Re: Making the RMS resolution a Secret Ballot
Hallo, * Didier 'OdyX' Raboud [Sun, Apr 11 2021, 06:00:30PM]: > For what I'm concerned, I don't "insist on making the personal views on this > GR public", because it was always clear (to me) that all voters' personal > views on this GR would end up being made public by the secretary on our > website; this is how we have all experienced the publication of GR results for > at least a decade. I insist on "not changing how we collectively run through > the GR experience in the middle of a sensitive GR". This is not "dragging my > fellows into denuding themselves", because my expectation is that every voter > is well aware that their vote would be published, in this GR as in any GR. [1] I didn't have you (personally) in mind while writing this but some other voices on this thread. Those which go along the line "I know that my vote will become public and so it gives me the right to see what others think as well, and also to everybody else in the world". Sorry, it doesn't, that is twisted logics. I mean, what is the loss if you don't see other people's votes? There isn't much unless someone wants to discriminate people with different opinions. Inside and OUTSIDE of Debian. And not sure how you get the impression but I don't really object to have a visible list of people's opinions on certain subjects, as long as the purpose of this information is bound to the technical work in the project itself. The problem with this GR is, the Rubicon was crossed when a certain group decided to repurpose our infrastructure into a survey engine for topics which are outside of our turf. If we go this way, then (in my opinion) the defaults of the system should be adjusted to be more fair and fail-safe for political/delicate voting. Actually I was thinking about proposing another option, like "this GR should not exist until our processes are adjusted" but there was not enough time to think it through, especially since that certain group decided to shorten the discussion period. Do the math. > If you don't want to (or cannot afford to) see your personal views on this > GR to be made public, then don't vote. > > Don't misread me; it is a very very serious concern that external factors > (threats, pression, etc) make it so that some of our voters will not vote in > fear of retaliation. But I think that if we, as a project, accept to bend our > traditional and constitutional procedures under that external pressure through > emergency exceptional measures, we also make the project more vulnerable to > future external pressure; we also weaken this GR's results too. See above, I don't see how adding a little bit of confidentiality would suddenly expose us to external pressure. But it would improve the GR quality by eliminating the possibility of retaliation from outsiders. For those who want a GR to be a messenger for showing their opinion to the public, we probably should implement a checkbox in the ballot meaning "My vote should become public". > We must protect our members from harassment; we must defend the project from > external influence; and we must call out external pressures in the strongest > terms possible. Threats against Debian project members because of their public > opinions in the project are *not acceptable*, ever [1], and we must stand, as > a project, against those threatening our members and our community. The > problem we face here is the pressure and the threats against project members, > not the publication of the GR votes. Let's not forget that. Well, we can state this the whole day long but you are talking about factors which are probably outside of our control and which are hard to prove and punish. Best regards, Eduard.
Re: Making the RMS resolution a Secret Ballot
Hallo, * Russ Allbery [Fri, Apr 09 2021, 10:59:16AM]: > Sam Hartman writes: > > > Thanks for doing this. I'm actually very comfortable for us to make the > > decision under 5.1(3). We cleraly cannot hold a GR in time to change > > the constitution prior to the election ending. And our constitution > > already has a provision for making decisions where a timely decision is > > required. I think this qualifies; it is becoming more and more clear we > > need to protect people on both sides of the vote, and other avenues like > > GRs will not allow us to achieve something in time. This is not a > > situation that has become urgent through inaction on our part: as > > harassment has increased it has become more clear that action is needed. > > So while we might have been willing to let this last vote slide without > > secret ballots, it is becoming more clear through the actions of others > > that is an increasingly bad idea. So I absolutely support the DPL (with > > the secratary's concurrance) making this decision under the emergency > > powers DPL clause. > > I support this approach and believe the DPL should decide under 5.1(3) > that Debian will not publish the association between identity and ballot > for the RMS resolution. > > My rationale: I fully support this. While I am not afraid of seeing my choice exposed to the public, I understand the worries of fellow DDs who don't want a potential employer to see that in their HR research. That's said independent of the particular vote but it mostly matters in the countries with epidemic cancel culture. Those who insist on making the personal views on this (non-technical!!!) GR public should be ashamed of dragging their fellows into denuding themselves for no good reason. Best regards, Eduard.
