amazon, Ebay, or
Programmer's Connection's catalog.

And once it is in your brain, anything you create yourself is called a
"derived work" and it may not be distributed without permission from the
original work's copyright holder.  That is what "clean room" development is
all about -- avoidance of derivation.

Before you rant further it might be useful to actually understand the
issues involved.  So far you have only demonstrated serious
misunderstandings.

Note that the _statutory_ penalty for a purposeful violation of copyright
law is USD$150,000.00 plus fees and legal costs.  Per violation.

Are you really going to admit in this public forum that you regularly
violate copyright law on purpose?

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America

Re: systemd - excessive session-creation time

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Tom H  wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erwan David  wrote:
>> Le 18/05/2014 08:34, Tom H a écrit :
>>> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
>>> reboots, run:
>>>
>>> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
>>> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
>>>
>>> The first command will create a
>>> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
>>> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
>>> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
>>> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
>>> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
>>> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".
>>
>> And is there a way toi keep current behaviour : X session on tty 7 ?
>
> What does the above have to do with X and tty7?

When booting with systemd, and _not_ using an X login manager, instead
logging in to Linux console/vt/tty/getty, and running startx from
there, then X has certain problems.

Like logging out, shutting down, etc.

This is because startx was creating a new ck session for X, which was
not tied to the session that actually ran startx, causing all these
activity perm problems.

If you need more detail, please go read the bugs that were linked earlier.

My second problem (besides logging out and shutting down, which is now
solved by running X on the same tty as startx is run), is the delay
problems, this problem has not been solved yet.

Cheers
Zenaan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsspzp5r3rk892okfrqx6iznsfpf43cd4ina7onhp7s...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 10:26 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

I don't care.  But if I catch you violating my copyright,
I will have everything you own.


Jerry.

You speak loudly.

Zenaan




And truthfully.  Ask your attorney.

Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53796d1b.2010...@attglobal.net

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 10:21 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

On 5/18/2014 8:54 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:

On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:

I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
provide
content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
not use
it?

Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox
contained
proprietary parts.

Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for
stable.

Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been
upgrading
iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are
chances
that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.


To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always
download
Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.

There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or
not)
must be the choice of the user.

Kind regards,
Andrei

I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the
open
nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's
the
choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.


As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
decide what is being done with it.


In fact you are wrong!

Content consumers get to choose how they 'consume content'.


The law says otherwise.  Those who invested their time (and money)
creating the content get to decide what is done with that.


I don't know if you are intentionally thick or if you are genuinely
not understanding what I'm saying. I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt this time, and try again:

Those who (...whatever...) create content get to decide HOW THEY
DISTRIBUTE or otherwise SELL that content.

No more. No less.

Once it's on my computer, on in my brain, it's mine. I can do with it
as I choose, and within the limits of my capacity.

Feel free to deny logic as much as you want though...



Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.


Yes.  Those who have spent their time and money have a "vested
interest".  Consumers have none.


Ahh that's right, of course, I forgot, consumers have no vested
interest, they put in no time, no money, nothing.

How silly of me.

And the law backs your position up too.

God I'm silly! What was I thinking. Guess I better go back to primary school...

sorry for wasting everyone's time...



I'm glad you're sorry.  I agree - you need to go back to primary school.



We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
of these interests are even recognized in law.


Actually, you have NO RIGHTS.  You can do only what the content creators
say you can do.


I'm guessing you never quite understood the difference between "can"
and "may". But hey ... COME ON DOWN SPINNER! The Debian Derby
continues, and everyone's a winner, baby!



Yes, I understand the difference.  The license I grant you to use my 
copyrighted material says what you MAY use it for.  Of course, you CAN 
use it for something else - but you will be in violation of the copyright.



...

Copyright violations are rampant on the web.


Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.


OK, since you insist, I'll call it what it is - piracy.


I didn't think you were _such_ a contrarian. Proved me wrong.



I'm not.  What you describe is piracy.


You're also firmly aligned with copyright industry rhetoric. Oh well,
I seriously thought you were above that...



Unlike you, I am not above the law.  And I have created intellectual 
property in the past which is copyrighted (unlike you, obviously).  And 
I protect my copyrights.





I was trying to
be kind.  But I see that is lost on you.


If that were so, you did indeed lost me :)



Obviously.


It might have been when logic went out the window... not sure, but
hey, who cares... I got lost, that's all that counts.



Logic has nothing to do with your arguments.  You only think you should 
be allowed to do whatever you want with what I spent my time and money 
creating - even if you paid only a pittance for that product.





People deserve to protect what they worked
hard (and often paid) for.


I worked hard to earn those dollars to buy my DVD. Yes I have a right
to protect my DVD and my viewing of that DVD. I have a right to look
after and enrich my children and spouse too, so I'm going to let them
watch my hard-earned DVD

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> I don't care.  But if I catch you violating my copyright,
> I will have everything you own.

Jerry.

You speak loudly.

Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSQKOWKHgKZ_x_DxZASnmPB6PGOVK9bP+K=pcjbve3i...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/19/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> On 5/18/2014 8:54 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
 On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
>> I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
>> provide
>> content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
>> not use
>> it?
>>
>> Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox
>> contained
>> proprietary parts.
> Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
> changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
> this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for
> stable.
>
> Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been
> upgrading
> iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are
> chances
> that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.
>
>> To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
>> major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always
>> download
>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or
> not)
> must be the choice of the user.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
 I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the
 open
 nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
 doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's
 the
 choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
 on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.
>>>
>>> As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
>>> decide what is being done with it.
>>
>> In fact you are wrong!
>>
>> Content consumers get to choose how they 'consume content'.
>
> The law says otherwise.  Those who invested their time (and money)
> creating the content get to decide what is done with that.

I don't know if you are intentionally thick or if you are genuinely
not understanding what I'm saying. I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt this time, and try again:

Those who (...whatever...) create content get to decide HOW THEY
DISTRIBUTE or otherwise SELL that content.

No more. No less.

Once it's on my computer, on in my brain, it's mine. I can do with it
as I choose, and within the limits of my capacity.

Feel free to deny logic as much as you want though...


>> Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
>> site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.
>
> Yes.  Those who have spent their time and money have a "vested
> interest".  Consumers have none.

Ahh that's right, of course, I forgot, consumers have no vested
interest, they put in no time, no money, nothing.

How silly of me.

And the law backs your position up too.

God I'm silly! What was I thinking. Guess I better go back to primary school...

sorry for wasting everyone's time...


>> We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
>> of these interests are even recognized in law.
>
> Actually, you have NO RIGHTS.  You can do only what the content creators
> say you can do.

I'm guessing you never quite understood the difference between "can"
and "may". But hey ... COME ON DOWN SPINNER! The Debian Derby
continues, and everyone's a winner, baby!

...
>>> Copyright violations are rampant on the web.
>>
>> Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.
>
> OK, since you insist, I'll call it what it is - piracy.

I didn't think you were _such_ a contrarian. Proved me wrong.

You're also firmly aligned with copyright industry rhetoric. Oh well,
I seriously thought you were above that...


> I was trying to
> be kind.  But I see that is lost on you.

If that were so, you did indeed lost me :)

It might have been when logic went out the window... not sure, but
hey, who cares... I got lost, that's all that counts.


>>> People deserve to protect what they worked
>>> hard (and often paid) for.
>>
>> I worked hard to earn those dollars to buy my DVD. Yes I have a right
>> to protect my DVD and my viewing of that DVD. I have a right to look
>> after and enrich my children and spouse too, so I'm going to let them
>> watch my hard-earned DVD too!
>
> And the people who made the DVD worked harder and spent a lot more than
> the few (your unit of currency) to product that DVD.  But then if you're
> willing to pay for all of the costs for making the DVD (including the
> movie, of course), you could dictate the terms under which that DVD
> could be used (and could use it for anything you want).

Dictate what you like Jerry, it doesn't stop me in my home ... you
gotta problem wi-dat?!?

Control-freak...


>> And if it

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 10:00 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

On 5/15/2014 1:53 PM, Gary Dale wrote:

On 15/05/14 01:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:

On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:

I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
provide
content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
not use
it?

Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox
contained
proprietary parts.

Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for
stable.

Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been
upgrading
iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are
chances
that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.


To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always
download
Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.

There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or
not)
must be the choice of the user.

Kind regards,
Andrei

I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the
open
nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's
the
choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.




As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
decide what is being done with it.

Copyright violations are rampant on the web.  If there were no
problem, DRM would not be required.  People deserve to protect what
they worked hard (and often paid) for.

Just because it's there does not mean you have a right to use it as
you see fit.  Try using a car that was parked on the street, just
because it was there.  See how far you get.

Jerry


Nonsense. There is the concept of fair use. No right is nor should be
unlimited. DRM throws centuries of jurisprudence out the window.

DRM exists not because of copyright violation but because people can get
away with it. DVD's CSS for example never prevented anyone from making a
copy of a DVD. It just prevented legitimate owners of DVDs from taking
their DVDs with them when they switched continents.


You need to look up the meaning of "fair use".  It does not, for


You need to comprehend the difference between jurisprudential law and
common law (aka community law), and mind yourself of the fact that
jurisprudential law (shock horror) actually changes over time (as does
common law for that matter).



Unlike you, I know the difference.  And jurisprudential law still rules 
in the courts.



And there is a vast difference between common law as being common
sense and accepted mores of society, vs common law as 'the balance of
what's left over after statute, as modified and interpreted by judges'
(which is what the courts like to limit common law to).



See above.




instance, allow you to post a copy of an article on my web page - or
even link to an image on my web page - without my permission.

And this has been supported by "centuries of jurisprudence".  DRM does


Oh wow. Centuries of jurisdprudence on linking to an image or article.



I said nothing about linking to an article.


That's awesome. Was that, back in past centuries - an _alien_ internet?



Another straw man argument.




nothing to change that.  If the owner of the copyright doesn't want the
item used, he/she can implement DRM to protect it.  If he/she doesn't
care, he/she does not need to implement DRM.


