Hi,
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:22:23AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
[SNIP]
The reasons I see people switch to Gentoo are :
Its more fun
Alot more up to date
Easier to customise, down to which libraries you want
to support
I'm tempted to say that Debian has gotten too big, has
too many
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Jon Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chaps,
Another thing I must say is that I object in the
highest order some the mail sent out regarding this
topic which basically say good riddance to the users
who have switch to Gentoo as they caused loads
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:13:14AM -0800, Jon Kent wrote:
Hi,
Releases tend to be out of date.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. So Debian is as up
to date as you
want; the
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jon Kent wrote:
As an example, I don't want or use KDE so I do not want KDE libs
installed just because some package maintainer decided to enable the
KDE support option on app xyz. With Debian I have not choice
Not true. You can always rebuild the debian package to not
#include hallo.h
* 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 to install (rubbish obviously)
Nono, this is true, and primarily due to boot-floppies. One
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:03:56PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jon Kent wrote:
with Gentoo I do, I disable KDE support using the USE variable. Very
easy to do.
And does this USE variable deal correctly with dependencies and realizing
that this package may or may not
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:56:57PM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
It must said that comparing Gentoo with Debian in this
regard is unfair as they are not like for like, being
source against binary package. That said some things
(X 4.2 springs to mind) take far too long to make it
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:40:48PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:03:56PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jon Kent wrote:
with Gentoo I do, I disable KDE support using the USE variable. Very
easy to do.
And
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 with gv: it doesn't need gv
to build, but it needs it at
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
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:07:07 +0100
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
* 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 to install
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
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
--
moshez ok, here's a small suggestion: if you ever debug a menu-
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
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 likely to
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 fire
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 care
2)
--- 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 stable, hence the
--- 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 with
gv: it
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 point. I
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 ready across
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 provide
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/390, high end Sun
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)
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
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 Hines
* 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 devfs
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:
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, X,
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 interesting
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 harder
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 support
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:37:02 +
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Turning on IDE DMA is a performance improvement of around a factor of
6-10 (2-3Mb/sec - 25-40Mb/sec), for disk-bound operations. You can
get *more* than a 6-times improvement in performance?
Well, no. But then,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:37:16PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 14:07, Michael Cardenas wrote:
I have to admit, I sure would love to have gnome2. Last time I tried
to install my machine, the upgrade scripts failed miserably,
I don't understand why people are so quick
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 10:32:47PM -0800, Thomas Zimmerman wrote:
Well, no. But then, I've not had to do anything other then use a 2.4
kernel to get IDE DMA. But most desktop work is letency based and using
a kernel with the low latency patch and preempt cuts max latency by
about 6 times
Clint Adams wrote:
No, it's not. Low end disks are cheap. High end disks still aren't.
Bandwidth still isn't. Especially when you're spending donated
resources rather than your own.
Odd, then, that Debian has turned down resource donations in the past.
Yeah, it's really a pity that we
Yeah, it's really a pity that we failed to convert mid-end ethernet cards
and mid-end machines into high-end harddisks, and it's so trivial, isn't
it?
I seem to remember at least two occasions where offers of the use of
machine, rackspace, and bandwidth were turned down. I think in most
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:33:29 +
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me just say as a desktop user of Gentoo. I can use gentoo's X server
and the opensouce nv driver here with kde and have a usable desktop. I
couldn't in debian, it was just too slow. Yes, it's anticdotal.
Yes,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:14:23AM -0800, Thomas Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:33:29 + Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is the sort of anecdotal 'evidence' that is of no use
whatsoever. Most of the time it turns out to be a matter of local
[snip]
Is it really? I
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:14:23AM -0800, Thomas Zimmerman wrote:
Yes, this is the sort of anecdotal 'evidence' that is of no use
whatsoever. Most of the time it turns out to be a matter of local
system configuration. IDE DMA is one of the bigger culprits here.
Is it really? I tweeked
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:03:40AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Roberto Suarez Soto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I may be wrong, but I assume you're talking IDE here. And, IMHO, IDE
disks are not the best thing for a medium/high traffic server.
A 120 GB ATA-100 IBM disk costs $162 at
On Nov/21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Current cost of hard disk is something between $1.00 and $1.50 per
gigabyte.
I may be wrong, but I assume you're talking IDE here. And, IMHO, IDE
disks are not the best thing for a medium/high traffic server.
--
Roberto Suarez Soto
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:35:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Branden It's been said that self-censorship is the worst form of
Branden censorship. I guess that isn't the case when we're asking
Branden other people to practice it.
Is politeness self censorship, then? (that
hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:59:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Right; if that happens, then those mirrors won't carry those
additional architectures. No harm done.