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hallo, * Felix Lechner [Sun, Mar 28 2021, 08:12:58AM]: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > You (and others, privately) agree that the > > accusations are deliberately harmful > > That's intent to harm—and maybe malice. > > Anyone wishing to harm someone should do so on their own. I want no part in > it. You are not alone. I consider some of the wording of the second paragraph of "Choice 1" very disturbing, primarily that "He has shown himself to be" followed by strongly connotated wording. Seriously, what kind of statement is that? This is deliberately declaring the perception of "somebody" to be already some kind of truth. Do the proposers of Choice 1 actually realize that this might present Debian as a driving force of a smear campaign? Do we really want that? *facepalm* And regarding the subject, "shorten Discussion Period". Sorry, I cannot agree with that. We are known for taking our time with quality analysis, the Release Team even extended the package freeze time to 20 days. But for this topic, without any emergency, we have to rush like hell? Sorry, guys, smells like double standards. Best regards and good night, Eduard.
Re: Call for votes for GR: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
#include hallo.h * Debian Project Secretary [Sat, Oct 07 2006, 06:53:35PM]: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- a65763d3-b1e2-4530-8ff8-aa5915274eb4 [ 2 ] Choice 1: Re-affirm DPL, wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank [ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm DPL, do not endorse nor support his other projects [ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- zobel cat /dev/urandom /dev/dsp Ganneff zobel: das nennt sich metal Ganneff oder techno, je nachdem signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendement firmware GR] - Best effort / no regression
#include hallo.h * Bill Allombert [Fri, Sep 22 2006, 12:33:28AM]: Dear Debian developers, As an amendement to the firmware GR, I hereby propose the following position statement. === THE DEBIAN PROJECT: 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and 2. encourages licensors of all works to make those works available not only under licenses that permit modification, but also in forms that make such modifications practical; 3. commits itself to remove firmwares without source code and more generally firmwares that does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines (designed below as non-free firmwares) from the main and contrib section of our archive; That's non-sense. Since we do not even agree on the nature of firmwares WRT to DFSG, how can we judge based on that terms? 4. will make a best effort to remove as much non-free firmwares as time allows before our next stable release (code-named Etch); Same here, non-sense. There is no definition of best-effort which we could use to measure the best mark. You will get trollish bug reports every week if this is accepted. 5. encourages its developers to work on this issue; 6. urges its developers not to delay or to block inclusion of works done toward that goal; Out of context here. How do you want to encourage or urge them? By paying money? 7. will allow our next release to include non-free firmwares in the main section if we did not manage to remove them on time, provided they were also present in Sarge main section. We do not become more dirty than we already are logics instead of clarification of the decission ways. By the same logics we should start getting non-free GFDL docs back into main. Eduard. -- thomax_ hallo, ich habe probleme mit artscontrol unter debian unstable. bekomme ein SIGSEGV beim ausfuehren. kann das hier jemand bestaetigen? Alfie thomax_: Ja, Du bekommst einen SIGSEGV beim ausführen.
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
#include hallo.h * Frans Pop [Wed, Aug 23 2006, 02:28:30AM]: Seconded. Also seconded. The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time source is often not a well-defined concept for works other than those traditionally considered programs. The most commonly cited definition is that found in version 2 of the GNU GPL, the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, but for non-program works, it is not always clear that requiring this source as a precondition of inclusion in main is in the best interest of our users or advances the cause of Free Software: - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools in order to be converted into its final binary form; e.g., some device firmware, videos, and graphics. - The preferred form for modification may be orders of magnitude larger than the final binary form, resulting in prohibitive mirror space requirements out of proportion to the benefits of making this source universally available; e.g., some videos. - The binary and source forms of a work may be interconvertible with no data loss, and each may be the preferred form for modification by different users with different tools at their disposal; e.g., some fonts. While the Debian Free Software Guidelines assert that source code is a paramount requirement for programs, they do not state that this is the case for non-program works, which permits us to consider whether one of the above points justifies a pragmatic concession to the larger context within which Free Software operates. THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore, 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and 2. encourages authors of all works to make those works available not only under licenses that permit modification, but also in forms that make such modifications practical; and 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works such as images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware shall also not be considered a program. == -- Ich weiß nicht, welche Waffen im nächsten Krieg zur Anwendung kommen, wohl aber, welche im übernächsten: Pfeil und Bogen. -- Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
