On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:52:16PM +, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Releases tend to be out of date. But that's a feature: releases need
> to be composed of well tested stable packages.
Yes they do, but the software in the packages is just as important as
the packaging job. If you look back at sli
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:07:07 +0100
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Jim Lynch [Mon, Nov 25 2002, 09:54:10AM]:
>
> > > What we need to accept is there is a (percieved??)
> > > problem, or problems, with Debian as it stands today,
> > > these being (mainly)
> > >
> > > Hard
I'm contemplating switching to Gentoo for the following reasons:
- Compiles source very trouble free from almost any tgz on the web
- Seems VERY up-to-date
- More friendly to newcomers (in my opinion)
- Not likely to switch to Hurd some day
- Not so close to GNU as Debian is, so can get fair
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:41:43PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> So, debian is coming the netbsd of Linuxes.. Sure a novel goal to
> support rare hardware, but why does ot have to come at the expense
> of commodity hardware owners?
That's an interesting comparison. If you look at NetBSD, you'll see
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:05:51PM -0500, Matthew C. Tedder wrote:
> - Not likely to switch to Hurd some day
> - Not so close to GNU as Debian is, so can get fair take on:
> - ReiserFS
> - KDE
*plonk*
Michael
--
ok, here's a small suggestion: if you ever debug a menu-
implement
hi,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:05:51PM -0500, Matthew C. Tedder wrote:
> I'm contemplating switching to Gentoo for the following reasons:
> - Compiles source very trouble free from almost any tgz on the web
sources in debian's repository also compile fine w/o problems,
where is the point?
> -
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:05:51PM -0500, Matthew C. Tedder wrote:
> I'm contemplating switching to Gentoo for the following reasons:
> - Compiles source very trouble free from almost any tgz on the web
Are you suggesting that random tarballs compile better on Gentoo systems
than on Debian syst
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:05:51PM -0500, Matthew C. Tedder wrote:
>
> I'm contemplating switching to Gentoo for the following reasons:
>
> - Compiles source very trouble free from almost any tgz on the web
> - Seems VERY up-to-date
> - More friendly to newcomers (in my opinion)
> - Not likel
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:56:57PM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> Could you run X 4.2 in, say, s390 that date?
Never ask a Gentoo user that question. The answer is always one of the
following:
1) "I don't care"
2) "What's S/390?"
--
G. Branden Robinson|Build a fi
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:56:57PM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> > Could you run X 4.2 in, say, s390 that date?
>
> Never ask a Gentoo user that question. The answer is always one of the
> following:
>
> 1) "I don't
--- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Releases tend to be out of date. But that's a
> > > feature: releases need to be composed of well
> tested
> > stable packages.
> > > testing and unstable
> > > have pretty up to date packages.
This is true, but is not considered sta
--- Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:53:10PM -0500, Daniel
> Burrows wrote:
>
> > That assumes that the runtime dependencies are a
> subset of the build
> > dependencies and their recursive dependencies.
> >
> > Imagine a program that displays its output
> Never ask a Gentoo user that question. The answer
> is always one of the
> following:
>
> 1) "I don't care"
> 2) "What's S/390?"
I really don't care ;-), when I am or 99.999% of
Debian users ever gonna get near a S/390, high end Sun
kit sure, but S/390 pls.
Jon
_
> Never ask a Gentoo user that question. The answer
> is always one of the
> following:
>
> 1) "I don't care"
> 2) "What's S/390?"
I really don't care ;-), when I am or 99.999% of
Debian users ever gonna get near a S/390, high end Sun
kit sure, but S/390 pls.
Jon
_
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:04:52PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
>
> --- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Could you run X 4.2 in, say, s390 that date? FYI,
> > X is supported in 11
> > archs in Debian, a lot more than upstream
> > supports.
>
> Ah, now this is an interesting
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:04:52PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> > Could you run X 4.2 in, say, s390 that date? FYI,
> > X is supported in 11
> > archs in Debian, a lot more than upstream
> > supports.
