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
kages should mention irc.debian.org if they talk about Debian irc
channels, not some particular network.
> Otherwise there would be split between the networks.
There has always been a duplication of channels.
Michael
--
"Einstein's got fans that'll stand in line,
to see h
* 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
[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
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 th
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
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
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 IRC discussions are on oftc, to
> the extent that I
[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, while I am on 7 channels on Freenode, 4 of them rela
Steve McIntyre schrieb am Sonntag, den 30. April 2006:
> 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
> th
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> 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
> Thoughts?
Go for it. Having half the project members on Freenode and the other
On 4/30/06, Steve McIntyre <[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
that more and more of my own Debian IRC discussions are on oftc, to
the extent that I'm
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) not on
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 any freenode channels at
all.
On ano
Em Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:03:14 +0200, Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> I think we should talk to the gnome people,
> (and the OFTC team should talk to the irc.gimp.org admins)
> as i'd like to have the gnome channels and the debian channels in the
> same network ;) i'm already in three
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > No, but the situation is pretty similar to the /usr/doc thing. Given
> > sufficient transition time there is no reason why we shouldn't drop
> > the single CNAME entirely in favour of something else (like a webpage
> > listing some ne
an stuff''
> > (see above).
>
> And again I ask: what makes it official?
I've already responded to that, let's not waste any more bytes.
> > > > > > > Should we reserve *.debian.org for official Debian services?
> > > > > >
>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:18:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:53:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There's nothing particularly deep here; everyone who's used OPN/freenode
> > is fairly well aware how much/little it netsplits, and that it's doing a
> > fundraising
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 03:08:10AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:50:43 +0100
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hubs are much less bandwidth-intensive than leaf nodes, because they
> > > don't have to repeat a message once for each user that receives the
> >
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:53:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There's nothing particularly deep here; everyone who's used OPN/freenode
> is fairly well aware how much/little it netsplits, and that it's doing a
> fundraising drive. Presumably a fair number of people are aware of OFTC
> now too. G
> > > > > > Should we reserve *.debian.org for official Debian services?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is already reserved.
> > > >
> > > > Except that it isn't. irc.debian.org exists, which is not an official
> > > > Debia
John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:26:16PM -0400, Vaidhy Mayilrangam wrote:
>
> > Usually, I stay away from all discussions of this sort.. but this one
> > seems to be too political for Debian's own good.
>
> What makes it "political" any more than any other Debian discussion?
We
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 08:43:41AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:26:16PM -0400, Vaidhy Mayilrangam wrote:
> > Usually, I stay away from all discussions of this sort.. but this one
> > seems to be too political for Debian's own good.
> What makes it "political" any more th
Oh yes, and remember how his somegeek.org pages assert that he's not using
notices to raise funds? I offer these logs to show that this is a
bald-faced lie. Note that there are many more like this, I'm just grabbing
out a few. These link directly to a page with instructions on sending a
check ma
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:26:16PM -0400, Vaidhy Mayilrangam wrote:
> Usually, I stay away from all discussions of this sort.. but this one
> seems to be too political for Debian's own good.
What makes it "political" any more than any other Debian discussion?
> For what I understand, most attac
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:59:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Are you doing this for fun or something?
Aren't we all?
> Can we stop this now?
Yes, please.
There's nothing particularly deep here; everyone who's used OPN/freenode
is fairly well aware how much/little it netsplits, and that it's d
developers, but so what? The Debian project itself does
> > > > > not run any channels there.
> > > >
> > > > No, irc.debian.org points to OPN and #debian on irc.debian.org is the
> > > > officially recommended Debian support channel. OPN has a
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:01:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > A single server would be less of a target than an entire irc network.
> >
> > No, a single server would be a much easier target than an entire IRC
> > network; I think that's a more relevant data point. Plus this could
> > risk ot
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 04:45:03PM -0700, Ravi Rao wrote:
> Oh my god! The debian project is endorsing TUCOWS! And these spammers (?) at
> TUCOWS pop up banner windows via ad.doubleclick.net. They're making me view
> ads, and so why has not anyone brought up the "endorsement" that the Debian
> proj
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:59:06PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > > > The significant advantage is that we stop endorsing a network that
> > > > > > collects
> > > > > > spurious donations from our users, the people who we are supposed
> > > > > > to help,
> > > > > > not help waste thei
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:01:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Yes of course. A small network of 3 or so machines could probably take
> care of that though. So could some well-connected general access irc
> proxies, though I'm not sure such a proxy actually exists.
That is an accurate description of
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 03:08:10 -0400
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the low-end, yeah. I figured 500kB/s to be safe, after I re-figured
> how much bandwidth the average Debian user on such a node would likely
> use.
Grrr Typo; added an extra 0. Make that 50kB/s.
