Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-05-31 08:57:43, schrieb Douglas Allan Tutty:
> Instead of focusing on having more and more packages, we should be
> focusing on the quality of what we've already got.  Such quality would
> include quality docs.  Documentation seems to be the bane of many/most
> free/open software distros.

..and when do you start?

Note: My own software/packages come with documentation but they bother
  me since I am not Author/Ecrivain.  --  I hate writing docs!

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2007-06-04 19:57:00 +0200, joe wrote:
> If there is no Debian version of the package you are interested in
> installing, then it would be wise to either switch to using Ubuntu,
> or you should ask the developers to create Debian packages, or
> contacting a DD for information on creating your own.

This is an old PowerPC machine, so I don't want to do any reinstallation.
And as I'm short of disk space on the root partition, I probably can't
build the package.

> I repeat, for brevity.  Do not mix packages between Debian and Ubuntu.

OK, thanks for the information.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Ron Johnson]

On 06/04/07 12:57, joe wrote:

On Monday 04 June 2007 19:01:10 Romain Francoise wrote:

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Is there a way to use the Ubuntu packages from Debian with
apt-get?

Try adding Ubuntu sources in your sources.list and see what
happens... but I don't think it'll work.

--
  ,''`.

 : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-


Installing Ubuntu packages in Debian is just asking for trouble.  I have heard 
of many people complaining how installing a ubuntu package has destroyed 
their Debian installation and the reverse is also true.


If there is no Debian version of the package you are interested in installing, 
then it would be wise to either switch to using Ubuntu, or you should ask the 
developers to create Debian packages, or contacting a DD for information on 
creating your own.


I repeat, for brevity.  Do not mix packages between Debian and Ubuntu.


Or get the Ubuntu deb-src and build your own package?

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Romain Francoise]

Hi again,

cothrige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Does that then mean that the Ubuntu Emacs does include the docs
> that Debian removes?

It's a bit more complicated than that because there are several
Emacs package suites in Debian:

 - Emacs 21 is packaged in Debian as two source packages, emacs21
   and emacs21-non-dfsg, the latter includes documentation and other
   files deemed unsuitable for main, and is in Debian's non-free
   section.  In Ubuntu these packages are kept as is, but are
   present together in the main section.  So yes, Ubuntu includes
   docs that Debian removes, but as two separate packages.

 - The package that started this thread, emacs-snapshot, includes
   all the upstream source including documentation, and is currently
   in Debian main (but I asked for its removal a few months ago
   after orphaning it).  I'm still maintaining it outside Debian as
   one package with documentation, which Ubuntu also includes (in
   main).  (emacs-snapshot is a packaged version of the Emacs CVS
   version, and currently corresponds to Emacs 22.1.)

 - There are emacs22 and emacs22-non-dfsg packages (based on an
   older pretest release) in Debian experimental (respectively main
   and non-free), and they are not in Ubuntu as far as I can tell.

Cheers,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[joe]

On Monday 04 June 2007 19:01:10 Romain Francoise wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there a way to use the Ubuntu packages from Debian with
> > apt-get?
>
> Try adding Ubuntu sources in your sources.list and see what
> happens... but I don't think it'll work.
>
> --
>   ,''`.
>
>  : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
>`-

Installing Ubuntu packages in Debian is just asking for trouble.  I have heard 
of many people complaining how installing a ubuntu package has destroyed 
their Debian installation and the reverse is also true.

If there is no Debian version of the package you are interested in installing, 
then it would be wise to either switch to using Ubuntu, or you should ask the 
developers to create Debian packages, or contacting a DD for information on 
creating your own.

I repeat, for brevity.  Do not mix packages between Debian and Ubuntu.

Joe


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Romain Francoise]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Is there a way to use the Ubuntu packages from Debian with
> apt-get?

Try adding Ubuntu sources in your sources.list and see what
happens... but I don't think it'll work.

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Romain Francoise]

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Is there some reason why you're not maintaining the package in Debian,
> given that you're a DD and it currently has no maintainer?

http://lists.debian.org/debian-emacsen/2007/03/msg00012.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-emacsen/2007/04/msg2.html

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[cothrige]

* Romain Francoise ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> It's very simple: Debian is no longer upstream for emacs-snapshot in
> Ubuntu, the packages are taken from my personal repository.
> 
> See https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/emacs-snapshot/1:20070529-1
> 

Thanks for that info.  Does that then mean that the Ubuntu Emacs does
include the docs that Debian removes?

Patrick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Joey Hess]

Romain Francoise wrote:
> It's very simple: Debian is no longer upstream for emacs-snapshot in
> Ubuntu, the packages are taken from my personal repository.

Is there some reason why you're not maintaining the package in Debian,
given that you're a DD and it currently has no maintainer?

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2007-06-04 15:18:45 +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> It's very simple: Debian is no longer upstream for emacs-snapshot in
> Ubuntu, the packages are taken from my personal repository.
> 
> See https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/emacs-snapshot/1:20070529-1

Is there a way to use the Ubuntu packages from Debian with apt-get?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Romain Francoise]

cothrige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I was aware that gNewSense was derived from Ubuntu, but I suppose I
> had not given much thought to how Ubuntu themselves handle these
> things.  Do they just redistribute these things straight from Debian?
> I suppose I simply assumed that they would include the documentation
> for Emacs, either by restoring it to the Debian package or by
> repackaging it entirely.  It makes me a bit curious thinking about it.

It's very simple: Debian is no longer upstream for emacs-snapshot in
Ubuntu, the packages are taken from my personal repository.

See https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/emacs-snapshot/1:20070529-1

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Wesley J. Landaker]

On Sunday 03 June 2007 19:52:27 cothrige wrote:
> * Wesley J. Landaker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Well since gNewSense is a derivative of Ubuntu which derives from
> > Debian, by default the emacs docs would be out as well, unless they add
> > them back in themselves. Looking at gNewSense, I got the impression
> > that they only removed things and didn't actually modify packages to
> > add things back in.
>
> I was aware that gNewSense was derived from Ubuntu, but I suppose I
> had not given much thought to how Ubuntu themselves handle these
> things.  Do they just redistribute these things straight from Debian? 

Well, mostly, yes, they just take a periodic snapshot of sid, and work from 
there. Obviously that is simplifying things somewhat, since they do add 
their own packages, modify their supported core, etc.

> I suppose I simply assumed that they would include the documentation
> for Emacs, either by restoring it to the Debian package or by
> repackaging it entirely.  It makes me a bit curious thinking about it.

I have no idea what they do with stable emacs + documentation in the core 
(if it's in their core), but I would suppose guarantee that if they had an 
emacs snapshot, it would be basically unmodified in their "universe" 
section.

Anyway, the point is that somebody (Ubuntu or gNewSense) is going to have to 
actively do some work to "fix" things to their liking since their upstream 
is Debian. I'm not sure that they actually do or will do this.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[cothrige]

* Wesley J. Landaker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> Well since gNewSense is a derivative of Ubuntu which derives from Debian, by 
> default the emacs docs would be out as well, unless they add them back in 
> themselves. Looking at gNewSense, I got the impression that they only 
> removed things and didn't actually modify packages to add things back in.