> Ah, now this is an interesting point. I understand
> that X4.2 got delayed as it was not read
Hi,
--- Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, volunteer your time and start packaging
> xserver-xfree86-experimental, if you think that's
> feasible. Just because
> the X maintainer chooses to give priority to keeping
> architectures in
> sync doesn't mean that it's not possible to
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:19:14PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
>
> > Never ask a Gentoo user that question. The answer
> > is always one of the
> > following:
> >
> > 1) "I don't care"
> > 2) "What's S/390?"
>
> I really don't care ;-), when I am or 99.999% of
> Debian users ever gonna get near a S/
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jon Kent wrote:
> what I'm trying to point out is that 4.2 is not in stable and,
> currently, will no tbe in stable for a year or more.
It takes time for software to become known stable. [Or at least
semi-stable.] If woody had waited for 4.2 to become stable it
(probably) sti
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:48:10PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> Time, I'm afraid, is something I lack. Don't get me
> wrong the work Branden has done is great, what I'm
> trying to point out is that 4.2 is not in stable and,
> currently, will no tbe in stable for a year or more.
> Thats not good. I
* "Noah L. Meyerhans"
| I really wonder when debian-installer will be in a releasable state on
| something like ARM or mipsel or s390. I'm not convinced we will make a
| release before 2005.
The only arches where d-i actually works are i386 and s390.
| (As an aside, yes, I have started investi
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:05:51PM -0500, Matthew C. Tedder wrote:
> > ...whines...
>
> *plonk*
Whoa, the first intelligent post in this thread!
-Miles
--
Next to fried food, the South has suffered most from oratory.
-- Walter
* Emile van Bergen
| The idea to announce the state of testing/unstable once in a while to
| show we've got the fancy stuff too does make sense though, IMHO.
Nobody's stopping you, if you are unsatisfied with the current state
of affairs.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On 26 Nov 2002, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Let's first have a working installer on at least a few arches before
> walking down that road. However, it is a problem which I was notified
> of a few days ago: d-i relies heavily on devfs and, well, 2.4 doesn't
> work on m68k and it doesn't look like it
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:28:33PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2002, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> > Let's first have a working installer on at least a few arches before
> > walking down that road. However, it is a problem which I was notified
> > of a few days ago: d-i relies heavily on de
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:10:59PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> Point being?? Its not like-for-like and also thats
> not the point of this chain. Come on
1) Don't quote an entire message just to add a couple of content-free
sentence fragments. See RFC 1855 for further tips.
2) The apostrophe: lea
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:18:54PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> I really don't care ;-), when I am or 99.999% of Debian users ever
> gonna get near a S/390, high end Sun kit sure, but S/390 pls.
We had some good feedback at the UK Linux Expo from people using or
about to use Debian on S/390s. I think
> Whenever someone rants about Gentoo's processor optimisations
> and states some overinflated performance boost such as 10%-20%, all I
> can do is make a a feeble rebuttal stating that it's more like (insert
> low figure without much solid evidence - e.g.. 5%) with exceptions
> such as glibc
"Noah L. Meyerhans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:41:43PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> So, debian is coming the netbsd of Linuxes.. Sure a novel goal to
>> support rare hardware, but why does ot have to come at the expense
>> of commodity hardware owners?
>
> That's an i
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:46:20PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Debian's support for so many arches slows down development in other
> areas as well. For example, getting gcc-3.2 working on all arches has [...]