#include hallo.h * Joey Hess [Wed, Aug 23 2006, 02:15:59PM]: Anthony Towns wrote: If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and convenient for both people who need/want non-free things, and those who want a completely free system? From the d-i side, the major difficulties are: Thanks for your explanation. The legitimation for most of the stupid discussion parts seems to be the assumption that there is no other way for dealing with firmware but adding it to main. And let me say sorry if I sound too offensive in the following text. b. CD install where the CD, disk, NIC, etc need non-free firmware. Possible approaches include: i. Provide some way for the user to remaster the CD. * Too hard for most users. * If the CD drive itself needs non-free firmware they will need to modify the initrd too, which gets into the really hard territory. I would say, we shold provide at least one way for installation for a loadable-firmware poisoned system. We can construct any arbitrary usecase where loadable firmware is involved at the complexity of the support method will increase more and more. We have to make a cut somewhere and say that this way is supported and this way isn't. Note that most system vendors are not stupid, and most hardware manufacturers are not either. Droping legacy support already bites MS Windows users since nowadays many have to install a floppy drive again simply because the installer does not support SATA drives. Which means: we should assume that there is at least one way to fetch the additional data. I assumed that it would be possible with d-i to add custom sources, and even if it isn't it should not be the hardest thing to do. * Assumes that the drivers for the that don't need non-free firmware and that the machine supports floppy, usb or network. . Ship a separate non-free CD. * Which then becomes the one everyone uses because it works, as with the non-free netboot image above. And why not? The only severe reason is free version will get less testing but when the installer is effectively the same with just some extra code parts enabled, this would not make a significant difference. * Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements. How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the non-free CD for those, together with udebs and boot images. Also, in the case of a CD that needs non-free firmware, we have to provide the installer with a way to get not just udebs for the firmware, but debs for it, for the installed system. This complicates all of the above approaches significantly. Fetching udebs from multiple sources is a feature that should be implemented anyway. Eduard. -- DeVries Wann kommt Debian3.0? Jemand n ungefähres oder genaues Datum parat? Alfie DeVries: Wenn es fertig ist. Falky dwVries wenn es fertig ist weasel DeVries: ziemlich genau dann, wenn es fertig ist.
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
#include hallo.h * Peter Samuelson [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 05:35:00AM]: [Eduard Bloch] . Ship a separate non-free CD. * Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements. How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the non-free CD for those, together with udebs and boot images. Because it implies that we provide 2 copies each of the business card, netinst, full CD number 1, and full DVD number 1, for every architecture. No. We just keep providing the official free images. And someone else will provide the non-free variants. This scenario would reflect exactly the situation that already exists WRT Debian as in (free) Debian and Debian as in Debian + non-free + even-more-evil-external-non-distributable repositories. Eduard. -- Erfahrung heißt gar nichts. Man kann seine Sache auch 35 Jahre schlecht machen. -- Kurt Tucholsky -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
#include hallo.h * Sven Luther [Sat, Aug 26 2006, 06:21:54PM]: On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: #include hallo.h Thanks for saying those things, which i was thinking myself, but could not have expressed without being seen as a whiner. You know, it's always the same. When the release comes closer, some kind of which-hunt begins... Eduard. -- Wie man sein Kind nicht nennen sollte: R. Würgt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private
#include hallo.h * Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, Nov 21 2005, 10:25:26PM]: I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright. I think you are wrong on both counts. You are certainly free to vote Ethical? LOL. Let's compare that with some license: GPL expects a binary software releaser to keep the source available for three years. This is generaly accepted as a period which is long enough to make the source not interesting for anyone. Should we force that to be changed to 4 weeks (rather than 36 months) in GPLv3? This would also apply to the lots of software saying GPL v2 or any later version in the source because it was the default header template. Great deal, isn't? as you wish, of course, but your amazement doesn't carry much weight. Rather than be amazed, maybe you should look to see what might be right in what is being said by other people with a different view. Sure. And this needs enough noise to make another case of editorial changes amendment less possible. Eduard. -- Ambassador Vir Cotto: Prophecy is a guess that comes true. When it doesn't, it's a metaphor. -- Quotes from Babylon 5 -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private
#include hallo.h * Matthew Garrett [Fri, Nov 18 2005, 04:13:35PM]: Monroe Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think we have any moral right and barely any legal standing to publish messages which were made to a private mailing list under the current regime. The veto option doesn't cover this if we have lost contact with the author(s). Please add: Any post to -private is made with the knowledge that anyone in the world could, at some later point, become a developer and read that email. I don't see how this would actually change the situation. Sure. The same way the one can just become a president and use nukes to destroy the world. I fully agree with Monroe - WHEN an author writes to -private, s/he declares his wishes to expect this information to be kept confidential and in some countries s/he may have even guaranteed rights. Instead, most people in this discussion think it is okay to override this right because of ... what actually? Either nothing or not being accessible for few weeks? I do not see any reason for this GR since I cannot remember any serious request to make -private mails public where this action would really have been beneficial for the outside world. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private