I was aware that gNewSense was derived from Ubuntu, but I suppose I
had not given much thought to how Ubuntu themselves handle these
things.  Do they just redistribute these things straight from Debian?
I suppose I simply assumed that they would include the documentation
for Emacs, either by restoring it to the Debian package or by
repackaging it entirely.  It makes me a bit curious thinking about it.

Patrick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Wesley J. Landaker]

On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:56:45 cothrige wrote:
> One could go with gNewSense, http://www.gnewsense.org/, which is what
> Richard Stallman uses.  It appears to be Ubuntu stripped of anything
> that the maintainers would consider non-free.  I am assuming that
> would not mean Emacs docs, as RMS endorses it, but would probably be
> things like nvidia drivers I suppose.

Well since gNewSense is a derivative of Ubuntu which derives from Debian, by 
default the emacs docs would be out as well, unless they add them back in 
themselves. Looking at gNewSense, I got the impression that they only 
removed things and didn't actually modify packages to add things back in.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Carl Fink]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 01:31:26PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

> Journaling, not so much, but the routing and firewalling chores of a 
> large ISP can put a serious load on a machine.

Panix uses a NetApp for storage, so a journaling filesystem in the OS is not
needed or usable anyway.
-- 
Carl Fink   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Ron Johnson]

On 06/02/07 10:44, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:06:40AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

On 06/01/07 22:45, Carl Fink wrote:

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:57:54PM -, BartlebyScrivener wrote:


What about FreeBSD? I may stick that on an old machine just to try it.
I don't follow the politics, but maybe they would be your cup of tea?

My ISP, Panix, uses NetBSD on their hosts. So far as I know, zero crashes
I got the impression that NetBSD was behind on the technology curve, 
being less capable in SMP systems and not having a journaling FS.

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html


Neither of which make it any less capable as a router or firewall
system.


Journaling, not so much, but the routing and firewalling chores of a 
large ISP can put a serious load on a machine.


Horizontal scaling to the rescue, I guess.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Andrew J. Barr]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:44:21 -0400
Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Neither of which make it any less capable as a router or firewall
> system.

Which, to use an analogy using the hardware I have, makes Linux the
Core 2 Duo EM64T box and NetBSD the 10-year-old Thinkpad 755.

- -- 
Andrew J. Barr
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.2 (GTK+ 2.10.12; powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu)

"The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGYazfhuM+Z62a52oRAme7AJ9e9JdFc9uwGof96JSaNNoGfGqhOQCeK6kv
InE3MCmCdd8apxu3KqFOD+4=
=JfhV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:06:40AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/01/07 22:45, Carl Fink wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:57:54PM -, BartlebyScrivener wrote:
> >
> >>What about FreeBSD? I may stick that on an old machine just to try it.
> >>I don't follow the politics, but maybe they would be your cup of tea?
> >
> >My ISP, Panix, uses NetBSD on their hosts. So far as I know, zero crashes
> 
> I got the impression that NetBSD was behind on the technology curve, 
> being less capable in SMP systems and not having a journaling FS.
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
> 
Neither of which make it any less capable as a router or firewall
system.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Ron Johnson]

On 06/01/07 22:45, Carl Fink wrote:

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:57:54PM -, BartlebyScrivener wrote:


What about FreeBSD? I may stick that on an old machine just to try it.
I don't follow the politics, but maybe they would be your cup of tea?


My ISP, Panix, uses NetBSD on their hosts. So far as I know, zero crashes


I got the impression that NetBSD was behind on the technology curve, 
being less capable in SMP systems and not having a journaling FS.

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html


due to instability.  (Mind you, I've never had Debian Stable crash on my
servers either.)



--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Carl Fink]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:57:54PM -, BartlebyScrivener wrote:

> What about FreeBSD? I may stick that on an old machine just to try it.
> I don't follow the politics, but maybe they would be your cup of tea?

My ISP, Panix, uses NetBSD on their hosts. So far as I know, zero crashes
due to instability.  (Mind you, I've never had Debian Stable crash on my
servers either.)
-- 
Carl Fink   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[BartlebyScrivener]

On Jun 1, 3:10 pm, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ok. You and a few others here helped me decide. Thanks very much.
>

I have Debian on two machines and Ubuntu on two others. I have to say
that I prefer Debian on a work machine, because it doesn't break.
Stable means something, etc. Ubuntu provides lots of updates and such,
but if you install them all indiscriminately, then every once in
awhile everything breaks.

What about FreeBSD? I may stick that on an old machine just to try it.
I don't follow the politics, but maybe they would be your cup of tea?

rick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Nic James Ferrier]

Ok. You and a few others here helped me decide. Thanks very much.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Mike McCarty]

Carl Fink wrote:

[snip]


In fact, at the time of the naming (1776), there were no other recognized
"states" in the Americas.  Just colonies. 


No, there were also indian governments. True, they weren't States.
However, the colonies were not the only entities with governments,
which is what your statement says.

[snip]

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Max Hyre]

Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
> I'm sorry, mate. But not everyone in this list and/or using Debian is
> from the USNA.

   Semi-touche'.  I pointed in particular to our politics so no one
would think I was denigrating anyone else's.

> Well, that may seem weird to you, but there *are* real politicians and
> politics and *real democracy*

   True.  Some of them are even over here in the land of the Bush league.

> in some places around the world, where these words do not necessarily
> mean something bad.

   Also true.  But Mr. Ferrier was using `politics' in a way suggesting
he meant to be derogatory.

> To be honest, you don't even have to think about governments to think
> about politics. There is politics everywhere.

   Which is why I said ``This is politics at its best[.]''  I was
pointing out that `politics' is not necessarily a dirty word, and since
ISTM that he was using it as such, I was asking for clarification.

> There is nothing negative about political decisions (unless they *are*
> bad decisions -- and even that is relative). Especially when they were
> actually put to vote.

   Aye---that is what I was trying to say.  Thanks for the chance to let
me say it better.

> Cheers
> Cassiano Leal

-- 
Best wishes,

 Max Hyre




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[BartlebyScrivener]

On May 30, 12:40 pm, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>  I am really ANGRY at Debian.

So put on a suit of armor and attack a hot fudge sundae.

Or use Ubuntu, but why rant?

As long as they keep including vim I'm happy.

rd


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Carl Fink]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:31:39AM -0700, Peter Gruessing wrote:
> I thought this was a Debian Linux mailing list?>

Yup.  I was just complaining about off-topic postings, too.  My apologies.

OTOH, don't top-post.
-- 
Carl Fink   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Carl Fink]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:16:04AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

> The Iroquois Confederacy existed before European Colonization, and 
> were called the Five Nations.  However, Wikipedia says "at the 
> height of their power in the seventeenth century, (there was only) a 
> population of around twelve thousand people."
> 
> Not to denigrate them, but
> a) they didn't call themselves "the United States of America", and
> b) those 12000 people just got swamped by European colonization.