Next you'll be saying, when we have the
image-in-brain-to-digital-recording copying machine, that you have
'control' (by force of government) to stop me thinking certain
thoughts - the thoughts of those images on your website that I'm no
longer allowed to think about.

Bring it on!



Another straw man argument.




And the claim that "if all browsers support DRM, everyone will use it"
is completely bogus.  For instance, all browsers (at least all of the
major ones) support Java applets and Flash.  But not everyone uses them.
   In fact, very few do - even though, according to your thinking, "they
have no reason not to".


This is a logical statement which I agree with. This a part of common
sense which many people miss. But similarly, it is common sense that I
have freedom within the domain of my own house, to with _your_
(so-called) images as I like. My 'house' extends to my friends.



Another straw man argument.


Like it or not, _you_ have no control over that!

Statute artificial monopoly copyright law or not, _you_ have no
control over that!



I do when I own the copyright!


Statements of right and wrong, freedom or otherwis

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 9:47 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:

On 20140518_2131-0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:


You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
because it enables copyright holders.


DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".

Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.

DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.

When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.



Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country
under which the item is copyrighted.  But typically it is either 75
years from the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of the
owner (author) of the copyrighted material.  Both are much longer
than the Internet has existed.


If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
likely, be the former holder of the copyright.

There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
far beyond just objections to copyright.



Please show an example where that has occurred.


Please show an example of a digital recording that was copyrighted 75 yrs
ago. It is a silly request, I know. But no less silly than yours.


Not silly at all.  But there are may of them.  The works of Shakespeare, 
among others, are much older than 75 years, and have now entered the 
public domain.  And they have been digitized.


Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537965de.1090...@attglobal.net

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 1:53 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>> On 15/05/14 01:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
 On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
>> I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
>> provide
>> content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
>> not use
>> it?
>>
>> Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox
>> contained
>> proprietary parts.
> Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
> changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
> this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for
> stable.
>
> Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been
> upgrading
> iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are
> chances
> that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.
>
>> To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
>> major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always
>> download
>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or
> not)
> must be the choice of the user.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
 I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the
 open
 nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
 doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's
 the
 choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
 on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.


>>>
>>> As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
>>> decide what is being done with it.
>>>
>>> Copyright violations are rampant on the web.  If there were no
>>> problem, DRM would not be required.  People deserve to protect what
>>> they worked hard (and often paid) for.
>>>
>>> Just because it's there does not mean you have a right to use it as
>>> you see fit.  Try using a car that was parked on the street, just
>>> because it was there.  See how far you get.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>> Nonsense. There is the concept of fair use. No right is nor should be
>> unlimited. DRM throws centuries of jurisprudence out the window.
>>
>> DRM exists not because of copyright violation but because people can get
>> away with it. DVD's CSS for example never prevented anyone from making a
>> copy of a DVD. It just prevented legitimate owners of DVDs from taking
>> their DVDs with them when they switched continents.
>
> You need to look up the meaning of "fair use".  It does not, for

You need to comprehend the difference between jurisprudential law and
common law (aka community law), and mind yourself of the fact that
jurisprudential law (shock horror) actually changes over time (as does
common law for that matter).

And there is a vast difference between common law as being common
sense and accepted mores of society, vs common law as 'the balance of
what's left over after statute, as modified and interpreted by judges'
(which is what the courts like to limit common law to).


> instance, allow you to post a copy of an article on my web page - or
> even link to an image on my web page - without my permission.
>
> And this has been supported by "centuries of jurisprudence".  DRM does

Oh wow. Centuries of jurisdprudence on linking to an image or article.

That's awesome. Was that, back in past centuries - an _alien_ internet?


> nothing to change that.  If the owner of the copyright doesn't want the
> item used, he/she can implement DRM to protect it.  If he/she doesn't
> care, he/she does not need to implement DRM.

Next you'll be saying, when we have the
image-in-brain-to-digital-recording copying machine, that you have
'control' (by force of government) to stop me thinking certain
thoughts - the thoughts of those images on your website that I'm no
longer allowed to think about.

Bring it on!


> And the claim that "if all browsers support DRM, everyone will use it"
> is completely bogus.  For instance, all browsers (at least all of the
> major ones) support Java applets and Flash.  But not everyone uses them.
>   In fact, very few do - even though, according to your thinking, "they
> have no reason not to".

This is a logical statement which I agree with. This a part of common
sense which many people miss. But similarly, it is common sense that I
have freedom within the domain of my own house, to with _your_
(so-called) images as I like. My 'house' extends to my friends.

Like it or not, _you_ have no control over that!

Statute artificial monopoly copyright law or not, _you_ have no
control over that!

Statements of right and wrong, freedom or otherwise,

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Paul E Condon]

On 20140518_2131-0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA512
> >
> >On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:
> >
> >>You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
> >>because it enables copyright holders.
> >
> >DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".
> >
> >Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.
> >
> >DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.
> >
> >When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
> >nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
> >and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
> >and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.
> >
> 
> Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country
> under which the item is copyrighted.  But typically it is either 75
> years from the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of the
> owner (author) of the copyrighted material.  Both are much longer
> than the Internet has existed.
> 
> >If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
> >DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
> >anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
> >copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
> >so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
> >likely, be the former holder of the copyright.
> >
> >There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
> >far beyond just objections to copyright.
> >
> 
> Please show an example where that has occurred.

Please show an example of a digital recording that was copyrighted 75 yrs
ago. It is a silly request, I know. But no less silly than yours.

> 
> Jerry



-- 
Paul E Condon   
pecon...@mesanetworks.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519014736.gb27...@big.lan.gnu

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 8:54 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:

On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:

I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
provide
content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
not use
it?

Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
proprietary parts.

Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable.

Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading
iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances
that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.


To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.

There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
must be the choice of the user.

Kind regards,
Andrei

I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the open
nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's the
choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.


As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
decide what is being done with it.


In fact you are wrong!

Content consumers get to choose how they 'consume content'.



The law says otherwise.  Those who invested their time (and money) 
creating the content get to decide what is done with that.



Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.



Yes.  Those who have spent their time and money have a "vested 
interest".  Consumers have none.



We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
of these interests are even recognized in law.



Actually, you have NO RIGHTS.  You can do only what the content creators 
say you can do.



Once I buy a DVD, _I_ get to decide how that DVD is used. If you sell
it to me, you get jack shit of a choice over my actions thereafter!



No, you don't.  For instance, if you look at the license for DVD's made 
for home use, it states you cannot use it for "public performances". 
You can only use that at home.



You might not like that, so welcome to wake up and smell reality.



Exactly.  Wake up and smell reality.




Copyright violations are rampant on the web.


Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.



OK, since you insist, I'll call it what it is - piracy.  I was trying to 
be kind.  But I see that is lost on you.





If there were no problem, DRM would not be required.


Please, do speak of the 'problem' that is in your mind. I'm genuinely curious.



Piracy, for one thing.




People deserve to protect what they worked
hard (and often paid) for.


I worked hard to earn those dollars to buy my DVD. Yes I have a right
to protect my DVD and my viewing of that DVD. I have a right to look
after and enrich my children and spouse too, so I'm going to let them
watch my hard-earned DVD too!



And the people who made the DVD worked harder and spent a lot more than 
the few (your unit of currency) to product that DVD.  But then if you're 
willing to pay for all of the costs for making the DVD (including the 
movie, of course), you could dictate the terms under which that DVD 
could be used (and could use it for anything you want).



And if it's a cartoon DVD, I'll put a copy on my children's computer
so they can watch it over and over.



Of course, depending on the license, that would make you a pirate.




Just because it's there does not mean you have a
right to use it as you see fit.


Just because _you_ think you have a right to control my private
activities does not make it so!



I have a right to control your private activities when you are using MY 
CONTENT.  If you want additional activities beyond the license, you can 
pay for it.



Just because _you_ think you have a right to arbitrary copyright
monopoly power which is against the natural growth of a community's
popular culture, does not make it so!



The law says otherwise.




Try using a car that was parked on the street, just because it
was there.  See how far you get.


Deprivation of goods is deprivation. Re-performance of a song, does
not deprive you of that song.



So is piracy.  It is deprivation of income from the performance of that 
song.


Go read the GPL (2) again!



Get a copyright attorney to give you GOOD advice.  Not everything you 
want is covered under GPL - including those cartoons yo

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:


You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
because it enables copyright holders.


DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".

Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.

DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.

When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.



Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country under 
which the item is copyrighted.  But typically it is either 75 years from 
the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of the owner 
(author) of the copyrighted material.  Both are much longer than the 
Internet has existed.



If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
likely, be the former holder of the copyright.

There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
far beyond just objections to copyright.



Please show an example where that has occurred.

Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53795f00.3000...@attglobal.net

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>> On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
 I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
 provide
 content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
 not use
 it?

 Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
 proprietary parts.
>>> Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
>>> changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
>>> this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable.
>>>
>>> Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading
>>> iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances
>>> that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.
>>>
 To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
 major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
 Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
>>> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
>>> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
>>> must be the choice of the user.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andrei
>> I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the open
>> nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
>> doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's the
>> choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
>> on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.
>
> As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
> decide what is being done with it.

In fact you are wrong!

Content consumers get to choose how they 'consume content'.

Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.

We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
of these interests are even recognized in law.

Once I buy a DVD, _I_ get to decide how that DVD is used. If you sell
it to me, you get jack shit of a choice over my actions thereafter!

You might not like that, so welcome to wake up and smell reality.


> Copyright violations are rampant on the web.

Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.


> If there were no problem, DRM would not be required.

Please, do speak of the 'problem' that is in your mind. I'm genuinely curious.


> People deserve to protect what they worked
> hard (and often paid) for.

I worked hard to earn those dollars to buy my DVD. Yes I have a right
to protect my DVD and my viewing of that DVD. I have a right to look
after and enrich my children and spouse too, so I'm going to let them
watch my hard-earned DVD too!

And if it's a cartoon DVD, I'll put a copy on my children's computer
so they can watch it over and over.