#include hallo.h * Anthony Towns [Tue, Nov 15 2005, 12:08:15PM]: Hello world, One of the issues Debian often stands for is transparency and openness -- indeed, the openness of our bug tracking system is codified in the Social Contract's statement We will not hide problems. However, one particular area of significance within the project is not open at all: the debian-private mailing list. This list has hosted a number of significant discussions over the years, including most of the discussion inspiring the original statement of Debian's Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, the reinvetion of the new-maintainer process, debate on the qmail to exim/postfix transition for Debian mail servers and more. This trend continues today, with the six months just past have averaged around 190 posts per month. Is that all the justification you can provide? Sorry, not convincing. -private exists for a reason and the reason still does exist. And I cannot see much value that outside world would get from having read access to -private but a much more serious problem with practically uncontrolled disclosure of information that was guaranteed to be not for public use until the end of days. Eduard. -- [Surveying a scene in a bar below] Sebastian: Nothing changes: Decadence, immorality, chaos. -- Quotes from Babylon 5 -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Questions to all DPL candidates
Hello, I would like to know your opinion about the discrimination of the contrib and non-free parts of the Debian archive(*). Do you think that hidding important pieces of software does serve our users? (with or without the bug license teaching messages) The best example for the current practice is removal of the question about adding contrib/non-free in apt-setup, which has now a low priority which means it is _hidden_ for a normal installation and so effectively disappeared in every normal installation. Thanks, Eduard. (*) some people claim that contrib and non-free are not part of Debian but they use their own definition (Debian==main archive) which I do not talk about. What I mean is the whole Debian distribution as seen by the majority of the users. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to all DPL candidates
#include hallo.h * Steinar H. Gunderson [Sun, Mar 13 2005, 02:53:38PM]: On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 02:42:05PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Out of curiosity, which important pieces of software are hidden by not mentioning or including non-free (and contrib)? - nvidia-glx - atmel-firmware - eclipse - msttcorefonts - modem drivers for popular hardware - wlan drivers for popular NICs Not having them in sources.list and not having any clue about what may be wrong is a pain in the ass for new users. Regards, Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Towns
#include hallo.h * Anthony Towns [Mon, Mar 07 2005, 12:34:02AM]: I'm pretty confident I can find someone who's not me to enforce that policy who doesn't suffer from that level of infamy, and I'm also pretty confident that given that policy being actually enforced, that I can encourage a bunch of people who currently aren't interested in participating in the lists to change their view. You're, of course, welcome to believe that or not, as you see fit. Sorry, I did not follow the threads from the beginning, but... whom should I believe? I inteprett your answers as exactly what Henning describes. What I miss is a clear statement: - what is going wrong - why is it going wrong Maybe some status page in wiki.debian.org (refered in your signature) would help much more than you think. Without any clue, one can only follow the reasoning in polemic mails and you are (personal opinion) not really good at fighting back. For example, there is no excuse for blocking libs because of obvious soname changes in new, for months now. It is really not understandable, it annoys people because their work gets stuck because someone is insert reason to copypaste few lines to another file to allow some dependency to be accepted. This is really not understandable. OTOH I doubt that you can realize that - when did YOU submit YOUR last _new_ package and had to wait two months? Regards, Eduard. -- meebey köstlich * meebey schlürft gerade selbstgemachten Swimming Pool Cocktail Moermel meebey: Wasser+Harnstoff? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ftpmasters' job and the DPL
#include hallo.h * Sven Luther [Sat, Mar 05 2005, 08:32:57PM]: I think we could do a better job of documenting the best ways of packaging things. I don't think anything beyond ignorance of what the best way actually is is stopping anyone from implementing really new things though. I believe that fear of being stuck in NEW for an indetermined amount of time certainly stops from trying out new ways of packaging. Exactly. That was one of the things that has thrown Mono packaging development weeks/months back (guessing, no numbers). But, you know, everything that is not exactly what ftp-masters like is hostile :( Regards, Eduard. -- weasel gibt schlimmeres weasel z.B. schlafmangel weasel gottseidank kann man da dagegen was tun Gromitt kaffee? weasel schlafen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination
#include hallo.h * MJ Ray [Mon, Feb 28 2005, 12:31:27PM]: I second the dead camel and the entire population of Swaziland, not the=20 cheddar cheese. Unless 100 developers wish the cheddar cheese to run, of = course. Won't that happen anyway if they leave it out in the sun? I second the entire population of Swaziland for DPL. I won't sign this. You can just take my word for it. Heh. We should move towards to stochastocraty (choose a DD randomly and declare him/her as DPL. Shoot for refusal to accept.) Regards, Eduard. -- Enten legen ihre Eier in aller Stille, Hühner gackern dabei wie verrückt. Was ist die Folge? Alle Welt ißt Hühnereier. -- Henry Ford -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
