On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 07:55:05PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
< snip lots of stupid crap >
Can you please stop diverting a potentially useful thread in to the realm
of moronic advocacy? kthxbi
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
On Sunday 14 May 2006 12:23, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Saturday 13 May 2006 16:03, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > Re: Paul Johnson 2006-05-14 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > > Why does it necessarily have to be IRC? Jabber fixes a lot
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday 13 May 2006 16:03, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Paul Johnson 2006-05-14 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Why does it necessarily have to be IRC? Jabber fixes a lot of IRC's
> > > shortcomings, without bringing along all the poli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/13/2006 06:42 PM, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 30.04.2006, 19:34 +0100 schrieb Steve McIntyre:
>
>>I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
>>official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can se
On Sat, 13 May 2006, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday 13 May 2006 15:12, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 14:58 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > Most Jabber servers...
> >
> > topic is -irc-.debian.org, iirc
>
> Why does it necessarily have to be IRC?
Because it's irc.debian.or
On Saturday 13 May 2006 16:03, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Paul Johnson 2006-05-14 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Why does it necessarily have to be IRC? Jabber fixes a lot of IRC's
> > shortcomings, without bringing along all the political drama and baggage
> > OFTC, Freenode, and every other IRC netw
Re: Paul Johnson 2006-05-14 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why does it necessarily have to be IRC? Jabber fixes a lot of IRC's
> shortcomings, without bringing along all the political drama and baggage
> OFTC, Freenode, and every other IRC network in existence. Switching to
> another IRC network just s
On Saturday 13 May 2006 15:12, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 14:58 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Most Jabber servers...
>
> topic is -irc-.debian.org, iirc
Why does it necessarily have to be IRC? Jabber fixes a lot of IRC's
shortcomings, without bringing along all the politic
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 14:58 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Most Jabber servers...
topic is -irc-.debian.org, iirc
--
Yves-Alexis Perez
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 13 May 2006 14:42, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 30.04.2006, 19:34 +0100 schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> > I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
> > official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
> > that more and more of my own Debi
Am Sonntag, den 30.04.2006, 19:34 +0100 schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
> official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
> that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on oftc, to
> the extent that I'm
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Since Debian doesn't donate any money to Freenode, I think that the
> question of donation spending is not relevant to what network Debian
> should choose as its default.
Debian donates goodwill and (small?) resources, and exposes
its users to the donation req
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 13:09 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > Since Debian doesn't donate any money to Freenode, I think that the
> > question of donation spending is not relevant to what network Debian
> > should choose as its default.
>
> By pointing irc.d.o at freenode, it says "Debian supports f
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 11:52:00AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Try asking: how hard is it for project funds to be used to pay
> > someone's entire personal mobile phone bill, what would need to
> > be disclosed to project supporters and has i
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> "de facto standard" (which is a contradiction anyway)
I disagree because I'm using de facto as a modifier to standard, but
that's off topic here.
> Try asking: how hard is it for project funds to be used to pay
> someone's entire personal mobile
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Disagree. I'm on some channels for other projects aswell, and they are
> all on Freenode. Freenode is the de-facto standard for open source IRC
> channels, and moving away from it should only be done for very
> compelling reasons.
Freenode being barking for ye
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > What aspects of Debian development warrant private conversations?
> >
> > Introductions, misunderstandings and conflict resolution.
>
> None of these encompass development even though they may facilitate
> it.
"Debian is about a lot more than just packagi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2006 12:40 PM, Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hallo! Du (Paul Johnson) hast geschrieben:
>> Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is these
>> days
>> than IRC.
>
> Jabber doesn't have any useable non-graphic Clients. for
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:41:35AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'm in favour as well.
> I wonder, do you and the other "me too" people also have a reason to
> justify switching?
I'm in favour of moving irc.debian.org just as I was last time this came
up because of Rob
On Wed, 03 May 2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > What does +s exactly do? Many more channels have this, #debian-qa and
> > #debian.de on OFTC too. So your list is incomplete right now.
>
> +s stands for "secret". It means that the channel will not be seen on
> channel lis
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> What does +s exactly do? Many more channels have this, #debian-qa and
> #debian.de on OFTC too. So your list is incomplete right now.
+s stands for "secret". It means that the channel will not be seen on
channel list. It also makes it impossible to tell if a person is on
On Wed, 03 May 2006, Jorgen Schaefer wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You also forgot #debian-women on oftc which currently has 79.
>
> As I said, this list does not include private or secret channels,
> and #debian-women has +s set.
What does +s exactly do? Many more chann
Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Hmm, you seem to have missed #debian-boot, which is on freenode with
> > some 70 in channel. Also, you missed #debian-security and #debian-release,
> > which are, IIRC, on OFTC.