> Just because it's there does not mean you have a
> right to use it as you see fit.

Just because _you_ think you have a right to control my private
activities does not make it so!

Just because _you_ think you have a right to arbitrary copyright
monopoly power which is against the natural growth of a community's
popular culture, does not make it so!


> Try using a car that was parked on the street, just because it
> was there.  See how far you get.

Deprivation of goods is deprivation. Re-performance of a song, does
not deprive you of that song.


Go read the GPL (2) again!


And please, for your own dignity's sake, stop using these old logical
fallacies, conflation and deception to try to make your point. The
crown here on debian-user is most likely more educated than most of
congress combined. You will have to try better than that in these
parts.

Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNST1cVLoBBwnEqB0=nkzrbbwtvk0veaiakhk-3jfb9+...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/15/14, Andrei POPESCU  wrote:
> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
>> I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to provide
>> content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why not
>> use it?
>>
>> Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
>> proprietary parts.
>
> Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
> changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
> this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable.
>
> Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading
> iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances
> that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.
>
>> To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
>> major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
>
> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
> must be the choice of the user.

Freedom 0 (zero) if I remember rightly - the freedom to use for any purpose.

I guess the problem is education - most people click "yes, do
everything you possibly can to allow me to watch this popular thing
NOW and don't even THINK about making me think about concepts or
anything I want to be _entertained_ only".

So Gary, how do we handle this problem of lack of educated thinkers?
Cause that's the real problem as I see it.

Regards
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsspwkqapkbebzcgf7+osavmh1k5cbh9aftrx4rqze+...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 5/16/14, Gary Dale  wrote:
> On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
>>> major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
>>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
>> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
>> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
>> must be the choice of the user.
>>
> I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the open
> nature of the web.

The 'open nature of the web' is an affront to those with proprietary
mindsets who wish to close the web and monetize all human activity.

The question is how best to handle this affront to the affront to the
open web. There are different yet valid strategies.

> Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
> doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's the
> choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
> on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.

A valid strategy. Not the only one which might be effective in the
long run. Your proposed strategy to reclaim the open web might be the
most effective one, I don't know.

Good luck
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsrsd0mv3qg0_9zry7zwhkb4bkfwd-rozncfkqbcz7d...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Zenaan Harkness]

>> Debian is based on freedom.
>
> Yes.
> Freedom to choose.
> Free will - have you heard of the concept? Or is that redundant in the
> new world where someone will tell me what to think and ensure laws and
> protests against bad weather and sharp corners on furniture?

Yes, pretty well redundant. Of course - freedom means complain the
government didn't "fix it", and if anyone says the govt was paid off
then complain about the complainer being a conspiracy nut. Oh what
tautological joy! Such sanity! Such ... deep conversation.

Debian might be about freedom to choose, but certainly the freedom to
think (about anything) is entirely optional, mostly despised and
pretty damn rare these days.

Emotionally effective entertainment is the lowest common denom. of
allowed communication now...

Farewell, free world. :'(

>> they can always download
>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.

Not picking on anyone here, but I found that a really ironic
statement, on the face of it, given the context.

Regards to all,
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSQ4deW-y43mgBtAoG6PpoBgnLGz_E_Tv=szp-cl5hp...@mail.gmail.com

Re: users groups for in person work revisited?

[Dan Ritter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:11:57PM -0400, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> I have asked about this before. The goal remains needful as I have
> yet to find anyone in Toronto willing to work with me on my goals.
> Last time I asked there was no really active debian group in
> Toronto, perhaps a  Ubintu one?
> Thanks in advance,
> Kare

Talk to gtalug.org. You'll find that Linux users often have
useful cross-distro knowledge.

-dsr-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519001328.gb4...@randomstring.org

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Brian]

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 19:43:19 +0100, Brian wrote:

> The substantive part of my mail debunks the claim that GDM necessarily
> imposes a specific init system. It is correct to say that gdm3 depends
> on libpam-systemd, but installing systemd-shim leaves a sysvinit system
> without any change in PID 1.

This is the situation at present with unstable. The future is less clear:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00469.html

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00532.html  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518232526.ga17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:
>
> So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my neighbour
> the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of your argument.

You ought to go in to politics because this is yet another ridiculous
parallel of the kind that politicians use to fool voters.

In what way are Mozilla, Adobe, or a copyright holder building a fence
on public property when a user freely installs a plugin on his/her own
computer in order to download restricted content? It's all done
without impinging on anyone else's property or liberty.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw-kaK039-hwd-qdVAxJ=4uq5gjv8k3doj6f0nb7f5...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd - excessive session-creation time

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erwan David  wrote:
> Le 18/05/2014 08:34, Tom H a écrit :
>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>>>
>>> Although initial tty session (from boot) is quicker than with
>>> sysvinit, additional tty sessions are very slow to start, in the order
>>> of 5 seconds (which seems like an eternity).
>>>
>>> Additionally, this slow tty/session creation time is seen when:
>>> *) exiting X - ie logout back to terminal (from startx)
>>> *) Shutdown from XFCE logout/shutdown dialog
>>>
>>> When exiting X from a startx at the linux tty, there appears to be a
>>> large session tear-down time.
>>>
>>> In addition, a similarly long duration is seen when (as stated)
>>> starting another linux vt.
>>
>> By default, other than tty1 (via
>> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service"), VTs are
>> started dynamically as needed.
>>
>> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
>> reboots, run:
>>
>> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
>> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
>>
>> The first command will create a
>> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
>> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
>> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
>> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
>> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
>> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".
>
> And is there a way toi keep current behaviour : X session on tty 7 ?

What does the above have to do with X and tty7?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw-mPnCbcxQChZtqTS66pTXyPGxW=0Gmi5�rg9pd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[The Wanderer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:

> You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
> because it enables copyright holders.

DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".

Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.

DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.

When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.

If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
likely, be the former holder of the copyright.

There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
far beyond just objections to copyright.

- --
   The Wanderer

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=wBMl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537936b5.20...@fastmail.fm

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:29 AM, David Dušanić  wrote:
>
> Systemd-shim is there to provide functions by systemd on a system that does
> not use it as its init system. It could be useful when you depend on Gnome 3
> software like network-manager but do not want to use systemd.

AFAIUI:

It's not clear that systemd-shim is going to be updated to deal with
systemd 208 (it works with systemd 204) because of changes in the
kernel's cgroup implementation because Ubuntu's switching to systemd
so it doesn't need to do so.

So unless someone packages Ubuntu's cgmanager and patches logind 208
to use it (and perhaps does even more than that), it's unlikely that
systemd-shim will be useful in jessie as a systemd
mini-/micro-substitute.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sydx=u0sgmuxxdsxwvhobokn3lqzum844pomk-5_1+...@mail.gmail.com

Re: latest sendmail on testing

[Harry Putnam]

Filip  writes:

[...]

>> If you are running version 4.14.4-5.. maybe you could post the perms
>> on:
> 
>> /var/spool/clientmqueue (Its a directory that should be created during
>> install but is not).  And:
>> /var/lib/sendmail (There should be another directory here named
>> /var/lib/sendmail/host_status but it didn't get created during
>> install either)
>> 
>> ----   ---=---   -   
>> Tail of smtp conversation:
>> 
>> 250 2.0.0 Verbose mode
>> >>> MAIL From: SIZE=289
>> >>> AUTH=rea...@rdr.local.lan
>> 250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
>> >>> RCPT To:
>> >>> DATA
>> 250 2.1.5 ... Recipient ok
>> 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
>> >>> .
>> 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0,
>> gid=122): No such file or directory
>> >>> QUIT
>> rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot
>> write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or
>> directory Closing connection to [127.0.0.1] ---
>> -   ---=---   -   
>> 
>> I can't figure out where the damn thing is trying to write, perhaps
>> the root uid should be something else?
>> 
>> ----   ---=---   -  
>> 
>> perms on /var/spool stuff:
>> 
>> total 32
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 rootroot4096 May 16 16:48 anacron
>> 
>> This one I created by hand and took the perms from the similar named
>> directory mqueue-client which did exist
>> 
>> *** drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 17 14:41
>> clientmqueue
>> 
>> drwxr-xr-x 5 rootroot4096 May 16 16:20 cron
>> drwxr-x--- 5 Debian-exim Debian-exim 4096 May 16 16:35 exim4
>> drwxr-xr-x 3 rootroot4096 May 16 16:18 libreoffice
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot   7 May 16 15:47 mail -> ../mail
>> drwxrws--- 2 smmta   smmsp   4096 Feb 15 19:32 mqueue
>> drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 18 12:50 mqueue-client
>> drwx-- 2 rootroot4096 Mar 28 08:10 rsyslog
>> 
>> ----   ---=---   -  
>> 
>> ls -ld /var/lib/sendmail
>> 
>> I changed this to what you see, from:
>>   drwxr-s--x
>> 
>>   drwxrws--x 3 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 /var/lib/sendmail
>> 
>> ls -l /var/lib/sendmail/
>> -rw-rw 1 root smmsp0 May 17 21:55 dead.letter
>> drwxrws--- 2 root smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 host_status

>
> I have this:
>
> drwxr-s--- 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/spool/mqueue
> drwxrws--- 2 smmsp smmsp 4096 Feb 16 01:04 /var/spool/mqueue-client
> drwxrwsrwt 2 root mail 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/mail
> drwxr-s--x 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:40 /var/lib/sendmail
>
> mqueue-client instead of clientmqueue.
>
> # dpkg -L sendmail-bin|grep client
> /var/spool/mqueue-client
>
> sendmail package version 8.14.4-5

If you recall, in the OP that started this thread I posted the output of
my first attempt at running sendmail:

   # service sendmail start

   [] Starting Mail Transport Agent (MTA): sendmailcan not
   chdir(/var/spool/clientmqueue/): No such file or directory

   Warning: Cannot use HostStatusDirectory =
   /var/lib/sendmail/host_status: No such file or directory

I created /var/spool/clientmqueue because of that first part
That is where my interest in /var/spool/clientmqueue began.