Which would stil
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:50:43 +0100
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hubs are much less bandwidth-intensive than leaf nodes, because they
> > don't have to repeat a message once for each user that receives the
> > message (think channels). Leaf nodes will end up replicating a lot
> > o
Vaidhy Mayilrangam wrote:
> For what I understand, most attacks on OPN seem to come from people who
> do not like lilo (on a personal basis). Furthermore, the relationship
> between OPN and Debian is symbiotic. We both contribute to the growth of
> free software.
You forgot to take into account t
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:09:22PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:42:13 -0400
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already have servers, and bandwidth, and it would seem to could
> > create a small, stable irc network that could handle our modest load
> > of ~7
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 02:42:13PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Pro-network:
> Specifically pro OPN is that they really want to replace irc with
> something better, and they really badly seems to need to be done.
> Anti-network:
> This is long-term and tenative, and we'd effectively be selling o
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:01:48PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > So, again, why is it there? Once we know what criteria should be used
> > to determine what to point names under that domain at, then (and only
> > then) can we decide what to point them at. If anything. It's qu
s, but so what? The Debian project itself does
> > > > not run any channels there.
> > >
> > > No, irc.debian.org points to OPN and #debian on irc.debian.org is the
> > > officially recommended Debian support channel. OPN has always been
> > > acknowl
On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 15:12, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> There's also the question of trusting irc daemons enough to run them on
> Debian machines.
It's this kind of thing that SELinux is really cool for.
Hi All,
Usually, I stay away from all discussions of this sort.. but this one
seems to be too political for Debian's own good.
For what I understand, most attacks on OPN seem to come from people who
do not like lilo (on a personal basis). Furthermore, the relationship
between OPN and Debian is s
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Pro-network:
> > We get a network of irc servers.
> > Anti-network:
> > They netsplit frequently due to the nature of irc.
> >
> > We already have servers, and bandwidth, and it would seem to could
> > create a small, stable irc network that could handle our m
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:49:41AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:23:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > > The significant advantage is that we stop endorsing a network that
> > > > > collects
> > > > > spurious donations from our users, the people who we are suppo
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:23:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > The significant advantage is that we stop endorsing a network that
> > > > collects
> > > > spurious donations from our users, the people who we are supposed to
> > > > help,
> > > > not help waste their money.
> > > >
>
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:29:17PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 05:06:27PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > - Switching networks without some significant advantage stinks of
> > > > politics too much for me.
> > > > - It increases the chances we'll have to do i
arious media, including, but
> not limited to, installed machines, and IRC. How then, is there a question of
> "stopping endorsing" any network?
% host irc.debian.org
irc.debian.org CNAME irc.openprojects.net
...
That alone is an explicit official endorsement. The
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 05:06:27PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > - Switching networks without some significant advantage stinks of
> > > politics too much for me.
> > > - It increases the chances we'll have to do it again, and we lose the
> > > stability that has made the networ
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 05:06:27PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> A wild _technical_ card. I refuse to support a move that we don't have
> technical confidence in; despite the splits, OpenProjects has not been
> a disappointment on that side. It also is even less likely to vanish.
I'm not so
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:12:52PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > - Switching networks without some significant advantage stinks of
> > politics too much for me.
> > - It increases the chances we'll have to do it again, and
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:12:52PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> - Switching networks without some significant advantage stinks of
> politics too much for me.
> - It increases the chances we'll have to do it again, and we lose the
> stability that has made the network useful.
The s
his is about (in)action, so unless you've got something less than
observations, these aren't options...
> > > That said, OPN does not host *any* "official" Debian stuff. #debian is
> > > run by the network itself; several other channels are run and
> > &g
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 02:42:13PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Rob Levin wrote:
> > > I think the Debian project benefits from the cross- fertilization,
> > > from the exposure to other groups and other projects.
> >
> > I'm not sure we get cross-fertilization
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 07:07:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I will note here that OPN and OFTC are far from the only IRC networks
> in the world. In my opinion, DalNet or WebChat would be better suited
> to hosting Debian than OFTC; they have established complaints
> procedures and have demo
wn.
>
> I say all this as a long-time and mostly happy user of OPN, who has
> known lilo in RL and likes him and admires his stated goals, and who
> has been much more bothered by all the netsplits than the advertising,
> and who would continue to use it for a few other channels anyway
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> So, again, why is it there? Once we know what criteria should be used
> to determine what to point names under that domain at, then (and only
> then) can we decide what to point them at. If anything. It's quite
> possible that this CNAME should not exist at all.
Excuse me,
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:20:37AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> However, that doesn't mean OFTC is any better. If you read through David
> G's email that reads more like a press release than anything, and cut
> through all the layers of double-talk and manager-speak, you'll see one
> alarming word:
se two stood out amoung the top 10 or so networks
(by usercount) as providing pretty reliable service and procedures for
dealing with complaints (things which many of the top 10 do not do).