>
> For whatever reason, those channels appear to be +s, so it's not
> surprising that they wer
On Wed, 03 May 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jorgen Schaefer wrote:
> > So, here it goes. Data was collected on 2006-05-03 at around 18:40
> > CEST:
>
> Hmm, you seem to have missed #debian-boot, which is on freenode with
> some 70 in channel. Also, you missed #debian-security and #debian-release,
> wh
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jorgen Schaefer wrote:
>> So, here it goes. Data was collected on 2006-05-03 at around 18:40
>> CEST:
>
> Hmm, you seem to have missed #debian-boot, which is on freenode with
> some 70 in channel. Also, you missed #debian-security and #debian-release,
> whic
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You also forgot #debian-women on oftc which currently has 79.
As I said, this list does not include private or secret channels,
and #debian-women has +s set.
Greetings,
-- Jorgen
--
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.forcix
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:49:47PM +0200, Jorgen Schaefer wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Right now I'm on those Debian related channels on OFTC:
> > [...]
> > And on Freenode:
> > [...]
>
> * Freenode
[...]
> 6 #debian-women
>
> * OFTC:
You also forgot #debian-wome
Jorgen Schaefer wrote:
> So, here it goes. Data was collected on 2006-05-03 at around 18:40
> CEST:
Hmm, you seem to have missed #debian-boot, which is on freenode with
some 70 in channel. Also, you missed #debian-security and #debian-release,
which are, IIRC, on OFTC.
--
see shy jo
signature.
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right now I'm on those Debian related channels on OFTC:
> [...]
> And on Freenode:
> [...]
I'm not advocating Freenode really (I couldn't care less about
where any #*debian* channel buffer points, really), but if we list
channels on the networks, we s
On Wed, 03 May 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >The people who are on Freenode are there because it's irc.debian.org but
> >they don't care if it's Freenode or not.
> How do you know?
Because I discussed with them... the initial plan was to move
#debian-devel-fr from Free
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:52:33PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Tuesday 02 May 2006 08:40, Cord Beermann wrote:
>> > >Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is these
>> > > days than IRC.
>> >
>> > Jabber doesn't have any
Hallo! Du (Paul Johnson) hast geschrieben:
>> Jabber doesn't have any useable non-graphic Clients.
>
>So write one or grab one of the existing ones and make it not suck.
sorry. out of skills. (beside that that would be on my todo-list the
point behind 'rewriting nn')
Btw, there was an irssi-plug
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 01:19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:52:33PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 08:40, Cord Beermann wrote:
> > > >Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> > > > these days than IRC.
> > >
> > > Jabber do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The people who are on Freenode are there because it's irc.debian.org but
>they don't care if it's Freenode or not.
How do you know?
>I can also understand that some people prefer Freenode for historical
>reasons but if you try to get the best for Debian, you can only und
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 04:55:15PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 May 2006 16:19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > As it is, IRC *does* have non-sucking non-graphic clients. If you think
> > people should switch to Jabber, I think you ought to write such a
> > client, not someone who's not in
Le Mer 3 Mai 2006 11:58, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> Summarizing: I do not see how changing the default network would
> improve Debian's IRC channels, but it would separate the Debian
> channels from the much larger base of open source channels on
> Freenode.
that's not a valid point IMHO.
every
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 19:34 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
> official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
> that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on oftc, to
> the extent that I'm (curren
On 10643 March 1977, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > or indicating their status with nicknames (which also spams the
>> > channel). You also get spammed on IRC whenever someone joins or
>> > leaves a channel.
>> Most IRC clients allow those to be switched off. Personally, I happen to
>> like them.
> s/m
On Wed, 03 May 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I'm in favour as well.
> I wonder, do you and the other "me too" people also have a reason to
> justify switching?
Yes I'm tired to have #debian-devel-fr on both networks with less than 30
people on each. The people who are
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:38:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >The problem is that the high amount of disconnection one gets from freenode
> >makes this a pain, especially as it is not clear for clients like irssi when
> Do you? This is unusual, I have clients connec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i would be interested in the number of netsplits. do you have a diagram
>for that, too?
No, but empirically it appears to me that OFTC splits at least as often
(and is 10 times smaller than freenode).
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed, 03 May 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > One might think private messages are useful in user support, but
> > #debian actually has a channel policy asking users not to send
> > them without permission. [...]
>
> So, one might think the current #debian is not act
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One might think private messages are useful in user support, but
> #debian actually has a channel policy asking users not to send them
> without permission. [...]
So, one might think the current #debian is not actually as useful
in user support as it could be?