#include hallo.h * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Jul 28 2004, 07:16:04PM]: You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's fundamental to the project structure, and written into the constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't do anything. You can propose what you want. If people in position do not give a f..k about your concern, fire them. We are a community and not their slaves. Regards, Eduard. -- jjFux VIM - verbesserter Vi - Wer hat an meinem LANG gedreht... forcer jjFux: scheis i18n, das müsste vvi sein, nich vim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
#include hallo.h * Ingo Juergensmann [Tue, Jul 13 2004, 08:12:22PM]: This issue has been raised many, many times before, because part of ftp-masters are as well part of DSA as part of wanna-build crew as part of name your favorite thing here. People in role positions should IMHO be forced to communicate with *everyone* that address to their role position. If they don't communicate with others, DPL should take action to remove them from their role. Seconded. Since in the last thread initiated by me I asked for a similar action (read: an answer) and nothing happened, I think this is a clear answer from FTP masters, saying: WE ARE TO LAZY TO WORK AND TO LEET TO COMMUNICATE WITH SECOND-CLASS DDs. WE WANNA BE REMOVED FROM OUR POSITIONS. That is the only remainding interpretation of their silent response. Martin, please take appropriate actions. If they say that somebody is not skilled enough for the job, do not believe in such a lame excuse. (I would also become indispensable if I had never documented my work). Regards, Eduard. -- Die Adligen von heute sind nur die Gespenster ihrer Vorfahren. -- Antoine Comte de Rivarol (Maximen und Reflexionen) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)
I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the resolution: -- Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities are our users and the free software community ... community, and we don't intend to blow our guidelines up to full legal texts, because we aim to create the best operating system, consisting of free works, and not a place for lawyers-to-be. ... Seconded. The first clear words to resolve the current shit^hbogus problems. Regards, Eduard. -- Gast: Ich warte schon seit zwei Stunden auf mein Fünf-Minuten-Steak. Kellner: Seien Sie froh, daß Sie keine Tagessuppe bestellt haben. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
#include hallo.h * Sven Luther [Wed, Mar 10 2004, 12:28:11PM]: Ok, they add parts of it. Thanks for clarifying my impressise terminology. Still part of non-free remains non-free :) That does not make it 'semi-official' though, or what was your point? Well, semi-official is vague enough to encompass many things. I don't know what was originally meant, but i do believe that you could mean a semi-official CD set to contain the whole of the official CD + some other stuff, it would be partially official, and so : partial, semi, ... Not really important quibling over words though. I just wanted to say that i remember there being CD sets with parts of non-free on it, and maybe that was what was designed under smei-official. Puh, too many speculations. Yes, that is what meant - the CDs that are actually sold and bought by the most users contain non-free software. Really official (from the project) or not, that is what the end user gets when s/he orders DEBIAN. Regards, Eduard. -- Gesegnet sei der, der nichts erwartet. Er wird nie enttäuscht sein. -- Alexander Pope
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
#include hallo.h * Martin Schulze [Tue, Mar 09 2004, 08:24:47AM]: Eduard Bloch wrote: do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Yes. Then we should change it again. Yes, we should. The possibility to add 'non-free' shouldn't be mentioned at all. People who want to use that software, should add the line to the Following such logics you should also remove the most of contrib. Otherwise I see every non-installable-status problem as RC bug, though. apt config file on their own. It's not that difficult and it would also emphasise the fact that non-free is not part of Debian, but only uses some amount of the Debian infrastructure. And who exactly cares about the non-free part? I cannot remember FTP mirror people complaining about space _AND_ suggesting to remove non-free to make some free. I cannot remember any BTS maintainer complaining about general problems with reporting bugs in non-free packages. I cannot remember any user (not DDs/NMs) having real issues with seeing non-free in the Debian FTP space. So what is the real problem with it? Please don't use the old social-contract-tells-us... record - it does also state that we support our users. For example, I wonder how removing _modem_ drivers (essential to get internet connection) from the official / semi-offical media and putting them to a separate _download_ location (in the Internet, hahaha) should serve our users. Regards, Eduard. -- Der Arzt hilft immer, wenn nicht dem Kranken, so seinem Beutel. -- Römisches Sprichwort
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
#include hallo.h * Michael Banck [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 07:10:13PM]: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:43:51PM +0100, Markus wrote: On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote: Markus wrote: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Yes. Then we should change it again. Eduard. -- Gesellschaft braucht der Tor, und Einsamkeit der Weise. -- Friedrich Rückert (Pseudonym: Freimund Raimar) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