People are reading something into my words that I didn't mean to put there,
namely that "state" means "good".  I'm just saying that "state" means
"state".  And that at the time of the founding "United States of America"
was literally true.
-- 
Carl Fink   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fwd: Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Peter Gruessing]

I thought this was a Debian Linux mailing list?>

Note: forwarded message attached.

Peter Gruessing
  CEO/President
  www.powanga.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

   
-
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. --- Begin Message ---

On 06/01/07 06:36, Carl Fink wrote:

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:16:46AM -0500, Klein Moebius wrote:

* Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-31 21:58:47 -0400]:

 

In fact, at the time of the naming (1776), there were no other recognized
"states" in the Americas.  Just colonies. 

I think Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, Apache, Kiowa, Nez Perce, Sioux,
Blackfoot, and a host of other peoples I've failed to mention here would
take issue with that statement.


Why?  They were not states, or at least not nation-states.

The Aztecs and Incas had nation-states.  The Maya and other Mesoamerican
peoples had city-states.  By 1776 they had been crushed.  In that time
period, the North American Indians were not organized into nation-states
(although apparently peoples like the Mound Builders had been in the past).


The Iroquois Confederacy existed before European Colonization, and 
were called the Five Nations.  However, Wikipedia says "at the 
height of their power in the seventeenth century, (there was only) a 
population of around twelve thousand people."


Not to denigrate them, but
a) they didn't call themselves "the United States of America", and
b) those 12000 people just got swamped by European colonization.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--- End Message ---

Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Ron Johnson]

On 06/01/07 06:36, Carl Fink wrote:

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:16:46AM -0500, Klein Moebius wrote:

* Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-31 21:58:47 -0400]:

 

In fact, at the time of the naming (1776), there were no other recognized
"states" in the Americas.  Just colonies. 

I think Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, Apache, Kiowa, Nez Perce, Sioux,
Blackfoot, and a host of other peoples I've failed to mention here would
take issue with that statement.


Why?  They were not states, or at least not nation-states.

The Aztecs and Incas had nation-states.  The Maya and other Mesoamerican
peoples had city-states.  By 1776 they had been crushed.  In that time
period, the North American Indians were not organized into nation-states
(although apparently peoples like the Mound Builders had been in the past).


The Iroquois Confederacy existed before European Colonization, and 
were called the Five Nations.  However, Wikipedia says "at the 
height of their power in the seventeenth century, (there was only) a 
population of around twelve thousand people."


Not to denigrate them, but
a) they didn't call themselves "the United States of America", and
b) those 12000 people just got swamped by European colonization.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Klein Moebius]

* Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-31 21:58:47 -0400]:

 
> In fact, at the time of the naming (1776), there were no other recognized
> "states" in the Americas.  Just colonies. 

I think Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, Apache, Kiowa, Nez Perce, Sioux,
Blackfoot, and a host of other peoples I've failed to mention here would
take issue with that statement.

Regards,
Klein


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Carl Fink]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:16:46AM -0500, Klein Moebius wrote:
> * Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-31 21:58:47 -0400]:
> 
>  
> > In fact, at the time of the naming (1776), there were no other recognized
> > "states" in the Americas.  Just colonies. 
> 
> I think Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, Apache, Kiowa, Nez Perce, Sioux,
> Blackfoot, and a host of other peoples I've failed to mention here would
> take issue with that statement.

Why?  They were not states, or at least not nation-states.

The Aztecs and Incas had nation-states.  The Maya and other Mesoamerican
peoples had city-states.  By 1776 they had been crushed.  In that time
period, the North American Indians were not organized into nation-states
(although apparently peoples like the Mound Builders had been in the past).
-- 
Carl Fink   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Ron Johnson]

On 05/31/07 20:58, Carl Fink wrote:
[snip]


And if you don't like it, stick it in your pipe and shove it where 
the sun don't shine.


But that doesn't justify being stupidly scatological.


How is my belly button scatological?  :)

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[cothrige]

* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:59:27 +0100, Nic James Ferrier
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  
> 
> > My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.  After 10 years
> > of being a dedicated Debian user I have reached the point at which I
> > am so angry with what is being done that I want to stop using it. I
> > will start to look for viable alternatives to Debian.
> 
> Good luck with your software choices elsewhere.  I suggest you
>  look at the GNU web site to see what OS they recommend; it may be more
>  to your liking, since you consider the GFDL licensed software to be
>  free.

One could go with gNewSense, http://www.gnewsense.org/, which is what
Richard Stallman uses.  It appears to be Ubuntu stripped of anything
that the maintainers would consider non-free.  I am assuming that
would not mean Emacs docs, as RMS endorses it, but would probably be
things like nvidia drivers I suppose.

Patrick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Carl Fink]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:17:49PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/31/07 13:39, Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >I'm sorry, mate. But not everyone in this list and/or using Debian is
> >from the USNA (United States of North America, as I call it, since it is
> > not the only federative republic in America -- read North, Central and
> >South).
> 
> The USA was the "United States" for 48 years before the Spanish 
> colony of Mexico became Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
> 
> Thus, we claim first dibs.

In fact, at the time of the naming (1776), there were no other recognized
"states" in the Americas.  Just colonies. 

> And if you don't like it, stick it in your pipe and shove it where 
> the sun don't shine.

But that doesn't justify being stupidly scatological.
-- 
Carl Fink   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[OT] I also am AAAAANGRY (was Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.)

[Ron Johnson]

On 05/31/07 13:39, Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
[snip]


I'm sorry, mate. But not everyone in this list and/or using Debian is
from the USNA (United States of North America, as I call it, since it is
 not the only federative republic in America -- read North, Central and
South).


The USA was the "United States" for 48 years before the Spanish 
colony of Mexico became Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.


Thus, we claim first dibs.

And if you don't like it, stick it in your pipe and shove it where 
the sun don't shine.


--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Michael Marsh]

On 5/31/07, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thu, 31 May 2007 06:39:39 -0400, Michael Marsh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
> GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
> commercials."
Man. You don't have MythTV? Or Tivo? My sympathies.  Haven't
 seen a commercial in months.


Actually, I have a DVR from my satellite service.  I get to watch
commercials in fast-forward, which is sometimes more entertaining than
the show.

--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
http://36pints.blogspot.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[cothrige]

* Nic James Ferrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> cothrige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > People often seem to resent what looks like a personal political idea
> > getting in the way of the system.  In this case it is suggested that
> > Debian is being petty and fighting over trivial political stuff.
> 
> I am NOT trying to debate the decision to regard GFDL as
> non-free. Although I think the decision is wrong that is NOT what I am
> complaining about.

And likewise, I have no intention of labelling you in particular in
any way.  I really meant my comments in a more general way,
considering the many posts and comments I have read online regarding
this issue.

> However, then taking that decision as an action point to remove all
> the documentation without putting it in elsewhere is simply not good
> enough. 

This has not troubled me much, but I can see your point.  However, I
would say that this really seems to bear less on the decision and more
on the implementation.

> A purely political decision has been taken that substantially changed
> *my* user experience (and that of others I'm sure) without warning and
> people think that's ok?