That's not really a fair comment; yes, getting things to work on eleven
arches is harde
On Nov 25, Brian Nelson wrote:
> What I fail to understand is why Debian insists on supporting every
> single arch itself. Why not pick a handful of arches we do give a
> flying fuck about, support those, and if some organization wants to port
> Debian to another arch, then let them fork and suppo
Right I'm more awake now, its was late a night went I
sent my last mail. A special thanks to Matt for his
reply ;-)
Right lets make this clear, I'm not here to push
Gentoo, I was originally responding to the original
question, is Debian losing users to Gentoo? Rather
than bother arguing the poin
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:48:15AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
> But I have performed many debian installs with the boot floppy setup,
> and I found that it still suffers from problems. One problem faced
> by all dists is that of teaching people about partitioning and backing
> up. At least the install
* Jon Kent
| Now that we have X 4.2.1 in testing, maybe its a good
| time to do a point release? Get stable up to date, as
| testing is fairly up to date and seems stable at least
| on my boxes (x86). Radical thinking I know ;-)
we. don't. have. a. working. installer. for. sarge.
how hard is t
--- Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we. don't. have. a. working. installer. for. sarge.
>
> how hard is that to comprehend?
>
Thanks for the witty reply but thats why I suggested a
_point_ release, OK, its not the same as a major
release, comprehend!!! A point release is. not.
sa
* Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-26 11:59]:
> | Now that we have X 4.2.1 in testing, maybe its a good
> | time to do a point release? Get stable up to date, as
> we. don't. have. a. working. installer. for. sarge.
* Jon Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-26 03:20]:
> Thanks for the wi
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 02:08:54AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> Rather than bother arguing the point again, heres an interesting link:
> http://www.distrowatch.com/stats.php?1#04
>
> The shows that the top 4 Distributions are:
> 1) Mandrake
> 2) Red Hat
> 3) Gentoo
> 4) Debian
Well, here's anothe
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:20:38AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> Thanks for the witty reply but thats why I suggested a
> _point_ release, OK, its not the same as a major
> release, comprehend!!! A point release is. not.
> sarge.
A point release is on the way, check the facts dude.[1]
Michael
--
[1
OK I have enough of this for the moment, do what you
feel is right but I'm not convinced that some of the
directions things are going are for the benefit of
Debian, the blinkers seem to well and truely attached
to some people.
To the people here who at least replied in a polite
manner, thanks, and
* Jon Kent
| --- Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > we. don't. have. a. working. installer. for. sarge.
| >
| > how hard is that to comprehend?
|
| Thanks for the witty reply but thats why I suggested a
| _point_ release, OK, its not the same as a major
| release, comprehend!!!
--- Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking
> his head, 'are
> a sure sign of a diseased mind.'"
> (Terry Pratchett, Eric)
Indeed, or someone who trying to convey that they are
annoyed.
> | A point release is. not. sarge.
>
> stable
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:03:27AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> I want Debian to be a key player, not an underdog or
> also ran, which some of you seem to be quite happy
> with. This annoys the hell out of me, Debian was once
> looked up to, now its "the one with apt".
What does that mean, anyway? Do
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:43:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Certainly it will have a hard time working on any of the BSDs anytime soon,
if it relies on devfs more than trivially; they have no concept of it, nor
are they really likely to anytime soon.
Use of /proc should also, prefferably, be limite
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:48:10PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
>
> > Time, I'm afraid, is something I lack. Don't get me
> > wrong the work Branden has done is great, what I'm
> > trying to point out is that 4.2 is not in stable and,
>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:24:14AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> > | A point release is. not. sarge.
> > stable does not gain new versions. (with a few
> > exceptions, such as
> > where backporting security fixes is ~impossible.)
> Are you sure? I seem to remember 2.2 getting a few
> releases,
2.2r1
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:07:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:46:20PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Debian's support for so many arches slows down development in other
> > areas as well. For example, getting gcc-3.2 working on all arches has [...]
> the key issue.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:41:45PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Something is seriously wrong, if a single bug that affects a single
> arch can stop everyone else from forward. We need a way to get packages
> that are broken on some platform into the distrubution while the
> developers of the arch so
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:41:45PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Something is seriously wrong, if a single bug that affects a single
> arch can stop everyone else from forward. We need a way to get packages
> that are broken on some platform into the distrubution while the
> developers of the arch so
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:41:45PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:07:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:46:20PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Debian's support for so many arches slows down development in other
> > > areas as well. For example
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 22:46, Brian Nelson wrote:
> What I fail to understand is why Debian insists on supporting every
> single arch itself.