I, as a mirror maintainer, would find it quite annoying having to
look what additional archs are out there and what I
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's how much does disk space cost?, and then there's we have x
disk space available currently, and no budget for expansion right now;
we only use y GB of it; how much can we mirror with the free disk
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:36:12AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:51:34AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:40AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I don't believe that transfer will be CPU bound, but rather
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:24:15AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
In addition Portage supports the concept of SLOTs. In the development of
Gentoo Linux its developers often found that we needed to have multiple
versions of certain packages (such as libraries) installed to satisfy the
demands of
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:02:40AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:50:32PM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote:
The question I want to pose today is Are we losing users to
Gentoo?
Hell yes, and it's
All lines of reasoning deleted as being irrelevent.
What is relevent is this:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
(2) You think this is acceptable? (it's not.)
The fact I posted that Andrew Lau should see someone about
his disturbances comes about because of prior
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:20:04AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
What is relevent is this:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
OK, we're going with hypothesis #5 as being accurate. I won't bother
rebutting it again; see the notes at the bottom, specifically about
the effects
Hello all,
This seems late to reply in response to this thread, but I thought
that something is worth stating explicitly, as I didn't see it
anywhere (I could have easily missed it, it's a long thread in a list
full of long threads lately).
As others have pointed out, the basic
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:38:29 -0500
Mark Mealman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Mealman wrote:
But Debian's bleeding edge really tends to lag. What's KDE up to on
testing, version 2.2? Mozilla is 1.0? Java's at 1.1?
I'm missing something here... what does the term bleeding
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:48:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Disks are still $1 per gigabyte. IDE disks are more than sufficient
for this task, aren't they?
No.
IDE is great for most applications these days, IMHO, but not on a server
where dozens or hundreds of clients are going to
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:46:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matt == Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt I read quite well, thank you. Such personal attacks would not seem to
fit
Matt with your lofty philosophy of elevating social norms.
Then the only explanation
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:33:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
But, assuming a price of approx. US$128 for a 120GB IDE drive, yes,
Debian could afford two of these at a drain of less than 1% of its total
assets.
Sorry, correction: total liquid assets. SPI owns some hardware in the
U.S. on
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:20:04AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
Why are you blatanly misspelling blatant?
--
G. Branden Robinson|Kissing girls is a goodness. It is
Debian GNU/Linux |a growing
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:25:26AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
Specific example is xfree86-4.x: Branden would not start the work on
that before woody had a stable version of the xfree that was stable at
the time; he wouldn't have had the time. Once woody was released (which
implied a stable X was
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
Sorry, correction: total liquid assets. SPI owns some hardware in the
U.S. on behalf of Debian (like the machine that is auric.debian.org),
but an exhaustive inventory has not been done.
We, uh, might want to do that someday, say for insurance
No, it's not. Low end disks are cheap. High end disks still aren't.
Bandwidth still isn't. Especially when you're spending donated
resources rather than your own.
Odd, then, that Debian has turned down resource donations in the past.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:05:44PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
Odd, then, that Debian has turned down resource donations in the past.
How is that relevant? Not all donations are immediately required.
Accepting donations for which there is no immediate need incurs overhead
and isn't sensible.
Mike
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:18:12AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Maybe you're dumb. Ha-ha. Ha-ha.
This subthread doesn't seem to have much to do with Debian development
anymore, or, at least I couldn't find anything technical in that mail.
Maybe take it off-list, if you feel it's worth saying?
Matt == Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:46:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matt == Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt I read quite well, thank you. Such personal attacks would not seem to
fit
Matt with your lofty philosophy of
Jim Lynch wrote:
(small point on kde 3.1 final existing before announcement disposed of:
it won't be final until it's announced. by definition. also, there
may be current reasons why the announcement has not been made.)
unless Gentoo is refering to a CVS tag
i see a difference between
* Robert Lemmen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021122 12:24]:
In addition Portage supports the concept of SLOTs. In the development of
Gentoo Linux its developers often found that we needed to have multiple
versions of certain packages (such as libraries) installed to satisfy the
demands of other
Roberto Suarez Soto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Nov/21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Current cost of hard disk is something between $1.00 and $1.50 per
gigabyte.
I may be wrong, but I assume you're talking IDE here. And, IMHO, IDE
disks are not the best thing for a medium/high
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which will perhaps (enough space in the case?) solve the problem for
debian's own servers, but not for the mirrors. I know of 3 of them
only in .at.
We already have mirrors that don't hold all the archs. This is a
perfectly fine thing to do.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:28:50AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
This subthread doesn't seem to have much to do with Debian development
anymore, or, at least I couldn't find anything technical in that mail.
Maybe take it off-list, if you feel it's worth saying?
I am finished with him for now;
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:28:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Sorry, correction: total liquid assets. SPI owns some hardware in the
U.S. on behalf of Debian (like the machine that is auric.debian.org),
but an exhaustive inventory has not been done.