#include hallo.h * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]: hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to build into their devices? Of course they do, but they have different primary goals, eg. produce the hardware product in this century, make it good enough to sell enough of it. Or do you prefer hardware that is 10 times slower or incompatible to what 95% of the market uses, beeing 200% more expensive? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? Are you so naive to think that all this stuff about 3rd party IP is the end of the line? Huch? I did never say ALL. [...] The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Your comments seem inconsistent with reality. Check the CD vendors list for many offers of official CDs. Very far from all vendors offer non-free. A-Ha. Looking at the tree most-known CD seller in my country (Lehmanns, LinuxLand, Schlittermann), I guess that 90% of the sold media actually contain non-free software. And moving the non-free tree to another server just to draw a line for no real reasons sounds a bit childish to me. Regards, Eduard. -- Ein Blinder und ein Tauber wollen sich duellieren. Sagt der Blinde: Ist der Taube schon da? Sagt der Taube: Hat der Blinde schon geschossen? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
#include hallo.h * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]: hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to build into their devices? Of course they do, but they have different primary goals, eg. produce the hardware product in this century, make it good enough to sell enough of it. Or do you prefer hardware that is 10 times slower or incompatible to what 95% of the market uses, beeing 200% more expensive? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? Are you so naive to think that all this stuff about 3rd party IP is the end of the line? Huch? I did never say ALL. [...] The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Your comments seem inconsistent with reality. Check the CD vendors list for many offers of official CDs. Very far from all vendors offer non-free. A-Ha. Looking at the tree most-known CD seller in my country (Lehmanns, LinuxLand, Schlittermann), I guess that 90% of the sold media actually contain non-free software. And moving the non-free tree to another server just to draw a line for no real reasons sounds a bit childish to me. Regards, Eduard. -- Ein Blinder und ein Tauber wollen sich duellieren. Sagt der Blinde: Ist der Taube schon da? Sagt der Taube: Hat der Blinde schon geschossen?
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
#include hallo.h * MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]: Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers, or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on our ftp archive to those who are not being fair partners? You should broaden your horizon if you think that it is all about the hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? If yes, please throw away your PC and get an abacus, this would be the real hardware driven by 100 percent free software. In the real world, hardware manufacturers have to deal with IP, contained in 3rd party components, including many IC firmware issues. And since nowadays more and more components require the exact cooperation of hardware and software powers, it is often unavoidable to make parts of the user-level software to depend on the hardware issues. Even good free-software liking manufacturers often would like to open-source the complete source, but they have contracts with 3rd party vendors, and there is often no way to work around it. Thanks, but no thanks?!?!? That is just closed minded and is a slap in the face to the vendors that are *writing* software for Linux. We already refuse to distribute non-free on the official Debian CDs and it is not part of the distribution. Even so, Debian has a far more Oh, please stop using such double moral standards. We do not distribute anything. The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Before Mozilla, Netscape Navigator was the non-free poster girl. There will probably always be some piece of software that someone considers There have always been fanatics that try to convince people of the existence of some really big pressure to remove non-free, to burn all media containing non-free part and shoot all maintainers of non-free packages. Just ignore them. Regards, Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
#include hallo.h * MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]: Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers, or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on our ftp archive to those who are not being fair partners? You should broaden your horizon if you think that it is all about the hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? If yes, please throw away your PC and get an abacus, this would be the real hardware driven by 100 percent free software. In the real world, hardware manufacturers have to deal with IP, contained in 3rd party components, including many IC firmware issues. And since nowadays more and more components require the exact cooperation of hardware and software powers, it is often unavoidable to make parts of the user-level software to depend on the hardware issues. Even good free-software liking manufacturers often would like to open-source the complete source, but they have contracts with 3rd party vendors, and there is often no way to work around it. Thanks, but no thanks?!?!? That is just closed minded and is a slap in the face to the vendors that are *writing* software for Linux. We already refuse to distribute non-free on the official Debian CDs and it is not part of the distribution. Even so, Debian has a far more Oh, please stop using such double moral standards. We do not distribute anything. The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Before Mozilla, Netscape Navigator was the non-free poster girl. There will probably always be some piece of software that someone considers There have always been fanatics that try to convince people of the existence of some really big pressure to remove non-free, to burn all media containing non-free part and shoot all maintainers of non-free packages. Just ignore them. Regards, Eduard.