I think here you have hit a nail on the head.  So often, in these
post-Ubuntu days, we hear about this user experience, and how such
focus on things like openness of drivers, or freedom, is causing us to
lose out to the other guys, i.e. Mac and Windows.  I just don't buy
it.  The user experience is as good as it is *because* people have
insisted on this freedom.  The demand by many that things should be
free has given everyone else the opportunities all down the line to
make sure things could improve.  It is inevitable that as long as the
'politics' of free software remain paramount the user experience will
always improve.  However, the opposite could never be said.

Why are people so quick to throw away the very things that made what
they have possible?  I see it all the time here in America.  We had
freedom of speech, thought and association, and because of it built a
great nation.  Now that we have that great nation the first thing we
all seem to want to get rid of are those ridiculous freedoms of
speech, thought and association.  I just find it very strange.  We
should dance with the date that brought us, and in this case that
means insisting that software be and remain free.

And, another thing I think is funny is that so many talk about Debian
making political decisions (I don't know if that is what you mean
above, but I am inferring it from the context of the rest of the post
and thread) in a case where the real decision was by the authors of
the Emacs docs.  Why in the world does the documentation for a piece
of free software need invariant sections?  There are no invariant
sections in the program itself, so why the docs?  That is the 'purely
political decision' which has caused the problems, and not that of
Debian, at least as I see it.

Patrick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Mike McCarty]

Nic James Ferrier wrote:

My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.


[snip]


Why? Same reason as with Emacs-snapshot:

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=357260 


After reading that, I came to the conclusion that you are
angry at the wrong people. ISTM that you should be angry
at the author of the document who refuses to allow modification
in the manner Debian wants. That is, if you agree with the
Debian goal. If you don't agree with the Debian goal, then
you and Debian are simply not aligned in purpose, and you
definitely should consider a different OS/distribution.

That is not a reason to be angry, BTW.


Debian considers the GNU doc to have different freedom ideals to them
and they hate that so much that they have to remove it from Debian. 


So now what am I supposed to do?


Nothing I read in the web page pointed to by the link you posted
impressed me that "Debian" hates the GNU doc license. What I saw
indicates that Debian's goals, and the goals of certain authors,
are different. That does not constitute hate.

[snip]


It is just so ludicrous. It's all I can do to not swear in great big
capital letters at the people who made this decision.


What is ludicrous is expending so much emotional energy over
this matter.


If anyone wants to setup an alternative, GNU friendly, single software
package archive they should get in touch with me privately.


I doubt you'll find many takers, but I wish you success and
emotional relief, and soon.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:05:44 +0100, Nic James Ferrier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> And I do not accept that it is ok because it's only transitional and
> eventually documentation will be pushed into non-free. If that's the
> case why couldn't we wait for that to happen before it got removed
> from main?

While non-free stuff remains in main, we are in violation of the
 social contract.  Adding stuff to non-free is, well, non-free matter,
 which is rarely seen as important as SC violations.

A technical reason is that most people are removing non-free
 stuff from their un-renamed packages in main; while the non-free doc
 packages are NEW. New packages are not automatically uploaded, but need
 to go through human processing, so the document packages sometimes are
 not on the arcive long after the main threw the docs out.

> A purely political decision has been taken that substantially changed
> *my* user experience (and that of others I'm sure) without warning and
> people think that's ok?

The users are now better served since the taint of non-freeness
 is gone from their machines :P


BTW, are you running Sid, or Etch?

manoj
-- 
It's all very funny until someone loses an eye.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:59:27 +0100, Nic James Ferrier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.  After 10 years
> of being a dedicated Debian user I have reached the point at which I
> am so angry with what is being done that I want to stop using it. I
> will start to look for viable alternatives to Debian.

Good luck with your software choices elsewhere.  I suggest you
 look at the GNU web site to see what OS they recommend; it may be more
 to your liking, since you consider the GFDL licensed software to be
 free.

> It is just so ludicrous. It's all I can do to not swear in great big
> capital letters at the people who made this decision.

Swearing at people who volunteer to bring you something you can
 use for free seems fairly counter productive. 

Who is John Galt?


> Or are they going to accept that doing this is pretty stupid and
> driving people away and that another way should be found than the
> current package vandalism.

I don't think the decision was stupid.  We spent 4 years trying
 to talk a compromise with the FSF.   If people do not care about Debian
 caring for software freedom (and, you know, defining what we call
 freedom), then people are free to go elsewhere.  There is no
 coercion. One size does not fit all. 

> In this instance, Debian the community of developers and package
> maintainers, has made a politicial decision and then taken a mandate
> for action from that which overreaches what should have been done.

Actually, some of us wanted _any_ GFDL'd docs thrown out of
 Debian, but the compromise  view prevailed.

> As far as I can see, only a third of the electorate voted. And Debian
> has a very limited electorate; I have been using Debian for 10 years;
> I have contributed help and user conversions - but I don't get a vote.

The people responsible for a subset of Debian (i.e., one or more
 packages that make debian) get to vote. This is a variant of those who
 do, decide.

> What I'm saying is that care should have been taken with the
> decision. It was a sensitive issue and what is being done is not
> sensitive.

Debian has always been about freedom. I am not free to do things
 to GFDL material which I may for other software in Debian -- so I am
 not sure why people are surprised. 

> And I think that is *exactly* like politics elsewhere. I am not
> surprised by that. But I am dissapointed and angry.

> It is also interesting that a good number of people have seen nothing
> wrong with the actions as they have been taken and I get taken to task
> for bringing it up. That looks a lot like normal politics to me.

Sounds more like a difference of opinion.  


> An alternative action would have been to move bash-doc, emacs and
> other packages that are going to be altered by this decision to
> non-free rather than removing the documentation and leaving us with
> none.

And that has been done, in a number of cases. (I did that with
 make-doc-non-dfsg).  But this is a group of volunteers.  Some people
 did not feel like working on non-free packages.  You can't force
 'em. Surely, if this irritates so many, someone will come in to scratch
 their itch and package the docs for Debian again.

In the meanwhile, one hopes upstream reverts to a sane license.

manoj
-- 
I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 06:39:39 -0400, Michael Marsh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
> GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
> commercials."

Man. You don't have MythTV? Or Tivo? My sympathies.  Haven't
 seen a commercial in months.

manoj
 Debian, the OS without commercials
-- 
I never met a woman I couldn't drink pretty.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 08:57:43 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> I especially hate man pages that basically
> tell nothing about the program and say something to the effect "this
> man page was written for debian because the origional package did not
> include a man page and we want to avoid bug reports".  A useless man
> page is still a bug in my book.

Please do file bugs for such instances.

> Instead of focusing on having more and more packages, we should be
> focusing on the quality of what we've already got.  Such quality would
> include quality docs.  Documentation seems to be the bane of many/most
> free/open software distros.