Because, somewhat circularly, that's what has emerged as one of Debian's
strong points, and we like it. Certainly it makes the releases slower.
But it's
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:46:20PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> "Noah L. Meyerhans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:41:43PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > That's an interesting comparison. If you look at NetBSD, you'll see
> > that they have a very similar problem to u
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:39:41AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> Because, somewhat circularly, that's what has emerged as one of Debian's
> strong points, and we like it. Certainly it makes the releases slower.
> But it's one thing that really differentiates Debian from the
> competition. Being
In chiark.mail.debian.devel, you wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:39:41AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> Because, somewhat circularly, that's what has emerged as one of Debian's
>> strong points, and we like it. Certainly it makes the releases slower.
>> But it's one thing that really different
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 02:08:54AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> http://www.distrowatch.com/stats.php?1#04
>
> The shows that the top 4 Distributions are:
>
> 1) Mandrake
> 2) Red Hat
> 3) Gentoo
> 4) Debian
No, it doesn't. It shows that the most frequently viewed distribution pages
on distrowatch.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:41:21PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[snip]
> No, it doesn't. It shows that the most frequently viewed distribution pages
> on distrowatch.com are:
>
> 1) Mandrake
> 2) Red Hat
> 3) Gentoo
> 4) Debian
>
> And the sample size is approximately 56000 page views.
[snip]
A
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:30:30 +1100
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:48:15AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
> > But I have performed many debian installs with the boot floppy setup,
> > and I found that it still suffers from problems. One problem faced
> > by all dist
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:10:18AM -0500, Sean Proctor wrote:
[ snip ]
> ... Anyway, Gentoo has a much
> different niche than Debian, so I don't understand why people are arguing
> about changing Debian because of it. If Gentoo serves their needs better,
> good. Perhaps Debian can then focus less
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 02:08:54AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
>
> > http://www.distrowatch.com/stats.php?1#04
> >
> > The shows that the top 4 Distributions are:
> >
> > 1) Mandrake
> > 2) Red Hat
> > 3) Gentoo
> > 4) Debian
>
> No, it doesn't. It show
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because, somewhat circularly, that's what has emerged as one of Debian's
> strong points, and we like it. Certainly it makes the releases slower.
> But it's one thing that really differentiates Debian from the
> competition. Being the most portable Fr
--- Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it doesn't. It shows that the most frequently
> viewed distribution pages
> on distrowatch.com are:
I did say they were not great figures, just
interesting, but I expect this sort of comment from
you.
> If you had lived through a stable Debia
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:20:18AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:39:41AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > Because, somewhat circularly, that's what has emerged as one of Debian's
> > strong points, and we like it. Certainly it makes the releases slower.
> > But it's one t
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:04:48AM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
> > > Something is seriously wrong, if a single bug that affects a single
> > > arch can stop everyone else from forward.
> >
> > You obviously didn't read all of aj's message. How about you postpone
> > your bitching along these lines u
Hello folks,
my answer to the subject: a few!
Dear everyone in the Debian community,
The question I want to pose today is "Are we losing users to
Gentoo?" I hate to sound like a marketing departmen drone, but I'm
becoming more and more disturbed since I'm noticing m
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:03:12AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:43:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >Certainly it will have a hard time working on any of the BSDs anytime soon,
> >if it relies on devfs more than trivially; they have no concept of it, nor
> >are they reall
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:58:25PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> I did say they were not great figures, just interesting,
I don't see how these figures are interesting for debian development.
Could you please enlighten me?