> > That said, OPN does not host *any* "official" Debian stuff. #debian is
> > run by t
an the advertising, and
who would continue to use it for a few other channels anyway. But in
retrospect the decision to point irc.debian.org at OPN didn't buy us
much.
--
see shy jo
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 11:03:29PM +0200, Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hallo! Du (Andrew Suffield) hast geschrieben:
> >On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:54:08PM +0200, Cord Beermann wrote:
>
> >> (freenode-people: the in my opinion acceptable way to collect funds
> >> and something, would be to write it in th
On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 22:48, Daniel Stone wrote:
> #iamacow and, later, OFTC. (Luckily, OFTC has so far mostly avoid
> becoming another lilofree.net).
You know that argument about lilofree.net is a total sham. I *know* the
people who run lilofree and their 'deal'.
lilofree is more about a specif
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I talked to some OPN people and to some OFTC people, exploring our options.
I wonder what King Salomon would have said about the situation. If he would
have suggested that Debian should leave OPN and switch to a network that is
hosted
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:20:37AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Secondly, not everyone in #debian* IRCs on "irc.debian.org", whatever
> that may point to. A lot of people explicitly connect to an OPN server,
> because they have a closer server than rotation, they want to use
nous crime of telling
oftc-staff that OFTC wasn't lilofree.net, because there was a joke about
lilo being a dictator in the #oftc-staff topic? You choose.
> > Apparently, I misrepresented it to its
> > staff (!), but I couldn't cut through cdlu's "suit speak" well e
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:20:37AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> So, basically, instead of having a cabal of 1, OFTC have gone the
> obviously far superior route of having a cabal of 16.
I'm trying very hard to maintain my levels of boredom and disinterest
with this IRC network war, but I would poi
n why.
*shrug*, again. Things just didn't work out, okay? If you still don't
understand why you were sacked, then it's not through our lack of
effort.
> (Aside 2: I was elected to the position of Network Operator, narrowly
> missing out on Core Committee/whatever. I later resigned from
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 10:55, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Once again, what do you people think?
Move to OFTC.
--
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/
On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 09:15, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martin Loschwitz wrote:
> > The IRCNet can run on a free basis because it get's sponsored by ISPs (like
> > Netsurf, Tisacali, NGNet, Edisontel, Stealth and so on) and universities
> > which
> > can produce traffic mostly for free.
end, and other various
things. I later came back, and was grudgingly put into the position of
Network Representative [i.e. #oftc monkey, and the grudging was on
their side, not mine]).
Secondly, not everyone in #debian* IRCs on "irc.debian.org", whatever
that may point to. A lot of pe
ry user about
fundraising would be to use the MemoServ. Each user would be notified
ONCE, and not two times a day.
The first decision to make (or not) is if Debian should continue to
point irc.debian.org to OPN.
When there is consesus about moving away, there should be the
discussion where
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-17 22:05]:
> > > there's an untapped market in the Open Source and Free Software community
> > > and we're here to open it up.
> >
> > I'm betting that the above suit speak certainly raised some eyebrows >;)
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-17 22:05]:
> > there's an untapped market in the Open Source and Free Software community
> > and we're here to open it up.
>
> I'm betting that the above suit speak certainly raised some eyebrows >;)
It did..
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 08:31:08PM +0100, David Graham wrote:
> OFTC, on the other hand, is a new project. We're a startup. We feel
> there's an untapped market in the Open Source and Free Software community
> and we're here to open it up.
I'm betting that the above suit speak certainly raised som
Well, I've been watching this discussion and I would like to put in my two
cents.
Just to get the facts out of the way, I am one of the founders of the Open
and Free Technology Community and am currently the project's Chair. I also
actively served on OpenProjects.net's staff from the spring of 200
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:07:00 +0100
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Side note: be wary of the OFTC web pages. There's plenty more
> bullshit on them, read them with the scepticism that everything on the
> web deserves.]
Feel free to point us at anything that's unclear :) We've done ou
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 07:07:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Insert standard rant about abuse of the word "spam". Observe that with
> a single command at the start of every connection (I'm working on ways
> to make it a one-shot command that persists for all connections by the
> same user, b
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 07:02:08AM -0500, Rob Levin wrote:
> There are two issues. The first issue whether it's appropriate for a
> non-profit to ask for modest funds to run its projects. We've worked to
> ensure that our fundraising has minimum impact on the network, and we've
This "minimum im
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, Rob Levin wrote:
> It's not all Debian, by any means. There are quite a few projects on OPN,
> now freenode. I think the Debian project benefits from the cross-
There are also projects that you have booted off because you didn't like
their discussion.
ave a contact at any of
these, where we could ask if we can point irc.d.o there?
