On 2013-10-27, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer?
Olav is a gnome developer, yes.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http:/
Thomas Goirand (2013-10-27):
> If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer?
That comes to mind:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Olav+Vitters+Gnome
https://lists.debian.org/20131024192452.ga29...@bkor.dhs.org
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Can this be taken off-list? I don't care either way, I'd still take his
points even if he wasn't.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> >>> I'm fed up with repeat
On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>>> I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
>>> system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
>>
>> There seems to be a trend emanating from package
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
> > system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
>
> There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs.
> I actually went to t
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
> > "revised code of conduct" that Wouter is proposing: "Assume good faith".
>
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:28PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
> >> is said to disable the ability of user
> I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
> system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream
There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs.
I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some
sort of oversight on th
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters
wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
>> is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise
>> it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it
> is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise
> it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.)
GNOME tweak tool has existed since GNOME 3. It has been re
Lars Wirzenius liw.fi> writes:
> I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people
> sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil
> incarnate and FORCE them to use my own storage format instead. Should
[…]
> can be, and I think that the storage format I've d
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:29AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Trying to say "[GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their
> > blessings on all users." is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome.
> Sorry, I've implicitly meant "all _of their_ users". My apologies.
I writ
Le 25/10/2013 00:39, Brian May a écrit :
> On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer
> mailto:cales...@scientia.net>> wrote:
>
> Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
> more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
> They continuously try to push their a
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 09:39 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it.
Well actually it's not that easy to avoid all of it, at least you get
some libraries even when using 3rd party GTK/GNOME apps.
> Trying to say "[GNOME upstream] continuously try to [.
On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
> more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
> They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
> blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell)
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:37 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
> >
> > I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
> > from he
This seems a little bit of a distraction from the issue at hand (Debian
Development) — perhaps you and the OP could follow up off list?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
>
> I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
> from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 21:42 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
> with "outrageously"?
Yeah I could, but this already turned far too much into a flame war.
There's e.g. the bug that Evolution silently corrupts eMails, which is
known
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously
> GNOME deals with some critical things...
Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
with "outrageously"? Do you mean some
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
> > "revised code of conduct" that Wouter is proposing: "Assume good faith".
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wr
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?
>
> No. But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community.
Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
more pissed off by
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > My apologies, I overreacted.
>
> Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
> (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
> are si
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
> "revised code of conduct" that Wouter is proposing: "Assume good faith".
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
> My apologies, I overreacted.
Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be c
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:25:52AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
> >
> > Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part
> > of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
> > p
Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
>
> Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part
> of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
> push an agenda. And this is not the first time, we had this with Network
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