Why is sendmail attempting to chdir to a directory that is not part of
its working setup?

Why is sendmail trying to use a non-existent directory in the second bit
above? 

What are those errors about?

Further, could you make any sense of the smtp output I posted:

,
|  421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0,
|  gid=122): No such file or directory
|  >>> QUIT
|  rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot
|  write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or
|  directory Closing connection to [127.0.0.1]
`

Where is sendmail trying to write?  Why is sendmail trying to write to
something that does not exist?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wqdi3enj@newsguy.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Curt  wrote:
> On 2014-05-18, Tom H  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
>>> with the mknod command:
>>>
>>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>>
>> You'll have to run "chown root:disk /dev/loop8" too.
>
> Nobody mentioned that in my reading!

ls -l /dev/loop*


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sxza8golebpmgar9m6jcprbz9uekf_bwivoa_qb8fn...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

[Lisi Reisz]

On Friday 16 May 2014 19:13:11 Brian wrote:
> The iplayer offerings can be viewed on all platforms. It uses Flash.

Now, yes.  But not initially.  And the BBC wasn't put off by the fact that 
only one browser could read their content.  It was put off by the large 
volume of loud complaints from licence payers who could not access the 
content that they had paid for.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201405182311.54013.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Lee Winter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:

> On 18/05/14 02:41 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale > garyd...@torfree.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale
>> mailto:garyd...@torfree.net>
>> >>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?
>>
>>
>> Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install
>> content that is restricted by DRM.
>>
>> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones
>> prohibit me
>> from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the
>> content owner.
>>
>>
>> Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly
>> free to be as stupid as they want.
>>
>> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
>> engineering, etc..
>>
>>
>> Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free
>> to dictate to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they
>> have to ship to you in green-qualified, 100% recycled,
>> non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.
>>
>> Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use
>> them.  Or exercise your freedom to choose another content
>> vendor and tell the DRM people about it in excruciating
>> detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory and unsatisfying.
>>
>> You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to
>> ignore the law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?
>>
>> Lee Winter
>> Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
>> United States of America
>>
>>
>> If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I
>> am legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand
>> that the packaging be changed.
>>
>>
>> Correct.  Andyou can demand that all day long from the content providers
>> who use DRM.  But your demands are just that: requests.  Noeither you nor
>> anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to accept andcomply with your
>> demands.
>>
>> More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in ways
>> other than the provider permits.  Like Micros~1, they can require that you
>> hold your mouth a certain way.  Facing that requirement you are not free to
>> violate it.  You are free to choose a different product (despite Ballmer's
>> insistence otherwise).
>>
>> DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that they don't support
>> but also to make fair use of the product.
>>
>>
>> It does limit the portability of the product.  That's the provider's
>> problem.  You are not free to solve that problem for them.
>>
>> It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical
>> definition in copyright law that provides an exception to the requirement
>> for permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way beyond the scope
>> of this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to this one I think.
>>
>
> So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my neighbour
> the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of your argument.


No.  That is neither part of nor related to my argument.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Filip  wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014 15:15:34 + (UTC)
> Curt  wrote:
>> On 2014-05-18, Richard Owlett  wrote:
>>>
>>> My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of
>>> loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it
>>> can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I
>>> want to reset it on the fly.
>>
>> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
>> with the mknod command:
>>
>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>
> You can create devices nodes with that in the filesystem, but they will
> not work unless they also exist in the kernel.

The kernel knows about a mknod-created loop device once you use losetup.


# ls1 /dev/loop*
/dev/loop0
/dev/loop1
/dev/loop2
/dev/loop3
/dev/loop4
/dev/loop5
/dev/loop6
/dev/loop7
/dev/loop-control

# mknod -m 660 /dev/loop99 b 7 99

# ls1 /dev/loop*
/dev/loop0
/dev/loop1
/dev/loop2
/dev/loop3
/dev/loop4
/dev/loop5
/dev/loop6
/dev/loop7
/dev/loop99
/dev/loop-control

# find /sys -name loop99

# losetup /dev/loop99 disk.img

# find /sys -name loop99
/sys/devices/virtual/block/loop99
/sys/block/loop99
/sys/class/block/loop99


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SxPygSK=s7fx7hw0ocoesnd0kvtzkhgx9z1ubwkpf5...@mail.gmail.com

Re: can't get wicd to work

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 18 May 2014 22:25:43 tom arnall wrote:
> root@debian:/home/tom# ifconfig

What does ifconfig -a give?

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201405182302.50470.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale  wrote:
>
> A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that
> freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was not
> a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free software
> while it accepts digital restrictions management.
>
> Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was
> allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" to
> choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be called
> ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being bandied about
> in this discussion as if it made any sense.
>
> The Free Software Foundation got this one right.

Drawing a parallel between slavery and DRM is delirious!

A country allowing slavery means allowing some people to restrict the
freedom other people.

Mozilla allowing its users to download a non-free Firefox extension
like flash or the new DRM plugin doesn't restrict anyone's freedom,
especially since you'll only end up with the new DRM plugin if you opt
in to downloading and using it and it looks like you'll be able to
compile Firefox without the non-free plugin's free container.

You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
because it enables copyright holders.

"Tilting at windmills" comes to mind...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=swhcz-fva2r8dcinuwqb+dmp_jjfe2bcss2kekprk0...@mail.gmail.com

can't get wicd to work

[tom arnall]

I'm trying to get my wifi set up under wheezy using wicd.

I've followed all the instructions at:

https://wiki.debian.org/WiFi/HowToUse#Wicd

When I do ~/$ wicd-client -n I get:

"No wireless networks found."



The following is the output from the session:
(My username is 'tom'.)

~/$ cat /etc/network/interfaces
# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).

# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

root@debian:/home/tom# adduser tom netdev
The user `tom' is already a member of `netdev'.
root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom#  /etc/init.d/dbus reload
[ ok ] Reloading system message bus config...done.
root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom#  /etc/init.d/wicd start
[ ok ] Starting Network connection manager: wicd.
root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom# exit
exit
  ~/$ wicd-client -n
  Has notifications support True
  Loading...
  Connecting to daemon...
  Connected.
  refreshing...

And get:

"No wireless networks found."

on the gui.

I tried the same procedure with 'lo' changed to 'wlan0'.

The following is output of ifconfig and iwconfig:

root@debian:/home/tom# ifconfig
eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:23:2f:f3:8f
  inet addr:192.168.0.14  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
  inet6 addr: fe80::21c:23ff:fe2f:f38f/64 Scope:Link
  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:1027 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:981 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:471487 (460.4 KiB)  TX bytes:159963 (156.2 KiB)
  Interrupt:17

loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:20 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:20 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:1544 (1.5 KiB)  TX bytes:1544 (1.5 KiB)

root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom# iwconfig
lono wireless extensions.

wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg  ESSID:off/any
  Mode:Managed  Access Point: Not-Associated   Tx-Power=0 dBm
  Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
  Encryption key:off
  Power Management:on

eth0  no wireless extensions.

root@debian:/home/tom#



What am I doing wrong?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAFKYrxrb=d73vid_9ouc6sus6kasdb-mbx_gdwtrnhmhajl...@mail.gmail.com

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot

[John Bleichert]

On 05/18/2014 12:45 PM, Erwan David wrote:


Loading Linux 3.14-1-amd64 ...
Loading initial ramdisk ...
early console in decompress_kernel

Decompressing Linux... Parsing ELF... done.
Booting the kernel.

*stall*



Same for me on a Dell PowerEdge R210

See bug 748574 that I opened.




I subscribed to the bug, not sure if I did it correctly. Please feel 
free to email me off-list if I can help. I have a failsafe kernel 
installed/saved so I can test anything.


JB

--
---
John Bleichert-syb...@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379169d.1070...@earthlink.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 03:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote:

On 05/18/2014 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.


The entire thing has become an "Unmarked Helicopters" issue. Besides, 
far worse tricks were pulled in the 80's regarding anti-copying of 
floppies. Ways were found around almost over-night. Yoho. :/ Ric


Sadly the digital restrictions are becoming worse. While the DVD CSS was 
cracked as were early BluRay DRMs, the current DRMs are much harder to 
circumvent.


This is due in part to the Internet and in part due to better 
technology, which allows players to be updated to include new schemes 
when the older ones are cracked. You couldn't do that with DVD players 
because the original schemes were hard coded and not set up to be 
updated. BluRay players allow the DRM schemes to be updated to play new 
movies that come out using them.


The DRM schemes seem to much harder to crack as well, judging from the 
number of BluRays that require a commercial environment to be playable. 
Linux can play the movies only if they aren't using the latest DRM 
schemes. Otherwise you need Windows, a Mac or a dedicated player.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379150c.7020...@torfree.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 4:08 PM, Gary Dale wrote:

On 18/05/14 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.

Jerry



Yes. It's happening everywhere DRM is being used. I support the Free
Software Foundation's campaign against digital restrictions.




Your proof?  Claims alone are without merit.

Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379142d.1050...@attglobal.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 4:06 PM, Gary Dale wrote:


So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my
neighbour the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of
your argument.




Strawman argument.  A fence has nothing to do with intellectual property 
or copyright law.


Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537913f3.4040...@attglobal.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.

Jerry


Yes. It's happening everywhere DRM is being used. I support the Free 
Software Foundation's campaign against digital restrictions.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379132e.8070...@torfree.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 02:41 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale > wrote:


On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale
mailto:garyd...@torfree.net>
>>
wrote:

So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?


Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install
content that is restricted by DRM.

Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones
prohibit me
from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the
content owner.


Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly
free to be as stupid as they want.

I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
engineering, etc..


Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free
to dictate to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they
have to ship to you in green-qualified, 100% recycled,
non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.

Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use
them.  Or exercise your freedom to choose another content
vendor and tell the DRM people about it in excruciating
detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory and unsatisfying.

You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to
ignore the law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America


If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I
am legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand
that the packaging be changed.