We, uh, might want to do that someday,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:05:44PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
No, it's not. Low end disks are cheap. High end disks still aren't.
Bandwidth still isn't. Especially when you're spending donated
resources rather than your own.
Odd, then, that Debian has turned down resource donations in
My best friend went to Gentoo and came back to Debian. That should say
something
--
Phil
PGP/GPG Key:
http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/
wget -O - http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/key.txt | gpg --import
--
Excuse #52: Not approved by the FCC
pgpT98lU2ygwI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:22:42PM -0500, Mako Hill wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:28:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Sorry, correction: total liquid assets. SPI owns some hardware in the
U.S. on behalf of Debian (like the machine that is auric.debian.org),
but an exhaustive
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 22 2002, 10:34:21AM]:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:20:04AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
Why are you blatanly misspelling blatant?
Best example for the difference between you and most other top
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:23:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 22 2002, 10:34:21AM]:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:20:04AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
Why are you blatanly misspelling
Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 22 2002, 10:34:21AM]:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:20:04AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
Why are you blatanly misspelling blatant?
Best example for the difference
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:35:19PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:23:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 22 2002, 10:34:21AM]:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:20:04AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:15:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We'd need perhaps three different m68k varieties (two more than now),
one more Sparc, one more alpha, no more powerpc IIUC, no more arm, one
more mips, one more HPPA (or two?), no more ia64 or s390. So that's
nine more
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:23:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
Why are you blatanly misspelling blatant?
Best example for the difference between you and most other top
developers - stupid personal attacks when running out of
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 22 2002, 03:50:08PM]:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:20:04AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
(1) Why are you blatently insulting people on the lists??
Why are you blatanly misspelling blatant?
Ahh, the irony. :-)
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:59:32AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Making noise about spelling errors is extremely unpolite
(with few exceptions).
Please go away, learn something about tolerancy and come back when you can
discuss sanely.
Interesting conflicting viewpoints.
--
2. That which
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Bullshit. Making noise about spelling errors is extremely unpolite
(with few exceptions). Making fun this way is a sign of personal
problems. Doing this again and again, even trying to make this look as
a harmles 'joke' shows the critical level. Please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is just a suggestion/idea, and if it's stupid, feel free to flame me.
Why not develop some sort of apt-build based net install that allows the user
to download source archives and optimize the packages to the architecture etc.
specified in
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:17:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:55:35AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
To rely on gracious behaviour from other organisms is a losing
evolutionary
strategy, and to attempt to avoid
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:15, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i remember a year or so ago when i complained about this worthless
practice i said that it would end up consuming hundreds of megabytes
- i was told that was ridiculous, it would never happen.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:15:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden, could we afford to buy a couple 110 GB disks to hold this
increase?
I really don't like to wear my SPI Treasurer hat on this mailing list,
and with that hat on I don't like to offer opinions about how Debian
should
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:32:33PM -0500, Benoit Peccatte wrote:
10% of the whole distribution : that's a lot
Moreover bandwidth costs too.
multiple architectures can be placed on different servers. The overall
traffic will not increase and the overall disk space also wont.
But well, perhaps
On Nov 21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Now, if we were to have precompiled binaries for say ten different
varieties of i386 (and I think that's enough to make anyone happy),
the 6GB currently holding 386 packages would be 60, for a net increase
of 54GB.
We'd need perhaps three different
Le jeu 21/11/2002 à 21:44, Bernd Eckenfels a écrit :
But well, perhaps we can just stop supporting Pentium in the default
distribution and this will already help. Then a single dedicated server can
host the old system debian distribution for 386/486 compatibility. PErhaps
even with some space
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:44, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:32:33PM -0500, Benoit Peccatte wrote:
10% of the whole distribution : that's a lot
Moreover bandwidth costs too.
multiple architectures can be placed on different servers. The overall
traffic will not increase
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 20:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:07:13AM -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote:
To quote from the gentoo intro:
(glibc-2.2.5, gcc 3.2, XFS, ReiserFS, ext3, EVMS, LVM, ALSA,
pcmcia-cs support, ... KDE 3.0 and 3.1_beta and GNOME 2.0.2
I sure
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:58, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeu 21/11/2002 à 21:44, Bernd Eckenfels a écrit :
But well, perhaps we can just stop supporting Pentium in the default
distribution and this will already help. Then a single dedicated server can
host the old system debian
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:51:34AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:40AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I don't believe that transfer will be CPU bound, but rather network and/or
internal bus bandwidth limited.
It is not unusual for large scp jobs to be CPU bound
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
Gentoo on the other hand uses a build system that allows for rapid
deployment(KDE 3.1 final is in Gentoo and I don't think 3.1 has even
been officially announced yet), but it won't ever achieve Debian's
stability.
How can it
101 - 200 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