Michael
--
"The very first use of Unix in the 'real business' of Bell Labs wa
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:58:25PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
> --- Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, it doesn't. It shows that the most frequently viewed distribution
> > pages on distrowatch.com are:
>
> I did say they were not great figures, just interesting, but I expect this
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:20:40PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
In practice, I find that once such assumptions creep in, it can be very,
very hard to remove them without yanking out a lot of entrails to go with.
Which is the price to be paid for using a different kernel. An
installer, by its nature, is
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:18:18PM +0100, Volker Dierks wrote:
> > Silly, perhaps, but it still conveys the message that the
> >Gentoo user is in control. Do the cutting edge enthusiasts in Debian
> >have the same amount of control? Have we become so complacent at
> >believing that since we ha
--- Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:58:25PM -0800, Jon Kent
> wrote:
> try to paint Debian as relatively unpopular. I
> don't see what your
> objective is, other than to start and prolong
> pointless arguments.
>
What distrowatch tries to achieve is gaugi
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:58:06PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:20:40PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >In practice, I find that once such assumptions creep in, it can be very,
> >very hard to remove them without yanking out a lot of entrails to go with.
>
> Which is the pr
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:21:27PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
What distrowatch tries to achieve is gauging interesting in a distro,
Wouldn't it be gauging people going to distwatch to find a *different*
distro? I mean, why go to distwatch if you're happy with what you're
running and don't care about a
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:26:16PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
I must admit to some confusion, here. Should I take this as implying that
there is no particular intent to try to make Debian-Installer play nicely
on anything but Linux kernels?
I'm saying that some things that an installer does are by th
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 06:37:50PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:26:16PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >I must admit to some confusion, here. Should I take this as implying that
> >there is no particular intent to try to make Debian-Installer play nicely
> >on anything but L
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 12:20, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:39:41AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > Because, somewhat circularly, that's what has emerged as one of Debian's
> > strong points, and we like it. Certainly it makes the releases slower.
> > But it's one thing that rea
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:07:51PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
In the origional message, I merely pointed out that keeping such things
properly encapsulated is crucial, if you EVER want to be able to run on any
other kernel.
Which original message? The one I saw said "Certainly it will have a
hard tim
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:54:29PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:07:51PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >In the origional message, I merely pointed out that keeping such things
> >properly encapsulated is crucial, if you EVER want to be able to run on any
> >other kernel.
>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 07:22:53PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > But it's one thing that really differentiates Debian from the
> > > competition. Being the most portable Free OS is worth something, in my
> > > opinion.
> >
> > I think NetBSD still has us beat on that point.
>
> Debian runs o
[ Could you please not CC me? ]
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 22:05, John Goerzen wrote:
> Are you comparing released version to released version? (Debian stable to
> NetBSD -STABLE?) If so, I stand corrected.
Yes.
> In any case, we surely have come a long way.
Definitely!
* "Joel Baker"
| > (I can think of one trivial example--devfs makes it really easy to tell
| > which disks are available to the partitioning program. Can you describe
| > a simple method to do that, which is guaranteed to work on any kernel?
| > Likewise, can you describe a kernel-independent way
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 07:05:31AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * "Joel Baker"
>
> | > (I can think of one trivial example--devfs makes it really easy to tell
> | > which disks are available to the partitioning program. Can you describe
> | > a simple method to do that, which is guaranteed to
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:00:19AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> I might argue, in the case of APIs, that it is more a case of "If you don't
> have time to do it right, how will you ever have time to do it over" - it
> becomes *very* hard to un-entrench bad API choices, a lot of the time.
You might a
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:05:25PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Just waiting for Debian/VAX... ahem...
