Sven Luther wrote:
So, we will ship a sarge release which will show porn to our kids by default ?
I don't want *ANYTHING* to do with that, and if you go this way, i hereby
demand that my name is removed from any file containing it on this
pornographic sarge release.
Err... if I have followed
It might be interesting for you to know that this screensaver in
question is enabled by the random kde screensaver in RedHat Enterprise
Linux too. I haven't seen any outcries against redhat because of it,
and thus suspect the danger of bad press appearing because of this to
be very limited.
--
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 09:09:27AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
It might be interesting for you to know that this screensaver in
question is enabled by the random kde screensaver in RedHat Enterprise
Linux too. I haven't seen any outcries against redhat because of it,
and thus suspect
[Sven Luther]
I doubt that very many redhat entreprise users install it at home or
schools though.
I don't. :)
Here at the University, we have a license for home users as well.
But if it is so in RHEL, I am pretty sure it is so in Fedora as well.
And perhaps you can believe that Fedora is
Sven Luther wrote:
This needs to be fixed for sarge, as it will subject random underage people
sitting in the same room your computer is in to random porn. I believe th=
is is illegal in most countries, and we can't be allowed to let this happen.
Mmmm, debian-illegal anyone? What law is that
Tapio Lehtonen wrote:
I don't understand the animosity, this definitely is a bug and should
be fixed. Personally, I would even consider it grounds for postponing
release of Sarge until this is fixed.
Not if we don't annulate the woody release and fix it in woody as well.
It's rediculous that
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10311 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
Do we really want to be responsible for that ? I don't want to, and i
suggest
all distributors boycott the sarge release if this is not fixed ASAP.
Oh man, cant you get a live?
Even
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 12:38:50PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Tapio Lehtonen wrote:
I don't understand the animosity, this definitely is a bug and should
be fixed. Personally, I would even consider it grounds for postponing
release of Sarge until this is fixed.
Not if we don't
On Sunday 05 June 2005 12:36, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
This needs to be fixed for sarge, as it will subject random underage
people sitting in the same room your computer is in to random porn. I
believe th= is is illegal in most countries, and we can't be allowed to
let this
Sven Luther wrote:
Not if we don't annulate the woody release and fix it in woody as well.
It's rediculous that a bug that is present in woody already which was
released nearly three years ago, suddenly is considered a valid release
blocker for sarge less than one week before it's
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:36:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
This needs to be fixed for sarge, as it will subject random underage
people
sitting in the same room your computer is in to random porn. I believe th=
is is illegal in most countries, and
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Mark, not everyone who criticises Debian is attempting to destroy us.
Basic politeness like using someone's chosen name escapes Matthew
Garrett. He's also arguing against something he made up. Cool.
Basic politeness like using the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we will ship a sarge release which will show porn to our kids by default ?
Using a non-default desktop with a non-default screensaver configuration
will, under certain circumstances, potentially result in children being
able to see pornography. So, uh,
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 12:54:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:32:55AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
My reasoning is roughly:
1. how much of a problem is WebCollage? (10% porn finds. ow)
even 1 is too much in the family, school, whatever case.
Depends on
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 01:20:08PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we will ship a sarge release which will show porn to our kids by
default ?
Using a non-default desktop with a non-default screensaver configuration
will, under certain
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 01:49:54PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Not if we don't annulate the woody release and fix it in woody as well.
It's rediculous that a bug that is present in woody already which was
released nearly three years ago, suddenly is considered a
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050605 15:20]:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 01:49:54PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Not if we don't annulate the woody release and fix it in woody as well.
It's rediculous that a bug that is present in woody already which was
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050605 10:54]:
So, we will ship a sarge release which will show porn to our kids by default ?
That is not true. By default, KDE is not used. And even with using KDE,
by default the random screen saver is not selected.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:12:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 12:54:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Depends on the family. Mine doesn't even lock the porno channels
on the TV AFAICR. There's nudity in quite a lot of the adverts on
some channels, too. We watch who's
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Basic politeness like using the second person when you're replying to
someone? Christ.
Personal messages should not be sent to lists. It's like putting a
letter to me in the press or making this a Problems with MJ Ray
thread. Rather irritating.
I have better things to
This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:47:50PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
Yeah, random underage people in this context being the children of the KDE
desktop using users. Would you like your child to be subject to porn while you
are away and the screensaver
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 08:20:07PM +0200, R. Armiento wrote:
Since the main issue on my mind was do people feel that it is ok that
this goes into the sarge release?, exactly what would have been proper
procedure? How long should I have waited before bringing it to the list?
I'd only have
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050605 15:20]:
Notice that nobody was taking this seriously, people where only saying, how it
is not so important, there is an easy workaround, let's just forget about
this.
I can assure you, that is not true. We had some discussion
(dropping -user, adding -hurd)
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 05:21:28PM -0400, Marty wrote:
Might want to lookup the Linux Kernel Hacker's Guide, too. Alternatively,
you could just make it for HURD, instead ;)
Funny you should mention it.
I've been seriously considering writing or porting a
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:16:43PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not received any suggestions about this, the debian-admins
have not answered my (or Joy's) mails and the CNAME is still wrong.
My original request is dated April 12.
Update: no updates.
Perhaps
You'd be everyone's hero, however, most people who tried that lost
their sanity down the road.
Nobody has ever tried porting Linux 2.0 driver to Mach to my
knowledge. Anyway, the current drivers being in use are not only 2.0
drivers, they are a mixture of lots of versions.
(#hug or
26 matches
Mail list logo