All your patches would be gratefully accepted.

manoj
-- 
According to my best recollection, I don't remember. Vincent "Jimmy Blue
Eyes" Alo
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Consultores Agropecuarios]

El jue, 31-05-2007 a las 19:59 +0100, Nic James Ferrier escribió:
> Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >  Watch out for loaded words.  The decision was indeed
> > ``political'' in that it was put up to a vote, but
> > `politics' has negative connotations that I don't think
> > apply here.  Each person voting, whether pro or con, was
> > voting out of principle, not because they'd been bribed, or
> > because they'd been forced to follow the party line.  They
> > were deciding what the party line was to be.
> >
> >This is politics at its best, and has no connection to
> > the operations of the U.S. legislative or executive
> > branches, which is what the word `political' is loaded with.
> >
> >Indeed, better coordination in the transition (notably
> > pointing people toward the excised documents) would have
> > been a major improvement.  However, ``because of a political
> > decision'' sounds like something derogatory.  In what sense
> > do you mean for people to understand that phrase?
> 
> Firstly, I disagree that the word 'political' is loaded with
> connections to the US legislative or executive branches; that is a
> parochial view. I am from the UK, why would I make those associations?
> 
> 

Because, you are running out of your own context.
   
  "And I think that is *exactly* like politics elsewhere. I am not
  surprised by that. But I am dissapointed and angry."


> 
> In this instance, Debian the community of developers and package
> maintainers, has made a politicial decision and then taken a mandate
> for action from that which overreaches what should have been done.
> 
> As far as I can see, only a third of the electorate voted. And Debian
> has a very limited electorate; I have been using Debian for 10 years;
> I have contributed help and user conversions - but I don't get a vote.
> 
> What I'm saying is that care should have been taken with the
> decision. It was a sensitive issue and what is being done is not
> sensitive.
> 
> And I think that is *exactly* like politics elsewhere. I am not
> surprised by that. But I am dissapointed and angry.
> 
> 
> 
> It is also interesting that a good number of people have seen nothing
> wrong with the actions as they have been taken and I get taken to task
> for bringing it up. That looks a lot like normal politics to me.
> 
> -- 
> Nic Ferrier
> http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Nic James Ferrier]

cothrige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> People often seem to resent what looks like a personal political idea
> getting in the way of the system.  In this case it is suggested that
> Debian is being petty and fighting over trivial political stuff.

I am NOT trying to debate the decision to regard GFDL as
non-free. Although I think the decision is wrong that is NOT what I am
complaining about.

I have said several times that, although I disagree with the decision,
I am quite happy for the Debian project to make policy in the way that
it has.


However, then taking that decision as an action point to remove all
the documentation without putting it in elsewhere is simply not good
enough. 

And I do not accept that it is ok because it's only transitional and
eventually documentation will be pushed into non-free. If that's the
case why couldn't we wait for that to happen before it got removed
from main?


A purely political decision has been taken that substantially changed
*my* user experience (and that of others I'm sure) without warning and
people think that's ok?


-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Klein Moebius]

* Cassiano Bertol Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-31 15:39:42 -0300]:

> I'm sorry, mate. But not everyone in this list and/or using Debian is
> from the USNA (United States of North America, as I call it, since it is
>  not the only federative republic in America -- read North, Central and
> South).
Estados Unidos Mexicanos comes immediately to mind... 

Klein

-- 
... The whole of life is futile unless you consider it as a sporting
proposition.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Nic James Ferrier]

Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  Watch out for loaded words.  The decision was indeed
> ``political'' in that it was put up to a vote, but
> `politics' has negative connotations that I don't think
> apply here.  Each person voting, whether pro or con, was
> voting out of principle, not because they'd been bribed, or
> because they'd been forced to follow the party line.  They
> were deciding what the party line was to be.
>
>This is politics at its best, and has no connection to
> the operations of the U.S. legislative or executive
> branches, which is what the word `political' is loaded with.
>
>Indeed, better coordination in the transition (notably
> pointing people toward the excised documents) would have
> been a major improvement.  However, ``because of a political
> decision'' sounds like something derogatory.  In what sense
> do you mean for people to understand that phrase?

Firstly, I disagree that the word 'political' is loaded with
connections to the US legislative or executive branches; that is a
parochial view. I am from the UK, why would I make those associations?



In this instance, Debian the community of developers and package
maintainers, has made a politicial decision and then taken a mandate
for action from that which overreaches what should have been done.

As far as I can see, only a third of the electorate voted. And Debian
has a very limited electorate; I have been using Debian for 10 years;
I have contributed help and user conversions - but I don't get a vote.

What I'm saying is that care should have been taken with the
decision. It was a sensitive issue and what is being done is not
sensitive.

And I think that is *exactly* like politics elsewhere. I am not
surprised by that. But I am dissapointed and angry.



It is also interesting that a good number of people have seen nothing
wrong with the actions as they have been taken and I get taken to task
for bringing it up. That looks a lot like normal politics to me.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Cassiano Bertol Leal]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Max Hyre escreveu:
> Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> 
>> [T]earing useful stuff out of packages because of a
>> political decision without providing an automatic upgrade
>> is stupid. It *will* lose you users.
> 
>Watch out for loaded words.  The decision was indeed
> ``political'' in that it was put up to a vote, but
> `politics' has negative connotations that I don't think
> apply here.  Each person voting, whether pro or con, was
> voting out of principle, not because they'd been bribed, or
> because they'd been forced to follow the party line.  They
> were deciding what the party line was to be.
> 
>This is politics at its best, and has no connection to
> the operations of the U.S. legislative or executive
> branches, which is what the word `political' is loaded with.
> 
>Indeed, better coordination in the transition (notably
> pointing people toward the excised documents) would have
> been a major improvement.  However, ``because of a political
> decision'' sounds like something derogatory.  In what sense
> do you mean for people to understand that phrase?

I'm sorry, mate. But not everyone in this list and/or using Debian is
from the USNA (United States of North America, as I call it, since it is
 not the only federative republic in America -- read North, Central and
South).

'Politics' and 'political decisions' may have negative connotations to
you, but that's because you seem to link these words directly with your
corrupt and anti-democratic governments (even though they insist in
believing that they are the leaders of the /free world/).

Well, that may seem weird to you, but there *are* real politicians and
politics and *real democracy* -- or at least something closer to it --
in some places around the world, where these words do not necessarily
mean something bad.

To be honest, you don't even have to think about governments to think
about politics. There is politics everywhere. In the company where you
work, in any club or organization that you belong to, inside your own
family and friends' circle, etc etc etc.

There is nothing negative about political decisions (unless they *are*
bad decisions -- and even that is relative). Especially when they were
actually put to vote.

Cheers
Cassiano Leal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGXxZuq4Bz51JiUuERAid/AKC+RN9muL4Pt2DLTdcyjDih9VsHWwCfcTGd
VpZa34UYMAIIul50Yeh7zeI=
=Oaej
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[cothrige]

* Stephan Seitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:01:20AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> >license, which *is* considered a free license.  In my opinion, all the 
> >analogies fall short because documentation is not software, regardless 
> >of Debian's dogmatic claims to the contrary.
> 
> If you mean with documentation some files you have on your computer, then 
> they are of course software. They may not be programs but they are 
> software.
> 
> Shade and sweet water!
> 
>   Stephan

I have never thought of this that way before, but it sounds like a
very sound approach.  As a person very supportive of the ideas of RMS
and the FSF I had some initial trouble coming to grips with why Debian
was taking this rather odd looking position.  But, after having read
some commentary and such online it seems to me now like the only thing
to do really.