Correct.  Andyou can demand that all day long from the content 
providers who use DRM.  But your demands are just that: requests.  
Noeither you nor anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to 
accept andcomply with your demands.


More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in 
ways other than the provider permits.  Like Micros~1, they can require 
that you hold your mouth a certain way.  Facing that requirement you 
are not free to violate it.  You are free to choose a different 
product (despite Ballmer's insistence otherwise).


DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that they don't support
but also to make fair use of the product.


It does limit the portability of the product.  That's the provider's 
problem.  You are not free to solve that problem for them.


It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical 
definition in copyright law that provides an exception to the 
requirement for permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way 
beyond the scope of this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to 
this one I think.


So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my 
neighbour the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of 
your argument.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537912b3.7060...@torfree.net

debian-installer preseed of wheezy

[Gregor Giesen]

Dear all,

I'm trying to use a preseed.cfg with the current wheezy debian-installer
to partition my 8GiB virtio disk of a KVM virtual machine:

d-i partman-auto/expert_recipe string \
sysdisk :: \
1024 2048 1024 ext4 \
$primary{ } $bootable{ } \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ / } \
. \
512 2048 512 linux-swap \
$primary{ } \
method{ swap } format{ } \
. \
2048 2048 2048 ext4 \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ /usr } \
. \
2048 2048 2048 ext4 \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ /var } \
. \
2048 2048 -1 ext4 \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ /tmp } \
.

But this gives me the following layout:

/dev/vda1   *2048 2000895  999424   83  Linux
/dev/vda2 200294216775167 73861135  Extended
/dev/vda5 2002944 3000319  498688   82  Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/vda6 300236816775167 6886400   83  Linux

/var and /tmp are missing and /usr (vda6) takes the rest of the
harddisk. Do I have a mistake in my config or is there a bug in the
installer? Strangely the same configuration seems to work as intended
with recent Ubuntu installer.

Best,
Gregor



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Ric Moore]

On 05/18/2014 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.


The entire thing has become an "Unmarked Helicopters" issue. Besides, 
far worse tricks were pulled in the 80's regarding anti-copying of 
floppies. Ways were found around almost over-night. Yoho. :/ Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:

"There are two Great Sins in the world...

..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.

Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.

https://linuxcounter.net/cert/44256.png

X-oldie-warning: Toothless but still vicious



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53790d35.9020...@gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.

Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379087b.6030...@attglobal.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 5/18/2014 2:41 PM, Lee Winter wrote:


It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical
definition in copyright law that provides an exception to the
requirement for permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way
beyond the scope of this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to this
one I think.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America



Lee,

Unfortunately, too many people think that if something's on the 
Internet, "fair use" means they can use it (almost) any way they want.


And while I think that discussion is relevant to this one, I also agree 
it is well beyond the scope of what can reasonably be discussed here.


Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53790826.5010...@attglobal.net

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Filip]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 04:11:29 +1000
Chris Angelico  wrote:

> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Brian  wrote:
> > I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not
> > be installed.
> >
> > One consideration might be
> >
> >   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
> >
> >  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
> >  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
> >  updated to that effect, BTW.
> >
> 
> I just read that post and its follow-ups; my understanding is that
> this is not a reason for avoiding systemd-shim. It's either a
> statement of annoyance with no real significance, or a reason for
> avoiding GNOME. (And more likely the former.)
> 
> Chris Angelico
> 
> 

There are other reasons to boycot GNOME though. Look at the latest
'feature' in they put in GTK+ 3.12:

http://redmine.audacious-media-player.org/boards/1/topics/1135


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518205113.6664d...@orac.fil

Re: users groups for in person work revisited?

[Richard Owlett]

https://www.google.com/search?q=debian+user+group+toronto



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537903e7.9000...@cloud85.net

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Brian]

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 20:03:11 +0200, Erwan David wrote:

> Le 18/05/2014 19:43, Brian a écrit :
> > On Sat 17 May 2014 at 22:40:13 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> >> On Sb, 17 mai 14, 20:57:39, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >>> Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in
> >>> unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_
> >>> have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system.
> >>  
> >> Actually gdm3 Depends: libpam-systemd, which Depends: systemd-sysv, so 
> >> yes, you do. network-manager and gnome-bluetooth also depend on 
> >> libpam-systemd.
> > libpam-systemd: Depends: systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.
> >
> > I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
> > installed.
> >
> > One consideration might be
> >
> >   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
> >
> >  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
> >  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
> >  updated to that effect, BTW. 
> >
> >
> 
> For me this is a major bug of GDM : imposing a specific init system. But
> it is same thing since beginning of gnome project : users are just
> cosidered as cattle

The substantive part of my mail debunks the claim that GDM necessarily
imposes a specific init system. It is correct to say that gdm3 depends
on libpam-systemd, but installing systemd-shim leaves a sysvinit system
without any change in PID 1.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/18052014193330.56d7ddf98...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Lee Winter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:

> On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>
>  On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale > garyd...@torfree.net>> wrote:
>>
>> So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?
>>
>>
>> Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install content that is
>> restricted by DRM.
>>
>> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me
>> from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.
>>
>>
>> Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly free to be
>> as stupid as they want.
>>
>> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
>> engineering, etc..
>>
>>
>> Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free to dictate
>> to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship to you in
>> green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.
>>
>> Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them.  Or
>> exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the DRM
>> people about it in excruciating detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory
>> and unsatisfying.
>>
>> You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the
>> law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?
>>
>> Lee Winter
>> Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
>> United States of America
>>
>>
>>  If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
> legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
> packaging be changed.


Correct.  Andyou can demand that all day long from the content providers
who use DRM.  But your demands are just that: requests.  Noeither you nor
anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to accept andcomply with your
demands.

More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in ways
other than the provider permits.  Like Micros~1, they can require that you
hold your mouth a certain way.  Facing that requirement you are not free to
violate it.  You are free to choose a different product (despite Ballmer's
insistence otherwise).


> DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that they don't support but also
> to make fair use of the product.


It does limit the portability of the product.  That's the provider's
problem.  You are not free to solve that problem for them.

It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical definition
in copyright law that provides an exception to the requirement for
permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way beyond the scope of
this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to this one I think.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America

Re: Tails

[Bob Holtzman]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:59:31PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> > Lighten up, lad and stop taking all things literally.
> >  
> 
> Far from be being a Thought Policeman, I felt uneasy reading the OP and
> some of the replies.

Your privilege.

> 
> Back OT, someone please tell to the investigative journalist that
> using Tails or any other OS on a compromised machine is a risky choice.
> I am sure I am preaching to the choir here, but I found people who don't
> otherwise take interest in security may think that a bootable USB will
> magically shield them from, say, a hardware key-logger.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518090543.ga16...@x60s.casa

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Our company's mission is to enable data-stream 
synergies with confluent bullshit mining,


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Brian  wrote:
> I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
> installed.
>
> One consideration might be
>
>   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
>
>  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
>  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
>  updated to that effect, BTW.
>

I just read that post and its follow-ups; my understanding is that
this is not a reason for avoiding systemd-shim. It's either a
statement of annoyance with no real significance, or a reason for
avoiding GNOME. (And more likely the former.)

Chris Angelico


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/captjjmrmiz3-bqrjejcfn26oxml+bvjt4ghvfefsgyhihqi...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Erwan David]

Le 18/05/2014 19:43, Brian a écrit :
> On Sat 17 May 2014 at 22:40:13 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> On Sb, 17 mai 14, 20:57:39, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in
>>> unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_
>>> have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system.
>>  
>> Actually gdm3 Depends: libpam-systemd, which Depends: systemd-sysv, so 
>> yes, you do. network-manager and gnome-bluetooth also depend on 
>> libpam-systemd.
> libpam-systemd: Depends: systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.
>
> I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
> installed.
>
> One consideration might be
>
>   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
>
>  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
>  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
>  updated to that effect, BTW. 
>
>

For me this is a major bug of GDM : imposing a specific init system. But
it is same thing since beginning of gnome project : users are just
cosidered as cattle


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378f5df.7000...@rail.eu.org

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale > wrote:


So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?


Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install content that 
is restricted by DRM.


Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me
from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.


Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly free to 
be as stupid as they want.


I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
engineering, etc..


Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free to 
dictate to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship 
to you in green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- 
wrap either.


Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them.  
Or exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the 
DRM people about it in excruciating detail.  Whining about DRM is both 
unsavory and unsatisfying.


You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the 
law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?


Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America


If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am 
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the 
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that 
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378f8c8.1030...@torfree.net

Re: latest sendmail on testing

[Filip]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 13:07:10 -0400
Harry Putnam  wrote:

> Filip  writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:08:10 -0400
> > Harry Putnam  wrote:
> >
> >> Filip  writes:
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> >> I would have thought the install of a pkg would also create any
> >> >> needed directories for the pkg to operate.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Is it normal for user to create these things?
> >> 
> >> >
> >> > No, it's not normal. The post-install scripts should create a
> >> > working initial configuration where it at least starts up.
> >> >
> >> > Try reinstalling with the --reinstall option.
> >> >
> >> > apt-get install sendmail --reinstall
> >> > apt-get install sendmail-base --reinstall
> >> > apt-get install sendmail-bin --reinstall
> >> >
> >> > Does that give any errors ?
> 
> Just those I mentioned that only required moving a few lines in
> sendmail.mc
> 
> However I'm still seeing something in the smtp conversation output
> about not being able to write somewhere... The message is too damn
> cryptic be very helpful. (see below).
> 
> If you are running version 4.14.4-5.. maybe you could post the perms
> on:
> 
> /var/spool/clientmqueue (Its a directory that should be created during
> install but is not).  And:
> /var/lib/sendmail (There should be another directory here named
> /var/lib/sendmail/host_status but it didn't get created during
> install either)
> 
> ----   ---=---   -   
> Tail of smtp conversation:
> 
> 250 2.0.0 Verbose mode
> >>> MAIL From: SIZE=289
> >>> AUTH=rea...@rdr.local.lan
> 250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
> >>> RCPT To:
> >>> DATA
> 250 2.1.5 ... Recipient ok
> 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
> >>> .
> 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0,
> gid=122): No such file or directory
> >>> QUIT
> rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot
> write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or
> directory Closing connection to [127.0.0.1] ---
> -   ---=---   -   
> 
> I can't figure out where the damn thing is trying to write, perhaps
> the root uid should be something else?
> 
> ----   ---=---   -  
> 
> perms on /var/spool stuff:
> 
> total 32
> drwxr-xr-x 2 rootroot4096 May 16 16:48 anacron
> 
> This one I created by hand and took the perms from the similar named
> directory mqueue-client which did exist
> 
> *** drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 17 14:41
> clientmqueue
> 
> drwxr-xr-x 5 rootroot4096 May 16 16:20 cron
> drwxr-x--- 5 Debian-exim Debian-exim 4096 May 16 16:35 exim4
> drwxr-xr-x 3 rootroot4096 May 16 16:18 libreoffice
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot   7 May 16 15:47 mail -> ../mail
> drwxrws--- 2 smmta   smmsp   4096 Feb 15 19:32 mqueue
> drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 18 12:50 mqueue-client
> drwx-- 2 rootroot4096 Mar 28 08:10 rsyslog
> 
> ----   ---=---   -  
> 
> ls -ld /var/lib/sendmail
> 
> I changed this to what you see, from:
>   drwxr-s--x
> 
>   drwxrws--x 3 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 /var/lib/sendmail
> 
> ls -l /var/lib/sendmail/
> -rw-rw 1 root smmsp0 May 17 21:55 dead.letter
> drwxrws--- 2 root smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 host_status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

I have this:

drwxr-s--- 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/spool/mqueue
drwxrws--- 2 smmsp smmsp 4096 Feb 16 01:04 /var/spool/mqueue-client
drwxrwsrwt 2 root mail 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/mail
drwxr-s--x 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:40 /var/lib/sendmail

mqueue-client instead of clientmqueue.

# dpkg -L sendmail-bin|grep client
/var/spool/mqueue-client

sendmail package version 8.14.4-5



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518200525.5648e...@orac.fil

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[Brian]

On Sat 17 May 2014 at 22:40:13 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Sb, 17 mai 14, 20:57:39, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > 
> > Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in
> > unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_
> > have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system.
>  
> Actually gdm3 Depends: libpam-systemd, which Depends: systemd-sysv, so 
> yes, you do. network-manager and gnome-bluetooth also depend on 
> libpam-systemd.

libpam-systemd: Depends: systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.

I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
installed.

One consideration might be

  https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014

 As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
 installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
 updated to that effect, BTW. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518174339.gz17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Lee Winter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:

So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?


Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install content that is
restricted by DRM.


> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me from
> accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.


Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly free to be as
stupid as they want.


> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse engineering,
> etc..
>

Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free to dictate to
them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship to you in
green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.

Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them.  Or
exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the DRM
people about it in excruciating detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory
and unsatisfying.

You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the law
of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America

users groups for in person work revisited?

[Karen Lewellen]

I have asked about this before. The goal remains needful as I have yet to 
find anyone in Toronto willing to work with me on my goals.  Last time I 
asked there was no really active debian group in Toronto, perhaps a 
 Ubintu one?

Thanks in advance,
Kare


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsf.4.64.1405181309260.3...@server1.shellworld.net

Re: latest sendmail on testing

[Harry Putnam]

Filip  writes:

> On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:08:10 -0400
> Harry Putnam  wrote:
>
>> Filip  writes:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >> I would have thought the install of a pkg would also create any
>> >> needed directories for the pkg to operate.
>> >> 
>> >> Is it normal for user to create these things?
>> 
>> >
>> > No, it's not normal. The post-install scripts should create a
>> > working initial configuration where it at least starts up.
>> >
>> > Try reinstalling with the --reinstall option.
>> >
>> > apt-get install sendmail --reinstall
>> > apt-get install sendmail-base --reinstall
>> > apt-get install sendmail-bin --reinstall
>> >
>> > Does that give any errors ?

Just those I mentioned that only required moving a few lines in sendmail.mc

However I'm still seeing something in the smtp conversation output about
not being able to write somewhere... The message is too damn cryptic be
very helpful. (see below).

If you are running version 4.14.4-5.. maybe you could post the perms on:

/var/spool/clientmqueue (Its a directory that should be created during
install but is not).  And:
/var/lib/sendmail (There should be another directory here named
/var/lib/sendmail/host_status but it didn't get created during install either)

----   ---=---   -   
Tail of smtp conversation:

250 2.0.0 Verbose mode
>>> MAIL From: SIZE=289 AUTH=rea...@rdr.local.lan
250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
>>> RCPT To:
>>> DATA
250 2.1.5 ... Recipient ok
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
>>> .
421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): 
No such file or directory
>>> QUIT
rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write 
./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or directory
Closing connection to [127.0.0.1]
----   ---=---   -   

I can't figure out where the damn thing is trying to write, perhaps the
root uid should be something else?

----   ---=---   -  

perms on /var/spool stuff:

total 32
drwxr-xr-x 2 rootroot4096 May 16 16:48 anacron

This one I created by hand and took the perms from the similar named
directory mqueue-client which did exist

*** drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 17 14:41 clientmqueue

drwxr-xr-x 5 rootroot4096 May 16 16:20 cron
drwxr-x--- 5 Debian-exim Debian-exim 4096 May 16 16:35 exim4
drwxr-xr-x 3 rootroot4096 May 16 16:18 libreoffice
lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot   7 May 16 15:47 mail -> ../mail
drwxrws--- 2 smmta   smmsp   4096 Feb 15 19:32 mqueue
drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 18 12:50 mqueue-client
drwx-- 2 rootroot4096 Mar 28 08:10 rsyslog

----   ---=---   -  

ls -ld /var/lib/sendmail

I changed this to what you see, from:
  drwxr-s--x

  drwxrws--x 3 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 /var/lib/sendmail

ls -l /var/lib/sendmail/
-rw-rw 1 root smmsp0 May 17 21:55 dead.letter
drwxrws--- 2 root smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 host_status





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tvr3tj5@newsguy.com

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot

[Gary Dale]

On 17/05/14 06:24 PM, John Bleichert wrote:

Hello All,

Running jessie/sid on an i7. Just installed todays updates which 
included an update from 3.13-1-amd64 to 3.14-1-amd64 and the new 
kernel does not boot, it just stalls at "Booting the kernel" (full 
console below). Any idea how to debug this? The previous 3.13 kernel 
boots just fine! Phew!


Thanks,

John

---

Loading Linux 3.14-1-amd64 ...
Loading initial ramdisk ...
early console in decompress_kernel

Decompressing Linux... Parsing ELF... done.
Booting the kernel.

*stall*

Works for me. Possibly something didn't complete in your install, such 
as updating the initramfs.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e424.6010...@torfree.net

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot

[Erwan David]

Le 18/05/2014 00:24, John Bleichert a écrit :
> Hello All,
>
> Running jessie/sid on an i7. Just installed todays updates which
> included an update from 3.13-1-amd64 to 3.14-1-amd64 and the new
> kernel does not boot, it just stalls at "Booting the kernel" (full
> console below). Any idea how to debug this? The previous 3.13 kernel
> boots just fine! Phew!
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> ---
>
> Loading Linux 3.14-1-amd64 ...
> Loading initial ramdisk ...
> early console in decompress_kernel
>
> Decompressing Linux... Parsing ELF... done.
> Booting the kernel.
>
> *stall*
>

Same for me on a Dell PowerEdge R210

See bug 748574 that I opened.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e39b.3020...@rail.eu.org

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot

[John Bleichert]

On May 17, 2014, at 6:24 PM, John Bleichert  wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> Running jessie/sid on an i7. Just installed todays updates which included an 
> update from 3.13-1-amd64 to 3.14-1-amd64 and the new kernel does not boot, it 
> just stalls at "Booting the kernel" (full console below). Any idea how to 
> debug this? The previous 3.13 kernel boots just fine! Phew!
> 

For grins I purged linux-image-3.14-1-amd64 and reset the system with the 
intention of reinstalling 3.14 via aptitude update. For some reason, the 3.14 
image does not show up as available via “aptitude update”.

Shouldn’t it be available again? To stay in sync should I try to install it 
again manually?

I am fine with 3.13 but don’t want to get out of sync. When trying to boot 3.14 
it doesn’t get far enough to leave anything at all in messages or in kern.log.

Suggestions?

JB

--
John Bleichert  -syb...@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/f44ff506-6230-40f4-82e0-09bf9f40f...@earthlink.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 11:26 AM, Slavko wrote:

Ahoj,

Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
napísal:


What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
get only what the law allows them and no more.

I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
nor international. I will write only on ethic level...

But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
persecute by inspecting of their computers).

At least, most people here know, how are companies involved in people's
privacy, how they know to respect personal information, etc. Nothing
from this, only money, money and money and THEIR right. Nothing about
our rights. And this Mozilla's decision is another step to get our
right into second rail. And right are thing, for which the free
software starts, not for money, not for to be best browser, only rights.

Finally, is widely known how are these companies able to approve e.g.
GPL and right of author's  of the GPL (or similar free) software.

Once again, i am not a criminal. And i want to no criminals go into my
home at all, don't depends if they will use door or computer (internet
connection). Do you want this?

regards

Right. I can use a free implementation to access an SMB network. I can't 
use a free implementation to access DRM. Non-free DRM pollutes Firefox. 
It shouldn't do the same to Iceweasel.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e1ca.40...@torfree.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale]

On 18/05/14 12:00 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale > wrote:


A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand
that freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United
States was not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox
is not free software while it accepts digital restrictions management.

Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that
slavery was allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing
that the "freedom" to choose whether to own slaves or not made
Americans freer would be called ridiculous by any sane person, yet
the same argument is being bandied about in this discussion as if
it made any sense.