> That said, OPN does not host *any* "official" Debian stuff. #debian is
> run by the network itself; several other channels are run and
> frequented by developers, but so what? The Debian project itse
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:54:08PM +0200, Cord Beermann wrote:
> (freenode-people: the in my opinion acceptable way to collect funds
> and something, would be to write it in the motd of your servers. It
> would be ok to enforce showing the motd on login to your net.)
It is completely and utterly i
est in OPN is as a platform to drag IRC-like
communication out of the dark ages it has been mired in for the last
10 years or so. (It's not the only place this could be done, but many
networks are not interested in such changes).
Personally, I don't much care about what irc.debian.org po
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 04:03:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> What some of the most vocal partecipants of this thread do not say is
> that they have been former OPN staff members or servers sponsors.
> I see a lot of politics playing here, and this is annoying.
>
>
> (Full disclosure: I am a OP
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Over the last few months, OPN has started soliciting donations for the use
> of the network. While it is understandable that the service needs money etc
> to be run, the way the donations are solicited is highly questionable.
> I think
> > Once again, what do you people think?
I agree with a move to oftc.
--
Ryan Golbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG: 1024D/78916B84 -- 1B1B 2A87 3F00 A7FB 40F3 526D 36CF BA44 7891 6B84
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> The IRCNet can run on a free basis because it get's sponsored by ISPs (like
>> Netsurf, Tisacali, NGNet, Edisontel, Stealth and so on) and universities
>> which
>> can produce traffic mostly for free.
>Do you think OPN is paying for its bandwidth at th
Previously Martin Loschwitz wrote:
> The IRCNet can run on a free basis because it get's sponsored by ISPs (like
> Netsurf, Tisacali, NGNet, Edisontel, Stealth and so on) and universities which
> can produce traffic mostly for free.
Do you think OPN is paying for its bandwidth at the moment? Do yo
You wrote:
> This is what I don't understand. As far as I know the three largest irc
> networks (IRCnet, Undernet and EFnet) are completely run on a voluntary
> basis. They don't have a non-profit to support them and do not ask for
> donations. And they are a lot bigger (over 80k users, while free
What some of the most vocal partecipants of this thread do not say is
that they have been former OPN staff members or servers sponsors.
I see a lot of politics playing here, and this is annoying.
(Full disclosure: I am a OPN staff member and server sponsor and this is
why I do not think it's appr
(or a job for
someone) on the way they do currently, my voice would be to point
irc.debian.org to another Network.
(freenode-people: the in my opinion acceptable way to collect funds
and something, would be to write it in the motd of your servers. It
would be ok to enforce showing the motd on log
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 07:02:08AM -0500, Rob Levin wrote:
> If you think our judgement is flawed, there are certainly other IRC
> networks out there you can use. We'd hate to lose the Debian project.
> But that's the decision of the Debian project, not our decision, to make.
Certainly, and this
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:53:33 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:53:07PM -0500, Rob Levin wrote:
> > But, really, the question really comes down to whether you think freenode is
> > doing a good job. If you do, presumably you'll accept our judgement on
> > whether we need modes
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:53:07PM -0500, Rob Levin wrote:
> But, really, the question really comes down to whether you think freenode is
> doing a good job. If you do, presumably you'll accept our judgement on
> whether we need modest paid coordination.
That doesn't seem very logical to me.
> I
I think we should talk to the gnome people,
(and the OFTC team should talk to the irc.gimp.org admins)
as i'd like to have the gnome channels and the debian channels in the
same network ;) i'm already in three networks all the time...
I don't care about the ads in OPN (actually i've never noticed
> > I will point out that we were linpeople.org when the Debian project joined
> > us, and linpeople.org began in 1995, well before the boom picked up speed.
> > And we're still here, after the dotcoms have pretty much folded.
>
> Which still makes it a pretty recent network :)
True enough. We'r
Previously Rob Levin wrote:
> I will point out that we were linpeople.org when the Debian project joined
> us, and linpeople.org began in 1995, well before the boom picked up speed.
> And we're still here, after the dotcoms have pretty much folded.
Which still makes it a pretty recent network :)
> Previously Rob Levin wrote:
> > I think the Debian project benefits from the cross- fertilization,
> > from the exposure to other groups and other projects.
>
> I'm not sure we get cross-fertilization from being on OPN. It is
> convenient to have lots of free software related channels on a singl
On 16 Aug 2002 17:32:01 -0600
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, what I observed was that of the various IRC channels that I
> spend time on personally, the ones that seem to be the least
> irritating and the most useful are the ones where a single,
> non-IRC-networked server is ho
I've generally stayed quiet on this topic, but I like opn. The asking for
donations has never bothered me at all. I tend to agree with Rob on things
also thouggh. I'd hate to see debian move, but I know I can't stop it
either.
--
Deedra Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web-page http://www.dmwaters.o
101 - 200 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