People often seem to resent what looks like a personal political idea
getting in the way of the system.  In this case it is suggested that
Debian is being petty and fighting over trivial political stuff.
However, it seems to me that it is the other way around.  I think, and
I trust I will be corrected if I am wrong, RMS is trying to treat
documentation and manuals for free software like either a book or a
political manifesto.  I could understand his ideas about much of this
if he were discussing a print or online publication or article, but
not the documentation for free software.

It is argued that these 'invariant' sections must exist since without
them a person could present their own ideas as if they were those of
another, or vice versa.  In a book, or a political tract, this
matters, but really how does it apply to presenting the technicals on
using a piece of software?  And isn't that the same kind of thinking
which some use to attack free programs?  Why should specific comments,
cover sheets and so on have to be maintained in a work of this nature?
It really makes no sense, and comes down to a personal insistence on
the part of RMS that specific political commentary and the like be
kept a part of the work for ever.

I really do like Stallman's ideas, and those of the FSF.  I think they
have done immense good for software and the world in general.  It is
too easy to forget that systems like Debian are here very much because
of the "petty" bickering RMS.  As I see the likes of Ubuntu come up
and the inevitable suggestions about the silly positions of these
"fanatics" which just keeps us from having fancy things like Windows,
I can't help but think people are forgetting what things are all
about.  You should go home with the date that brought you, and we have
so much great software at least in great part thanks to the work of
people like RMS.  Where would free software be without fanatics
protecting free software?  However, sometimes people don't always get
it right, and this time it seems to me that Stallman is looking at
this wrong, and Debian's position just makes more sense overall.

Patrick



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Max Hyre]

Nic James Ferrier wrote:

> [T]earing useful stuff out of packages because of a
> political decision without providing an automatic upgrade
> is stupid. It *will* lose you users.

   Watch out for loaded words.  The decision was indeed
``political'' in that it was put up to a vote, but
`politics' has negative connotations that I don't think
apply here.  Each person voting, whether pro or con, was
voting out of principle, not because they'd been bribed, or
because they'd been forced to follow the party line.  They
were deciding what the party line was to be.

   This is politics at its best, and has no connection to
the operations of the U.S. legislative or executive
branches, which is what the word `political' is loaded with.

   Indeed, better coordination in the transition (notably
pointing people toward the excised documents) would have
been a major improvement.  However, ``because of a political
decision'' sounds like something derogatory.  In what sense
do you mean for people to understand that phrase?


-- 
Best wishes,

 Max Hyre




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Tyler Smith]

On 2007-05-31, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> An alternative action would have been to move bash-doc, emacs and
> other packages that are going to be altered by this decision to
> non-free rather than removing the documentation and leaving us with
> none.
>

emacs21-common-non-dfsg has most of the missing manuals for emacs. The
elisp intro and the tar-docs are currently in non-free. The elisp
manual can be pinched from unstable, where I think it's still in the
main repository. I'm not sure where the bash docs are at. There is
some interest in fixing the issue, but it still needs to be
coordinated with the package maintainer, judging from comments on the
buglist for bash-doc

Tyler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Stephan Seitz]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:01:20AM -0400, Marty wrote:
license, which *is* considered a free license.  In my opinion, all the 
analogies fall short because documentation is not software, regardless 
of Debian's dogmatic claims to the contrary.


If you mean with documentation some files you have on your computer, then 
they are of course software. They may not be programs but they are 
software.


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Stephan SeitzE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Klein Moebius]

* Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-30 19:38:31 -0400]:

 
> You do realize, don't you, that you've just guaranteed this thread will 
> still be high in volume for the next month with that one statement!

Until someone mentions Nazis?

Regards,
Klein


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Karl E. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> "An alternative"?  Re-writing the Emacs manual (IIRC this was the
> sticking point early on in this thread) is not an easy task.  At the
> very least I would expect this to take some time.  In the mean time, the
> maintainer(s) still had to follow the DFSG and whatnot, so I cannot see
> what choice they had...

An alternative action would have been to move bash-doc, emacs and
other packages that are going to be altered by this decision to
non-free rather than removing the documentation and leaving us with
none.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action given the
circumstances.

I just can't understand why people think it's reasonable to just take
the documentation away. It's dogmatic in the extreeme.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Douglas Allan Tutty]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:56:03AM +, Tyler Smith wrote:
> On 2007-05-31, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > About a year ago, there was a GR (general resolution) that Debian had
> > and it said 'GFDL without invariant sections' are DFSG-free while 'GFDL
> > with invariant sections' is not. Read info on the vote.
> 
> That's all fine and good, and I've been persuaded to see the Debian
> perspective on this. However, there would be fewer angry users if the
> package maintainers put the non-DFSG stuff into non-free _before_ they
> excised it from main. 
> 

Put it in non-free and put it as suggests by the main package.
Otherwise, one has no way of knowing when installing a package that it
doesn't come with useful documentation (which I believe breaks the
spirit of debian policy).  I especially hate man pages that basically
tell nothing about the program and say something to the effect "this
man page was written for debian because the origional package did not
include a man page and we want to avoid bug reports".  A useless man
page is still a bug in my book.

Instead of focusing on having more and more packages, we should be
focusing on the quality of what we've already got.  Such quality would
include quality docs.  Documentation seems to be the bane of many/most
free/open software distros.

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Michael Marsh]

On 5/31/07, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Michael Marsh wrote:
> Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
> GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
> commercials."

Except that in this case, the "commercial" is from the document's author.  A
slightly better analogy is the advertising clause of BSD license, which *is*
considered a free license.  In my opinion, all the analogies fall short because
documentation is not software, regardless of Debian's dogmatic claims to the
contrary.


True, and all analogies are imperfect.  However, the advertisement has
to remain regardless of how far the documentation eventually deviates
from the original.  This is true of the original BSD license, as well.
If the free software community adopts the GFDL with invariant
sections in substantial numbers, then presumably Debian will
eventually have to bow to public pressure and treat documentation by
different rules than software.

--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
http://36pints.blogspot.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Karl E. Jorgensen]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> "Michael Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On 5/30/07, Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You're not allowed to change or discard that lump.  Isn't it at least
> >> *understandable* that many believe this document is unfree?
> >
> > Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
> > GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
> > commercials."
> 
> To be clear about this:
> 
> I do not object to Debian organizing itself how it sees fit. I am not
> a Debian developer; I may never be a Debian developer.
> 
> This is how the Debian process dealt with the issue:
> 
>   http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
> 
> and I respect that.
> 
> BUT I find it absolutely astounding that people think that this vote
> is a basis for going round removing documentation without providing an
> alternative.