The Free Software Foundation got this one right.


The above message contains good rhetoric and execrable reasoning.

The above dogma confuses two basic categories of freedoms "freedom 
from" and"freedom to".  Freedom from is the ability to avoid 
undesirable situations. Freedom to is the ability to pursue desirable 
situations.


Being a slavery is something that people tend to avoid.  So the 
freedom (or lack thereof) must be assessed from the perspective of the 
slave).  If one believes otherwise then, in the vein of the above 
statements, America_was_ free because the slave _owners_ were free to 
own other human beings.  Is that the freedom you are trying to promote?


DRM is two things: a legal doctrine and a technical implementation.  
While I believe in protecting the rights of owners of intellectual 
property, both the existing DRM legal doctrine and the original and  
existing DRM implementations are flawed. So badly that I will not 
abide by them, rely upon them, nor tolerate their existence within my 
areas of control.


DRM is not about freedom of any kind. It is about control of ones 
property.  Owners of intellectual property are free (in all senses of 
the term, including Stallman's) to attach such restriction on the 
property they sell/lend/rent/gift..  Potential customers are free (in 
all senses of the term, including Stallman's) to 
buy/borrow/rent/accept (or not) that property based on its own merits 
or based on the fact of DRM restrictions.


The real argument is not about DRM restrictions.  Those restrictions 
are irrelevant.  The real argument is whether to allow DRM-restricted 
property (often called content) into one's own domain.


Anyone who proposes to restrict my ability to choose, for or against, 
DRM-restricted property is making a proposition that I will _always_ 
res/ist./ After all, it is about freedom.  Mine.  Not some wacko 
theoretical objection based on alleged principles, but a fully 
personal decision on a care-by-case basis about the property in question.


And, for the record, I do not consider intellectual property to be 
morally equivalent to a human being.  Owning property has been around 
for million of years. And I approve of that practice (see Locke).  The 
distinction is that people are not and never have been property, much 
as some would like to think of other people as property.


But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real 
and worth protecting.  Otherwise I would consider every GPL 
"protected" product to have a BSD or an MIT license.  It is my respect 
for the owner's ability to set terms of use for their property that 
protects GPL'd products. Not the terms of that or any other license.


Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America

So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM? Unfortunately the DMCA 
and its international clones prohibit me from accessing DRM except by 
methods provided by the content owner. I am not free to use my own 
implementation through reverse engineering, etc..



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e142.6040...@torfree.net

Re: Where to get older versions of pkgs

[José Antonio Podadera Moya]

El Domingo, 18 de mayo de 2014 11:58:02 Harry Putnam escribió:
> José Antonio Podadera Moya  writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > You can try to install old package versions from the snapshot archive
> > (http://snapshot.debian.org). As the page itself says:
> > 
> > "The snapshot archive is a wayback machine that allows access to old
> > packages based on dates and version numbers. It consists of all past and
> > current packages the Debian archive provides."
> > 
> > Regards,
> 
> Looking that over it appears it will be more complicated to get that
> figured out and whatever trouble using that kind of sources.list will
> cause,  than it will be fighting my way thru problems with the new
> version of sendmail I'm trying to avoid.
> 
> Thanks to both of you.

Anyway, you can download the packages from snapshot and downgrade them, 
without adding a new source to APT. Install with DPKG and be sure you put them 
on hold so they will never be upgraded again.

Regards,

José Antonio Podadera Moya


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3204429.GGB7Ydg5Tk@pekin

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Curt]

On 2014-05-18, Brian  wrote:
>
> You really should try Tom H's advice. Two minutes out of your life. :)
>

So if loop is compiled as a module (as it is here) you can change the
max number of devices without rebooting (but this requires removing the
module from the running kernel, which might be difficult if any loop
devices are currently mounted)?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlnhn2f.22g.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Lee Winter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Slavko  wrote:

> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
> napísal:
>
> > What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
> > companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
> > get only what the law allows them and no more.
>
> I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
> nor international. I will write only on ethic level...
>
> But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
> to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
> right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
> these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
> persecute by inspecting of their computers).
>
> At least, most people here know, how are companies involved in people's
> privacy, how they know to respect personal information, etc. Nothing
> from this, only money, money and money and THEIR right. Nothing about
> our rights. And this Mozilla's decision is another step to get our
> right into second rail. And right are thing, for which the free
> software starts, not for money, not for to be best browser, only rights.
>
> Finally, is widely known how are these companies able to approve e.g.
> GPL and right of author's  of the GPL (or similar free) software.
>
> Once again, i am not a criminal. And i want to no criminals go into my
> home at all, don't depends if they will use door or computer (internet
> connection)


None of the above matters.


> . Do you want this?
>

Now you are getting to the heart of the matter.  Neither you, nor Mozilla,
nor Adobe, nor FSF have any say in the matter.  It is a personal matter.  I
will make the decision myself. I will also live with the consequences of
that decision.

But if you interfere with my ability to make that decision, then you are
making a bad mistake.  After all, it is about freedom.  Mine.  Not yours,
not Mozilla's, not Adobe's, and certainly not FSF's. Mine.  And when you
comprehend that then you will then understand  why all of the preceding
portions of your message just don't matter.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Brian]

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 16:01:08 +, Curt wrote:

> But all seriousness aside it appears that the max number of loop devices
> cannot be altered on the fly and requires a reboot, if I'm understanding
> correctly.

You really should try Tom H's advice. Two minutes out of your life. :)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/18052014170306.b6d15331e...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Curt]

On 2014-05-18, Filip  wrote:
>> 
>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>> 
>> But I guess that covers only half of the word "modify."
>
> You can create devices nodes with that in the filesystem, but they will
> not work unless they also exist in the kernel.

Yes, but "work" was not part of the problem space as defined by
the OP.

;-)

But all seriousness aside it appears that the max number of loop devices
cannot be altered on the fly and requires a reboot, if I'm understanding
correctly.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlnhm7o.22g.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Lee Winter]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale  wrote:

A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that
> freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was
> not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free
> software while it accepts digital restrictions management.
>
> Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was
> allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" to
> choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be called
> ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being bandied about
> in this discussion as if it made any sense.
>
> The Free Software Foundation got this one right.
>

The above message contains good rhetoric and execrable reasoning.

The above dogma confuses two basic categories of freedoms "freedom from"
and"freedom to".  Freedom from is the ability to avoid undesirable
situations. Freedom to is the ability to pursue desirable situations.

Being a slavery is something that people tend to avoid.  So the freedom (or
lack thereof) must be assessed from the perspective of the slave).  If one
believes otherwise then, in the vein of the above statements, America_was_
free because the slave _owners_ were free to own other human beings.  Is
that the freedom you are trying to promote?

DRM is two things: a legal doctrine and a technical implementation.  While
I believe in protecting the rights of owners of intellectual property, both
the existing DRM legal doctrine and the original and  existing DRM
implementations are flawed. So badly that I will not abide by them, rely
upon them, nor tolerate their existence within my areas of control.

DRM is not about freedom of any kind.  It is about control of ones
property.  Owners of intellectual property are free (in all senses of the
term, including Stallman's) to attach such restriction on the property they
sell/lend/rent/gift..  Potential customers are free (in all senses of the
term, including Stallman's) to buy/borrow/rent/accept (or not) that
property based on its own merits or based on the fact of DRM restrictions.

The real argument is not about DRM restrictions.  Those restrictions are
irrelevant.  The real argument is whether to allow DRM-restricted property
(often called content) into one's own domain.

Anyone who proposes to restrict my ability to choose, for or against,
DRM-restricted property is making a proposition that I will _always_ res
*ist.*  After all, it is about freedom.  Mine.  Not some wacko theoretical
objection based on alleged principles, but a fully personal decision on a
care-by-case basis about the property in question.

And, for the record, I do not consider intellectual property to be morally
equivalent to a human being.  Owning property has been around for million
of years.  And I approve of that practice (see Locke).  The distinction is
that people are not and never have been property, much as some would like
to think of other people as property.

But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real and
worth protecting.  Otherwise I would consider every GPL "protected" product
to have a BSD or an MIT license.  It is my respect for the owner's ability
to set terms of use for their property that protects GPL'd products. Not
the terms of that or any other license.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America

Re: Where to get older versions of pkgs

[Harry Putnam]

José Antonio Podadera Moya  writes:

[...]

> You can try to install old package versions from the snapshot archive 
> (http://snapshot.debian.org). As the page itself says: 
>
> "The snapshot archive is a wayback machine that allows access to old packages 
> based on dates and version numbers. It consists of all past and current 
> packages the Debian archive provides."
>
> Regards,
>

Looking that over it appears it will be more complicated to get that
figured out and whatever trouble using that kind of sources.list will
cause,  than it will be fighting my way thru problems with the new
version of sendmail I'm trying to avoid.