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
#include hallo.h * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Dec 24 2003, 08:43:11PM]: This conflicts with the Social Contract as it currently stands. I am aware of this and I do not care; we can fix the Social Contract later. This probably prevents us from *acting* on this resolution until after the Social Contract has been modified (which I intend to The conflict is quite comparable with the definition of anorexia nervosa. Know that there is no over-weight but feeling the stupid psychological impulses to remove more, and more, and more. The next thing on your list will become non-free, then every free software that is not GPL-compatible in RMS' terms, and what is coming as next, complete extinction for the sake of some free software dream? Why don't you fix actual problems instead of fighting the windmills? MfG, Eduard. -- Je höher die Stände, desto mehr hat der Mann zu tun und desto weniger die Frau. Der König muß doch wenigstens bedenken und unterschreiben. Die Königin lebt von ihm. In untern Ständen ist es wie bei Wilden fast umgekehrt. -- Jean Paul signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
#include hallo.h * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Dec 24 2003, 08:43:11PM]: This conflicts with the Social Contract as it currently stands. I am aware of this and I do not care; we can fix the Social Contract later. This probably prevents us from *acting* on this resolution until after the Social Contract has been modified (which I intend to The conflict is quite comparable with the definition of anorexia nervosa. Know that there is no over-weight but feeling the stupid psychological impulses to remove more, and more, and more. The next thing on your list will become non-free, then every free software that is not GPL-compatible in RMS' terms, and what is coming as next, complete extinction for the sake of some free software dream? Why don't you fix actual problems instead of fighting the windmills? MfG, Eduard. -- Je höher die Stände, desto mehr hat der Mann zu tun und desto weniger die Frau. Der König muß doch wenigstens bedenken und unterschreiben. Die Königin lebt von ihm. In untern Ständen ist es wie bei Wilden fast umgekehrt. -- Jean Paul signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: our users as one of our priorities
#include hallo.h * Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]: On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person showing you a way to change the current behaviour. Incorrect; I listened, though I disagreed. Perhaps it is more a matter of not demonstrating that you have listened. (some examples would be ideal here, but I don't have any). (not my observation, just my interpretation of both the comments above, perhaps taken out of context). Well, I don't think that's a fair statement. I corresponded in a fairly detailed manner Osamu Aoki regarding bug #168347, for example. Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing. Please think about it next time when you claim to support efforts like debian-desktop subproject. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Wie man durch Beisammensein fortliebt unter der Rinde die Frau, so auch den Freund; nur die Unterbrechung zeigt uns, wie so stark wir lieben. -- Jean Paul
Re: our users as one of our priorities
#include hallo.h * Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 04:25:34AM]: can you tell me what Our Users in #4 of the social contract means? Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we don't care about people who don't use Debian, so it seems a tautology. I think it means that we need to listen to and be accountable to our users. This means helping our users to get the most of our system, following up on bug reports, and improving the system to benefit them. Funny to hear it from someone still refusing to change few things to improve useability on _small_ costs of mental consistency (remember x-session-manager story). Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for breakfast, get up later. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for all candidates
#include hallo.h * Raphael Hertzog [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 10:04:08PM]: I've had debian-admin refusing to create me a CVS repository because it's too much work for them and I should better wait for the Debian Sourceforge (codenamed alioth.debian.org). And they have been refusing to create CVS repositories for several months because of that. I replied that creating a repository is a 10 minute work and that they should consider appoint new people if they can't take 10 minute for helping DebianEdu which needs this repository. And I said too much ... I was faced with an answer like I presented above. Same here - when I asked to have for the debian-desktop repository - the answer was that the new repository server will be set up, soon, and having all repositories there is A MUST, we have to wait for it, it will be ready soon. Wiggy is working on it. Everyone pointed to Wiggy and Wiggy ignored my mails, and my complaints about broken logics (that you describe above) either landed in /dev/null or with comments like that logics is okay and I should fix mine. Well, how should we make any progress with a such attitude of some core admins? Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Röhrt's im Haus mit viel Getucker, ist es wohl ein Nadeldrucker. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: our users as one of our priorities
#include hallo.h * Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 04:25:34AM]: can you tell me what Our Users in #4 of the social contract means? Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we don't care about people who don't use Debian, so it seems a tautology. I think it means that we need to listen to and be accountable to our users. This means helping our users to get the most of our system, following up on bug reports, and improving the system to benefit them. Funny to hear it from someone still refusing to change few things to improve useability on _small_ costs of mental consistency (remember x-session-manager story). Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for breakfast, get up later.