"An alternative"?  Re-writing the Emacs manual (IIRC this was the 
sticking point early on in this thread) is not an easy task.  At the 
very least I would expect this to take some time.  In the mean time, the 
maintainer(s) still had to follow the DFSG and whatnot, so I cannot see 
what choice they had...

> And, to remove GNU documentation from Emacs is tantamount to
> vandalism. It would be better to move the whole package to non-free
> rather than remove the documentation. It's such an insane thing to do.

I can see your point - although my wording would have been somewhat less 
radical.  Separating the software and documentation is not a good thing.  
But, alas, they were under different licences to start with :-|

I think your anger is misdirected - Debian behaves exactly as promised: 
The DFSG rules. And moving the emacs documentation to non-free was a 
logical consequence of it.

> Of course... if lots of packages are moved to non-free I might as well
> use ubuntu. I've never had to use non-free before.

Obviously you're free to do so. After all, Ubuntu isn't bound by the 
DFSG, but something uncannily similar:
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing

Regards

-- 
Karl E. Jorgensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.jorgensen.org.uk/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://karl.jorgensen.com
 Today's fortune:
Parallel lines never meet, unless you bend one or both of them.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Tyler Smith]

On 2007-05-31, Nic James Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I fully accept the ramifications of Debian's democratic process. But
> Debian has made a big mistake here; tearing useful stuff out of
> packages because of a political decision without providing an
> automatic upgrade is stupid. It *will* lose you users.
>
>
> Or are they going to accept that doing this is pretty stupid and
> driving people away and that another way should be found than the
> current package vandalism.
>

As frustrating as it may be, they do have a valid reason. If it's any
compensation, this is a temporary situation. Once all the docs have
been moved to non-free you'll have access to them via apt-get again,
and the issue shouldn't come up again. We're just in the middle of an
awkward transition at the moment.

Tyler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Marty]

Michael Marsh wrote:

On 5/30/07, Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   _But_, please put anger aside a moment and examine the GFDL with
unbiased eyes.  If a document has an invariant section, then you have a
file
a) with a lump of lead inside that has to be dragged around
   with the document, forever, and
b) whose guts cannot be cut and pasted into other documents
   without replicating that lump of lead, no matter how close or
   distant the relation between the two documents.

You're not allowed to change or discard that lump.  Isn't it at least
*understandable* that many believe this document is unfree?


Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
commercials."



Except that in this case, the "commercial" is from the document's author.  A 
slightly better analogy is the advertising clause of BSD license, which *is* 
considered a free license.  In my opinion, all the analogies fall short because 
documentation is not software, regardless of Debian's dogmatic claims to the 
contrary.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Nic James Ferrier]

"Michael Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 5/30/07, Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're not allowed to change or discard that lump.  Isn't it at least
>> *understandable* that many believe this document is unfree?
>
> Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
> GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
> commercials."

To be clear about this:

I do not object to Debian organizing itself how it sees fit. I am not
a Debian developer; I may never be a Debian developer.

This is how the Debian process dealt with the issue:

  http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001

and I respect that.


BUT I find it absolutely astounding that people think that this vote
is a basis for going round removing documentation without providing an
alternative.

And, to remove GNU documentation from Emacs is tantamount to
vandalism. It would be better to move the whole package to non-free
rather than remove the documentation. It's such an insane thing to do.



Of course... if lots of packages are moved to non-free I might as well
use ubuntu. I've never had to use non-free before.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Stephan Seitz]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:39:39AM -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:

Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
commercials."


And Debian as the „TV sender” has decided to not allow commercials. If 
you want to see them, change the sender.


At least I don’t watch TV for this reason.

Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Stephan SeitzE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Michael Marsh]

On 5/30/07, Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   _But_, please put anger aside a moment and examine the GFDL with
unbiased eyes.  If a document has an invariant section, then you have a
file
a) with a lump of lead inside that has to be dragged around
   with the document, forever, and
b) whose guts cannot be cut and pasted into other documents
   without replicating that lump of lead, no matter how close or
   distant the relation between the two documents.

You're not allowed to change or discard that lump.  Isn't it at least
*understandable* that many believe this document is unfree?


Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
commercials."

--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
http://36pints.blogspot.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Nic James Ferrier]

Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:56:03AM +, Tyler Smith wrote:
>> On 2007-05-31, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > About a year ago, there was a GR (general resolution) that Debian had
>> > and it said 'GFDL without invariant sections' are DFSG-free while 'GFDL
>> > with invariant sections' is not. Read info on the vote.
>> 
>> That's all fine and good, and I've been persuaded to see the Debian
>> perspective on this. However, there would be fewer angry users if the
>> package maintainers put the non-DFSG stuff into non-free _before_ they
>> excised it from main. 
>
> The 'free-ness' vote was the primary issue. Those are implementation
> details left to the maintainers. There was no direction given to them,
> so I would guess they did was what I have read that most maintainer do:
> focus on the 'free software' and put any non-free tasks second or lower.
> Although I think that your suggestion would have made things a little
> easier for the users.

If you look at the bug track I sent you'll see that packagers are
being told to remove the free documentation:

   Please try to obtain permission from upstream to delete the cover
   texts, otherwise you will have to remove the whole manual. :-(



I fully accept the ramifications of Debian's democratic process. But
Debian has made a big mistake here; tearing useful stuff out of
packages because of a political decision without providing an
automatic upgrade is stupid. It *will* lose you users.



Remember also that there are a whole bunch of people who care about
Debian but, because we're not Debian developers, we didn't get to vote
on this issue.

I think this is the same as any democratic system. 

The question is: are Debian leaders and developers now going to behave
like most national government politicians and try and crush all
protest under the banner "sorry! you already voted for it"?

Or are they going to accept that doing this is pretty stupid and
driving people away and that another way should be found than the
current package vandalism.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Kevin Mark]

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:09:11PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/30/07 12:18, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> >My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.
> >
> >After 10 years of being a dedicated Debian user I have reached the
> >point at which I am so angry with what is being done that I want to
> >stop using it. I will start to look for viable alternatives to Debian.
> >
> >A few weeks ago, as Emacs was nearing the end of it's long release 23
> >development cycle, I decided I would upgrade my emacs-snapshot.
> >
> >Oh dear. emacs-snapshot is quite old and not recent at all. Hmmm,
> >what's happened to that I wonder? I go ask the maintainer of the
> >package. He tells me that Debian want him to remove the free
> >documentation from inside Emacs, a ludicrous suggestion frankly and
> >clearly detrimental to the package so he has stopped working on it. He
> >was quite right; in my opnion there is nothing else to do.
> 
> There are lots of emails on -devel and -legal about problems "they" 
> have with the GFDL (Gnu Free Document License) regarding the DFSG.
> 
> [snip]
> >If anyone wants to setup an alternative, GNU friendly, single software
> >package archive they should get in touch with me privately.
> 
> Ubuntu?
Yes, IIRC Ubuntu has a different licensing structure than Debian which
may allow for what the OP would like. Also, IIRC, isn't there going to
be some discussion with FSF, Debian and others about GPLV3 that may work
some of these issue out?> 

About a year ago, there was a GR (general resolution) that Debian had
and it said 'GFDL without invariant sections' are DFSG-free while 'GFDL
with invariant sections' is not. Read info on the vote.
-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
|  my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian!  |
|___  Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Kevin Mark]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:56:03AM +, Tyler Smith wrote:
> On 2007-05-31, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > About a year ago, there was a GR (general resolution) that Debian had
> > and it said 'GFDL without invariant sections' are DFSG-free while 'GFDL
> > with invariant sections' is not. Read info on the vote.
> 
> That's all fine and good, and I've been persuaded to see the Debian
> perspective on this. However, there would be fewer angry users if the
> package maintainers put the non-DFSG stuff into non-free _before_ they
> excised it from main. 