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:50:41AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I'm talking about well after the OFTC formation. If there are that many
> >people dissatisfied with freenode, it seems likely that there are
> How many? Let's add some data to the thread:
i would be inte
> I wonder, do you and the other "me too" people also have a reason to
> justify switching?
How about "Rob Levin is still alive"?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm talking about well after the OFTC formation. If there are that many
>people dissatisfied with freenode, it seems likely that there are
How many? Let's add some data to the thread:
http://irc.netsplit.de/cgi-bin/ncompare.cgi?n1=freenode&n2=OFTC
The multi-year graphs
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 16:19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:52:33PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 08:40, Cord Beermann wrote:
> > > >Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> > > > these days than IRC.
> > >
> > > Jabber does
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm in favour as well.
I wonder, do you and the other "me too" people also have a reason to
justify switching?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but some of the characterizations here
were a bit off so I thought I should point out some misconceptions.
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:52:33PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Jabber prevents this by providing a real presence system.
> IRC has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The problem is that the high amount of disconnection one gets from freenode
>makes this a pain, especially as it is not clear for clients like irssi when
Do you? This is unusual, I have clients connected to freenode for many
weeks at a time. Maybe we should discuss this o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm thinking that what he's *really* saying is "there're so many people
>whom I can't talk to this way that it's almost impossible".
Which is hard to believe since he is a registered user who configured
his account to receive messages from unregistered users and so is not
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:52 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> By design, IRC encourages people to do truly obnoxious things, like
> spamming
> the channel to announce they're going away, or indicating their status
> with
> nicknames (which also spams the channel).
If *users* announce they're away, i
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:52:33PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 May 2006 08:40, Cord Beermann wrote:
> > >Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is these
> > > days than IRC.
> >
> > Jabber doesn't have any useable non-graphic Clients.
>
> So write one or gr
Paul Johnson writes:
> By design, IRC encourages people to do truly obnoxious things, like spamming
> the channel to announce they're going away, or indicating their status with
> nicknames (which also spams the channel). You also get spammed on IRC
> whenever someone joins or leaves a channel
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 08:40, Cord Beermann wrote:
> >Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is these
> > days than IRC.
>
> Jabber doesn't have any useable non-graphic Clients.
So write one or grab one of the existing ones and make it not suck.
> for the usual one
> to
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060501 23:12]:
> On 10641 March 1977, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>
> > - network stability: oftc annoys with many netsplits lately. This might
> > be temporary, but in the last month it was extreme.
>
> No, some were there, but not more than in Feenode.
Well,
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:24:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is
> To users who have not been long enough on the network to register?
The problem is that the high amount of disconnection one gets
On 4/30/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thoughts?
I'm in favour as well.
--
Besos,
Marga
On 2 May 2006, Manoj Srivastava spake thusly:
> I was pretty neutral about whether we should pull
> irc.debian.org away from freenode, but a recent incident makes me
> wonder how developer friendly freenode is anymore.
Apparently, the incident of k-lining me was an errant and buggy
scri
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 06:34:24PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> >I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is
> >> To users who have not been long enough on the network to register?
> >no, not to those and not to those others that feel tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is
>> To users who have not been long enough on the network to register?
>no, not to those and not to those others that feel that they are made to
>jump through hoops and neither to those who left alr
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> And as for Debian development, I receive even fewer private messages
> related to that. Do the rest of you? What aspects of Debian
> development warrant private conversations? I would think most things
> would be appropriate to discuss either in public or in small, focus
Hallo! Du (Paul Johnson) hast geschrieben:
>On Sunday 30 April 2006 11:34, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
>> official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
>> that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions a
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:24:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is
> To users who have not been long enough on the network to register?
no, not to those and not to those others that feel that they a
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 12:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
> At 1146403978 past the epoch, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> > these days than IRC.
>
> Really? I'd love to see some figures.
can't find much hard numbers, let along comparisons betwee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is
To users who have not been long enough on the network to register?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>One might think private messages are useful in user support, but
>#debian actually has a channel policy asking users not to send them
>without permission. As a result, I don't get many private messages
>from #debian users.
ACK.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
At 1146403978 past the epoch, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> these days than IRC.
Really? I'd love to see some figures.
--
Jon Dowland
http://alcopop.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:16:14PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 04:47:22AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> [Wouter Verhelst]
>> > Only if they're lucky enough to try to ask someone who has
>> > NOIDPRIVMSG disabled.
>>
>> And as for Debian development, I receive even fe
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 04:47:22AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> > Only if they're lucky enough to try to ask someone who has
> > NOIDPRIVMSG disabled.
>
> And as for Debian development, I receive even fewer private messages
> related to that. Do the rest of you? What aspec
> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:24:15AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > If you want to receive their privated messages then *you* can
> > disable NOIDPRIVMSG and they will not even know about it.