Re: our users as one of our priorities
#include hallo.h * Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 09:09:20AM]: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:05:21AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: Funny to hear it from someone still refusing to change few things to improve useability on _small_ costs of mental consistency (remember x-session-manager story). Again, a moral condemnation grounded upon my disagreement with you on a technical issue. That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person showing you a way to change the current behaviour. If you have that big a problem with my differing opinion, appeal the issue to the Technical Committee. Heh? That is not really a technical issue, and you know it. Therefore I do not see a reason to bother Technical Committee with this question. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Die dümmsten Hähne haben die dicksten Eier.
Re: Questions for all candidates
#include hallo.h * Raphael Hertzog [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 10:04:08PM]: I've had debian-admin refusing to create me a CVS repository because it's too much work for them and I should better wait for the Debian Sourceforge (codenamed alioth.debian.org). And they have been refusing to create CVS repositories for several months because of that. I replied that creating a repository is a 10 minute work and that they should consider appoint new people if they can't take 10 minute for helping DebianEdu which needs this repository. And I said too much ... I was faced with an answer like I presented above. Same here - when I asked to have for the debian-desktop repository - the answer was that the new repository server will be set up, soon, and having all repositories there is A MUST, we have to wait for it, it will be ready soon. Wiggy is working on it. Everyone pointed to Wiggy and Wiggy ignored my mails, and my complaints about broken logics (that you describe above) either landed in /dev/null or with comments like that logics is okay and I should fix mine. Well, how should we make any progress with a such attitude of some core admins? Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Röhrt's im Haus mit viel Getucker, ist es wohl ein Nadeldrucker.
Re: Questions for all candidates
#include hallo.h * Raphael Hertzog [Fri, Feb 21 2003, 12:48:11AM]: Ok, I'm tired, I'm sure I could have find dozen of other questions like those five ... but I'll let other people continue with questions like that if they like it. Okay, let me ask some other questions... 6. Many people complaint that the pool is too bloated, priorities too generic, too many packages to pick the right one from the list... [ ] making some packages be more important to others is bad and will make create some kind of elite and second class packages [ ] we need a way to priorize the packages, review them, set keywords on the package (desktop/edu/demudi/...) and setting the appropriate priority for the target user group [ ] the problem exists but I hope someone will fix it after my DPLship [ ] there is no problem, the current system is just right 7. There are lots of backport series for Woody environment because people do not want to wait two years for a simple update, eg. when their software is not supported by ancient versions in Woody... [ ] there are no problems with Woody! [ ] we should try to legalize such efforts and create a semi-automatic system, similar to Raphaels former Debian-Working concept [ ] those are not the users we want [ ] such people should shut up and wait a bit Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Ich gehe davon aus, daß Adressen nur dann sinnvoll sind, wenn Adressen eingetragen sind. -- Oliver Zendel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for all candidates
#include hallo.h * Raphael Hertzog [Fri, Feb 21 2003, 12:48:11AM]: Ok, I'm tired, I'm sure I could have find dozen of other questions like those five ... but I'll let other people continue with questions like that if they like it. Okay, let me ask some other questions... 6. Many people complaint that the pool is too bloated, priorities too generic, too many packages to pick the right one from the list... [ ] making some packages be more important to others is bad and will make create some kind of elite and second class packages [ ] we need a way to priorize the packages, review them, set keywords on the package (desktop/edu/demudi/...) and setting the appropriate priority for the target user group [ ] the problem exists but I hope someone will fix it after my DPLship [ ] there is no problem, the current system is just right 7. There are lots of backport series for Woody environment because people do not want to wait two years for a simple update, eg. when their software is not supported by ancient versions in Woody... [ ] there are no problems with Woody! [ ] we should try to legalize such efforts and create a semi-automatic system, similar to Raphaels former Debian-Working concept [ ] those are not the users we want [ ] such people should shut up and wait a bit Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Ich gehe davon aus, daß Adressen nur dann sinnvoll sind, wenn Adressen eingetragen sind. -- Oliver Zendel
Re: Questions for all candidates
#include hallo.h * Eduard Bloch [Fri, Feb 21 2003, 10:18:12AM]: their software is not supported by ancient versions in Woody... ...or hardware... Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Atomkraft, strahlender Glanz ohne Abtrocknen.