I have a couple of 100+ MHz machines available for autobuilding when
ready.. A 4000/600 and a 4000/700 from memory.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:58:25PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
>
> --- Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, it doesn't. It shows that the most frequently
> > viewed distribution pages
> > on distrowatch.com are:
>
> I did say they were not great figures, just
> interesting, but I expe
* "Joel Baker"
| I might argue, in the case of APIs, that it is more a case of "If you don't
| have time to do it right, how will you ever have time to do it over" - it
| becomes *very* hard to un-entrench bad API choices, a lot of the time.
people seem to have the misconception that d-i is one
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:59:48 -0500
"H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:41:21PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> [snip]
> > No, it doesn't. It shows that the most frequently viewed
> > distribution pages on distrowatch.com are:
> >
> > 1) Mandrake
> > 2) Red Hat
> >
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:26:16PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> I must admit to some confusion, here. Should I take this as implying that
> there is no particular intent to try to make Debian-Installer play nicely
> on anything but Linux kernels?
Intent on whose part? You would need to ask those i
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * "Joel Baker"
>
> | I might argue, in the case of APIs, that it is more a case of "If you don't
> | have time to do it right, how will you ever have time to do it over" - it
> | becomes *very* hard to un-entrench bad API choices, a lot of the time.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:46:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I suppose I had something like that misconception. Where can I read
> about the actaul construction of d-i?
http://cvs.debian.org/debian-installer/doc/
--
- mdz
Just for your statistics: I finally come back to beloved and wonderful
Debian after having fought for a few weeks with a Gentoo-Desktop system.
My conclusion was - or is - that even if Gentoo has newer packages
sometimes and is using more modern techniques in some areas (the new
dependancy-based r
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Indeed, the Debian home page is so well organized and so easy to find
> and get around in, that people don't *need* so many secondary sources
> of information. Our success at doing our job well has meant that the
> distrowatch counter is especially inaccurate in our c
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:13:01PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> People report this to the web team all the time.
And every time they get a negative response, because we cannot fix something
that other people broke: the CD images distribution system. When woody was
released, the CD images were not rel
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-28 17:13]:
> So maybe you click on the "Debian on CD" link, right? And from there on
> the 4th bulletted link ("Download CD images using HTTP or FTP"), after
> wading past unofficial minimal CD images, and learning what jigdo is.
Because those options are
Josip Rodin wrote:
> Yes, there is. The debian-cd mirrors on our list are very diverse: some have
> 2.2r*, some have 3.0r*, some don't have full ISOs at all. Expecting
> debian-www team to start making grossly hackish scripts to compensate for
> whatever the hell people put in debian-cd/ directorie
OK, howzabout some useful links that show that
although Debian may be losing some users, which is
still a shame, it perhaps not as bad as some would
think.
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=3614
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=24417
The first link shows a poll done a while ago on
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > And then on scroll way down the list to your country. And then into the
> > current directory on the mirror, oops, that was jigdo only?! back out
> > and to the 3.0r0 directory.
>
> Uhm, just a second. When I click a on the links in that list I get to
> the debian-cd d
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > But maybe instead, back at debian.org's front page, you picked the
> > "Getting Debian" link instead. Only to end up on a page that links to cd
> > vendors and "downloading over the Internet". Ok, the latter. But it
> > points to a page that only lets one download unnoffic
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Indeed, the Debian home page is so well organized and so easy to find
> > and get around in, that people don't *need* so many secondary sources
> > of information. Our success at doing our job well has meant that the
> > dist
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> But I use the website. Here's a questions. Go to eh redhat site and
> see if you can figure out where to get a complete RedHat CD downloaded
> from the net?
The comparison is only fair with organizations that *want* you do do so
(so not redhat, probably not openbsd,
Jon Kent wrote:
> BTW, God I wish Debian had forums like this, far
> easier that email lists (and no I can't set this up
> before someone suggests it).
debianplanet.org has stuff like this (incidentially and only because I'm
stuck on the subject -- it's marginally easier to find a a debian cd
imag
--- Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> debianplanet.org has stuff like this (incidentially
> and only because I'm
yeh I know but not as easy to use as Gentoo's are
IMHO. BTW I agree with you regarding CD images. Gave
up in the end trying to download and order CDs from
Linux Emporium instea
101 - 200 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