Thanks to both of you.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761l33wqd@newsguy.com

Re: systemd - excessive session-creation time

[Erwan David]

Le 18/05/2014 08:34, Tom H a écrit :
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>> Although initial tty session (from boot) is quicker than with
>> sysvinit, additional tty sessions are very slow to start, in the order
>> of 5 seconds (which seems like an eternity).
>>
>> Additionally, this slow tty/session creation time is seen when:
>> *) exiting X - ie logout back to terminal (from startx)
>> *) Shutdown from XFCE logout/shutdown dialog
>>
>> When exiting X from a startx at the linux tty, there appears to be a
>> large session tear-down time.
>>
>> In addition, a similarly long duration is seen when (as stated)
>> starting another linux vt.
> By default, other than tty1 (via
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service"), VTs are
> started dynamically as needed.
>
> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
> reboots, run:
>
> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
>
> The first command will create a
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".
>
>

And is there a way toi keep current behaviour : X session on tty 7 ?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378d3b8.1030...@rail.eu.org

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

[David Dušanić]

  17.05.2014, 22:29, "Erwan David" :Le 17/05/2014 22:02, Tom H a écrit : On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Erwan David  wrote: Le 17/05/2014 20:57, Sven Joachim a écrit : On 2014-05-17 19:58 +0200, Martin Vegter wrote: I am wondering whether systemd will be mandatory in Jessie. At the moment, I can install Jessie without systemd. Will this stay so, or will this change somewhere before Jessie becomes stable? Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_ have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system. So systemd-sysv is the real systemd ? or is there someting else ? systemd-sysv uninstalls sysvinit-core and takes over "/sbin/init" so systemd is used as pid 1. If you don't install systemd-sysv, you have to add "init=/lib/systemd/systemd" to the kernel cmdline in order to use systemd as pid 1.I do not particularly want to use it. I juste want to be prepared forwhen the switch will be compulsory. And there is a package calledsystemd which thus is *not* the systemd used as init, but something else? And what about systemd-shim ? When to use one, when to use another ?Thare are many packages, the documentation is  sparse, and verydifficult to read (vocabulary, construction of the text, etc...)eg  take the man of systemd-logind. At the end there is a link to"inhibition lock" documentation; However it is the first mention ofthose inhibition locks...Take systemd.service man age : speaks of sections, "units" without anydefinitions of what is a unit and what is a section. For the latter onecan guess it must be sothing looking like a windows .ini file, but notsure yet : the existing doc seems to be redacted *against* all unixadmins knowledge and habits.-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.orgArchive: https://lists.debian.org/5377c6b7.9060...@rail.eu.orgSystemd-shim is there to provide functions by systemd on a system that does not use it as its init system. It could be useful when you depend on Gnome 3 software like network-manager but do not want to use systemd.   -- David Dusanic 

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Brian]

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 11:23:56 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Brian  wrote:
> > On Sun 18 May 2014 at 09:40:29 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> >>
> >> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
> >> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
> >> "max_loop= >>
> >> # grep BLK_DEV_LOOP /boot/config-3.15-rc5
> >> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
> >> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT=16
> >>
> >> But if the above grep returns "CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=m", you can:
> >>
> >> # rmmod loop
> >> # modprobe loop max_loop=
> >
> > This can be automated to apply during booting by putting 'loop' into
> > /etc/modules and 'options loop max_loop='
> > into a file in /etc/modprobe.d/. This works (for me) under sysvint and
> > systemd.
> 
> The OP had said "... it can be reset for the next re-boot under
> /etc/modprobe.d . But I want to reset it on the fly. ..."

Because the OP hadn't given any detail about "... it can be reset for
the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d " I thought it might be
useful to extend your advice to indicate how to do it. There is also the
point that putting 'loop max_loop=' in
/etc/modules works with sysvinit but not with systemd.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518155136.gy17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Curt]

On 2014-05-18, Tom H  wrote:
>>
>> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
>> with the mknod command:
>>
>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>
> You'll have to run "chown root:disk /dev/loop8" too.
>

Nobody mentioned that in my reading!




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlnhl2d.22g.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Slavko  wrote:
> Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
> napísal:
>
>> What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
>> companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
>> get only what the law allows them and no more.
>
> I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
> nor international. I will write only on ethic level...
>
> But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
> to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
> right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
> these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
> persecute by inspecting of their computers).

Then don't install the non-free DRM engine. Simple. From what I
understand (which may be wrong, please correct me), Mozilla will not
actually ship the non-free code; you have to explicitly accept it.
With gcc, you have the option of compiling a whole lot of non-free
code and then running it; doesn't mean that anyone's forcing you to do
so.

ChrisA


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/captjjmrmfzgdryre6ani-n60nh3vz9tcu2vh_nrftsa5b8f...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Filip]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 15:15:34 + (UTC)
Curt  wrote:

> On 2014-05-18, Richard Owlett  wrote:
> >
> > My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of 
> > loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it 
> > can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I 
> > want to reset it on the fly.
> 
> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
> with the mknod command:
> 
> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
> 
> But I guess that covers only half of the word "modify."
> 
> 

You can create devices nodes with that in the filesystem, but they will
not work unless they also exist in the kernel.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518173502.2c0b7...@orac.fil

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Slavko  wrote:
> The Samba doesn't allow to use of proprietary software. Samba only uses
> the SMB protocol (i can be wrong, but it is standardized), which Windows
> uses (as primary) too. But you can connect two Samba between themselves,
> then no Windows is needed.

I don't know whether Samba<->Samba is useful in the complete absence
of Windows or OS/2 (yes, I've used Samba to talk to an OS/2 server;
it's enormously better than Windows, but still non-free, so for this
discussion it's similar), given that there are alternatives such as
sshfs. But I doubt that exchanging documents between two LibreOffice
users, in the absence of all hint of Microsoft Office, would not be
done using a Microsoft Office file format, due to inevitable
imperfections in the codecs. And you wouldn't install a brand new
Debian Linux system and decide to format your drive NTFS, unless you
really were expecting to use it from Windows. Samba, LibreOffice, and
the NTFS driver (at least, I checked ntfs-3g, don't know about others)
are all in section 'main', and are thus considered to be completely
free.

Do you want the freedom to mount NTFS volumes in Debian, or do you
want to demand more freedom by stopping people from using NTFS
anywhere? (This isn't just about mounting that second internal drive,
of course; removable media can be formatted with any file system.)

ChrisA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/captjjmoqvorhgx2phcommvw1oo7pyva3q9dl_jg0xzmwai3...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Curt  wrote:
> On 2014-05-18, Richard Owlett  wrote:
>>
>> My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of
>> loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it
>> can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I
>> want to reset it on the fly.
>
> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
> with the mknod command:
>
> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8

You'll have to run "chown root:disk /dev/loop8" too.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=syv4tdghtcgzc8cp7tj9n_ysjhx0as2jakgen9ghwi...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Slavko]

Ahoj,

Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
napísal:

> What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
> companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
> get only what the law allows them and no more.

I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
nor international. I will write only on ethic level...

But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
persecute by inspecting of their computers).

At least, most people here know, how are companies involved in people's
privacy, how they know to respect personal information, etc. Nothing
from this, only money, money and money and THEIR right. Nothing about
our rights. And this Mozilla's decision is another step to get our
right into second rail. And right are thing, for which the free
software starts, not for money, not for to be best browser, only rights.

Finally, is widely known how are these companies able to approve e.g.
GPL and right of author's  of the GPL (or similar free) software.

Once again, i am not a criminal. And i want to no criminals go into my
home at all, don't depends if they will use door or computer (internet
connection). Do you want this?

regards

-- 
Slavko
http://slavino.sk


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Tom H]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Brian  wrote:
> On Sun 18 May 2014 at 09:40:29 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
>> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
>> "max_loop=>
>> # grep BLK_DEV_LOOP /boot/config-3.15-rc5
>> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
>> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT=16
>>
>> But if the above grep returns "CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=m", you can:
>>
>> # rmmod loop
>> # modprobe loop max_loop=
>
> This can be automated to apply during booting by putting 'loop' into
> /etc/modules and 'options loop max_loop='
> into a file in /etc/modprobe.d/. This works (for me) under sysvint and
> systemd.

The OP had said "... it can be reset for the next re-boot under
/etc/modprobe.d . But I want to reset it on the fly. ..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw8-nSQG+Tbj-znkPS=grxr+umvsslrjxrqqz+gd_f...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

[Pascal Hambourg]

The Wanderer a écrit :
> 
> What does 'modprobe -r loop' do to any active loop devices?

Nothing.

> I would expect it to either error out without removing the module if any
> loop devices are in use,

As usual when the module is in use.

> or automatically shut the loop devices down.

That would be insane.

> If that's correct, then that might explain why the max_loop sysfs file
> is read-only.

Not IMO. That a feature may fail is not a reason to not implement it.
Otherwise removing a module would not even be implemented, because it
may fail when the module is in use.

> If it were not, then what happens if you reduce it below
> the number of currently active loop devices?

Just as usual : if there is at least one active loop device beyond the
new limit -> fail the write and do nothing. However, I believe users
would mostly need the feature to increase the number of loop devices,
not to reduce it : "oops, I just need more loop devices !"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378cc03.8070...@plouf.fr.eu.org

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Slavko]

Ahoj,

Dňa Mon, 19 May 2014 00:46:57 +1000 Chris Angelico 
napísal:

> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Gary Dale 
> wrote:
> > Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that
> > slavery was allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing
> > that the "freedom" to choose whether to own slaves or not made
> > Americans freer would be called ridiculous by any sane person, yet
> > the same argument is being bandied about in this discussion as if
> > it made any sense.
> >
> > The Free Software Foundation got this one right.
> 
> Is it wrong, then, for Samba to be included in the 'main' section? It
> encourages the use of both Debian and Windows, making it that much
> easier for people to use non-free software. Is it therefore a bad
> thing? What about the various tools that read and write Microsoft
> Office file formats? Are they bad because they give people the freedom
> to work with non-free systems?

Not previous, but you are wrong in comparison (or example selection).

The Samba doesn't allow to use of proprietary software. Samba only uses
the SMB protocol (i can be wrong, but it is standardized), which Windows
uses (as primary) too. But you can connect two Samba between themselves,
then no Windows is needed.

Can you use free software for the DRM? If yes, then i am wrong and your
example is OK.

regards

-- 
Slavko
http://slavino.sk


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Tails

[Francesco Ariis]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:36:43AM -0400, Doug wrote:
> BIOS chip? That's what it would seem to require, short of having
> physical access to the machine.
> 
> --doug
> 


Indeed physical access to the machine is what I was thinking about (simple
hypothetical threat: hardware key-logger in work environment or an internet
cafe). Such "tools" are quite cheap nowadays (~50$ off your favourite
online store).
I feel that, for someone who needs to securely store/access/transfer data and
is not tech-savvy (e.g.: a journalist), stating: "use a security-driven distro
(Tails, etc.) on secure hardware (your own machine or the machine of someone
you trust)" is concise, simple and comprehensive.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518151755.ga14...@x60s.casa