The 'free-ness' vote was the primary issue. Those are implementation
details left to the maintainers. There was no direction given to them,
so I would guess they did was what I have read that most maintainer do:
focus on the 'free software' and put any non-free tasks second or lower.
Although I think that your suggestion would have made things a little
easier for the users.
-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
|  my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian!  |
|___  Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Tyler Smith]

On 2007-05-31, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> About a year ago, there was a GR (general resolution) that Debian had
> and it said 'GFDL without invariant sections' are DFSG-free while 'GFDL
> with invariant sections' is not. Read info on the vote.

That's all fine and good, and I've been persuaded to see the Debian
perspective on this. However, there would be fewer angry users if the
package maintainers put the non-DFSG stuff into non-free _before_ they
excised it from main. 

Tyler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Max Hyre]

   Dear Nic:

Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.
...
> > Oh dear. emacs-snapshot is quite old and not recent at all.

   I'm sorry you're upset.  I can certainly understand distaste for an
old emacs---I'm a hardcore emacs user myself.

> Hmmm,
> what's happened to that I wonder? I go ask the maintainer of the
> package. He tells me that Debian want him to remove the free
> documentation from inside Emacs, a ludicrous suggestion frankly[.]

   I'm also sorry the maintainer disagrees with Debian's vote on the
GFDL.  IIRC, the GFDL with no restrictions (invariant sections, etc.)
is acceptable.

   _But_, please put anger aside a moment and examine the GFDL with
unbiased eyes.  If a document has an invariant section, then you have a
file
a) with a lump of lead inside that has to be dragged around
   with the document, forever, and
b) whose guts cannot be cut and pasted into other documents
   without replicating that lump of lead, no matter how close or
   distant the relation between the two documents.

You're not allowed to change or discard that lump.  Isn't it at least
*understandable* that many believe this document is unfree?

> I am so angry with what is being done that I want to
> stop using [Debian].
...
> If political decisions can so alter the package base it is not the
> operating system for me.

   Obviously there are wide differences of opinion, but please respect
Debian's democratic organization, and disagree without enmity.

-- 
Best wishes,

 Max Hyre






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Ron Johnson]

On 05/30/07 12:18, Nic James Ferrier wrote:

My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.

After 10 years of being a dedicated Debian user I have reached the
point at which I am so angry with what is being done that I want to
stop using it. I will start to look for viable alternatives to Debian.

A few weeks ago, as Emacs was nearing the end of it's long release 23
development cycle, I decided I would upgrade my emacs-snapshot.

Oh dear. emacs-snapshot is quite old and not recent at all. Hmmm,
what's happened to that I wonder? I go ask the maintainer of the
package. He tells me that Debian want him to remove the free
documentation from inside Emacs, a ludicrous suggestion frankly and
clearly detrimental to the package so he has stopped working on it. He
was quite right; in my opnion there is nothing else to do.


There are lots of emails on -devel and -legal about problems "they" 
have with the GFDL (Gnu Free Document License) regarding the DFSG.


[snip]

If anyone wants to setup an alternative, GNU friendly, single software
package archive they should get in touch with me privately.


Ubuntu?

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Hal Vaughan]

On Wednesday 30 May 2007, Gilles Mocellin wrote:
> Le Wednesday 30 May 2007 19:18:27 Nic James Ferrier, vous avez écrit :
...
> PS:
> I hope this thread will end very soon.

You do realize, don't you, that you've just guaranteed this thread will 
still be high in volume for the next month with that one statement!

Hal

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Gilles Mocellin]

Le Wednesday 30 May 2007 19:18:27 Nic James Ferrier, vous avez écrit :
> My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.

[...rant...]

1) Don't mess with the social contract, it for the users (not for the 
developpers)

2) EVERYTHING can go to the non-free section of the repository (using Debian 
for 10 years ?)

3) With the amount of GNU/Linux distributions around, you should find what 
suits you without creating a new one

PS:
I hope this thread will end very soon.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

I am ANGRY with Debian.

[Nic James Ferrier]

My name is Nic Ferrier. I am really ANGRY at Debian.

After 10 years of being a dedicated Debian user I have reached the
point at which I am so angry with what is being done that I want to
stop using it. I will start to look for viable alternatives to Debian.

A few weeks ago, as Emacs was nearing the end of it's long release 23
development cycle, I decided I would upgrade my emacs-snapshot.

Oh dear. emacs-snapshot is quite old and not recent at all. Hmmm,
what's happened to that I wonder? I go ask the maintainer of the
package. He tells me that Debian want him to remove the free
documentation from inside Emacs, a ludicrous suggestion frankly and
clearly detrimental to the package so he has stopped working on it. He
was quite right; in my opnion there is nothing else to do.

That was a serious blow to my confidence in Debian. I have still not
got a recent emacs because I don't have the time to build from the
CVS. I am an occasional Emacs contributor and I cannot, at the moment,
contribute effectively. So Debian has actively done something to
prevent the improvement of free software. 

Pshaw... it's just emacs, right? No one cares about that.


Today, I came across a bug in the info version of the Bash reference
manual. So I went to upgrade. Oopsie. No more Bash reference manual in
Debian. The info just disappears.

Why? Same reason as with Emacs-snapshot:

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=357260 

Debian considers the GNU doc to have different freedom ideals to them
and they hate that so much that they have to remove it from Debian. 

So now what am I supposed to do?


Over the 10 years (at least) I've been using Debian I have always held
it up to colleagues and clients as the ultimate in free software /
open source achievement. An entire operating system for the people
organized by the people. If anything went wrong I knew I could fix it
myself, or rely on a Debian developer to fix it in a sensible time
scale. 

I knew that if I ever had any software to package I could
either become a Debian developer and do it myself or get someone else
I know to help out. I've come really close a couple of times to
packaging stuff for Debian.

I knew that if I recommended Debian to my clients I wouldn't get
screwed down the line; even if it was tons of work getting clients to
understand that the lack of legal contracts didn't mean it wasn't a
viable alternative.


I am no longer confident of any of those things. If political
decisions can so alter the package base it is not the operating system
for me.

It is just so ludicrous. It's all I can do to not swear in great big
capital letters at the people who made this decision.



If anyone wants to setup an alternative, GNU friendly, single software
package archive they should get in touch with me privately.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]