[Wouter Verhelst]
> Only if they're lucky enough to try to ask someone who has
> NOIDPRIVMSG disabled.
W
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>After some discussion earlier in the day about music players,
> ipods, and free software one can flash on ipods, I decided to clean
> up my variant of the Green5 rockbox theme and presented screenshots
> on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>The images are still at
> h
ti, 2006-05-02 kello 10:48 +0200, Marco d'Itri kirjoitti:
> Hardly documented? It's clearly explained in the FAQ page on the web
> site, and a link to this is in the message received by blocked users.
> It does not appear to be hidden to me. Do you have any suggestions to
> improve this?
How does
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>> I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
>> >>> biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
>> >> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
>> >Because it's the default and practically no one changes
Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You may also want to ask some of the DD's who refuse to use freenode
> anymore. [...]
I mostly avoid freenode for years now, because:
- it's verbosity city, from the motd to the wallops
- its bizarre behaviours like NOIDPRIVMSG and +q are confusing
- it ai
Hi,
I was pretty neutral about whether we should pull
irc.debian.org away from freenode, but a recent incident makes me
wonder how developer friendly freenode is anymore.
After some discussion earlier in the day about music players,
ipods, and free software one can flash on i
On 10641 March 1977, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> - network stability: oftc annoys with many netsplits lately. This might
> be temporary, but in the last month it was extreme.
No, some were there, but not more than in Feenode.
> - nickserv/chanserv services differ. I'm receiving the expression
>
Em Dom, 2006-04-30 às 19:34 +0100, Steve McIntyre escreveu:
> I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
> official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
> that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on oftc, to
> the extent that I'm (cur
* Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060430 20:35]:
> I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
> official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
> that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on oftc, to
> the extent that I'm (currently)
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Joe Smith wrote:
> If the move is done, the FN channels should be kept open and the
> topic should redirect users to OFTC. Then any packages that
> reference the FN channel should be updated.
My point was that the people who really need help just follow
irc.debian.org; the peo
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 07:25:50PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> On 04/30/2006 05:46 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 April 2006 22:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> >>Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> >>these days than IRC.
> >
> > Just to
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:24:15AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>> I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
> >>> biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
> >> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big fl
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
>>> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
>>>
>> Because i
On Sunday 30 April 2006 15:51, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 07:25:50PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> > On 04/30/2006 05:46 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > Just to prove you wrong: what the hell is Jabber?
> >
> > It is an Instant Messaging Client.
>
> It is not
On Sunday 30 April 2006 13:46, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 30 April 2006 22:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> > these days than IRC.
>
> Just to prove you wrong: what the hell is Jabber?
Jabber is an open IM system that IETF is stand
On Sunday 30 April 2006 14:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul Johnson:
> > Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> > these days than IRC.
>
> Really? jabber.debian.net does not seem to accept new users.
I don't know about jabber.debian.net's registration process, how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
>>> biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
>> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
>Because it's the default and practically no one changes it. This is
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 07:25:50PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> On 04/30/2006 05:46 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Just to prove you wrong: what the hell is Jabber?
>
> It is an Instant Messaging Client.
It is not IRC though, so this point is moot. This thread is about IRC,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/30/2006 05:46 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 30 April 2006 22:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>>Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
>>these days than IRC.
>
> Just to prove you wrong: what the hell is Jabber?
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
>> biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
>>
> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
>
Because it's the default and p
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 04:55:38PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> If the move is done, the FN channels should be kept open
> and the topic should redirect users to OFTC.
It could just live on like it does now.
> Then any packages that reference the FN channel should be
> updated.
Packages should ment
* Paul Johnson:
> Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> these days than IRC.
Really? jabber.debian.net does not seem to accept new users.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> components I use, postfix, etc, etc etc. I think it might be better for
> us to try to use our influence as a huge source of users to try to
> better freenode than to just move.
We tried to do just that years ago. See how it worked out ?
JB.
--
"Don Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
that more and more of my own Debian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
>biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
I think it would also be useful to know about those other issues you are
thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
>official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
Yes, the lilo-haters have been saying this for years.
So far nobody proposed better arguments than "we do not like freenode".
FWIW,
On Sunday 30 April 2006 22:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is
> these days than IRC.
Just to prove you wrong: what the hell is Jabber?
pgpOAzzLTRw7r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 30 April 2006 11:34, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
> official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
> that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on oftc, to
> the extent that I'm (currently)
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
> official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
> that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on oftc, to
> the extent that I'm (currently) not on a
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steve McIntyre]
>
>> I can see that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on
>> oftc, to the extent that I'm (currently) not on any freenode
>> channels at all.
>>
>
> For me it is the other way around. I am currently on one channel on
> OFTC, whi
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
