On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:22:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Being in a position to know, much more so than yourself, I can say that you
are mistaken. I can also point to thousands of lines of patches,
representing work funded by Canonical, which are now present in Debian or
filed in
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
Or is the whole Ubuntu thing (where I understand Mark Shuttleworth has
hired
a large
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
Or is the whole Ubuntu
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Fortunately, that is not the case with Canonical.
Yes it is. Fork and forget is Canonical's modus operandi (despite all
the PR claiming otherwise).
Being in a
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:28:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Fortunately, that is not the case with Canonical.
Yes it is. Fork and forget is Canonical's
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:22:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Being in a position of judging the facts without preconceptions, I can
point to plenty more that aren't.
The fact that not _everything_ has been submitted yet still doesn't support
your (exaggerated) argument. That figure will
Hi all,
I first mailed my suggestion to [EMAIL PROTECTED], who redirected me here. My
mail is below, hopefully not everyone is as negative as Joey ;-)
Regards,
Pete
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martin Schulze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 30 november 2004 16:21
Aan:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
Isn't this a great idea that Debian could borrow? I think this could
generate some nice publicity/income for the Debian project, I mean
you've already got the domain name. Personaly I'd rather donate to
Debian than to the FSF, I think
Agreed. I think it is a *bad* idea, we have enough problems
getting consensus on what developers using @debian.org
addresses can do with their Debian work email address, and
what they cannot do with it.
There is absolutely no need to add more trouble to the mix.
There is no way we
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:42:35PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
I was looking to make a contribution to some aspect of the open source
movement and noticed that the FSF (in America at least) gives 5 email
aliases in the member.fsf.org domain, see
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Isn't this a great idea that Debian could borrow? I think this could
generate some nice publicity/income for the Debian project, I mean
you've already got the domain name. Personaly I'd rather donate to
Debian than to the FSF, I think Debian needs it more.
We don't have any use for money right now. What we have
mostly just sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by
inflation. So fund raising exercises aren't really a good idea.
Oh. Okay at least I don't have to feel bad about using Debian and not
contributing, but I have to say I find
Pete van der Spoel wrote:
We don't have any use for money right now. What we have
mostly just sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by
inflation. So fund raising exercises aren't really a good idea.
Oh. Okay at least I don't have to feel bad about using Debian and not
Pete writes:
Surely Debian has developers that would love to spend more time working
on Debian than on their day-jobs, but don't do so because they need to
pay the rent etc?
I'm sure I'm not the only developer who would love to paid to work on
Debian, but I don't think Debian has ever
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
We don't have any use for money right now. What we have
mostly just sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by
inflation. So fund raising exercises aren't really a good idea.
Oh. Okay at least I don't have to feel bad about using
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:16:53PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Isn't this a great idea that Debian could borrow? I think this could
generate some nice publicity/income for the Debian project, I mean
you've already got the domain name. Personaly I'd rather
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
We don't have any use for money right now. What we have
mostly just sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by
inflation. So fund raising exercises aren't really a good idea.
Oh. Okay at least I don't have to
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote:
Or is the whole Ubuntu thing (where I understand Mark Shuttleworth has hired
a large number of the senior Debian developers) considered to be the
solution to
19 matches
Mail list logo
