On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 07:41:17PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> The argument, or at least the one I made, was not about certain arches
> having priority over others. My point was that since i386 is the most
> common arch in use, the i386 packages are the most heavily tested and
> are therefore rea
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 22:16, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>
>> It is.
>
> Glad we agree.
>
>
>> I don't know a whole lot about PPC, but M68K is much better designed
>> that x86.
>
> Yes, it is. Very much better designed. The i386 is what, 32-bit
> e
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 16:17, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>
>> What!? PPC takes priority!? I thought you didn't want to support
>> obscure architectures!
>
> I think this whole which architecture takes priority is silly.
The argument, or at least
On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 22:16, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> It is.
Glad we agree.
> I don't know a whole lot about PPC, but M68K is much better designed
> that x86.
Yes, it is. Very much better designed. The i386 is what, 32-bit
extensions to a 16-bit version of an 8-bit core? Or did it start
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:54:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
| On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 16:17, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
|
| > What!? PPC takes priority!? I thought you didn't want to support
| > obscure architectures!
|
| I think this whole which architecture takes priority is silly.
I
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 16:17, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> What!? PPC takes priority!? I thought you didn't want to support
> obscure architectures!
I think this whole which architecture takes priority is silly.
As a correction only, I'd like to point out that 10-15% of desktop
computers sold
Em Qua, 2002-06-05 às 08:43, Ivo Wever escreveu:
> you wrote:
> >Ivo Wever wrote:
> > > What happens when the amount of developers falls below the critical
> > > level?
> >
> >That's certainly not the direction in which things are going. A few
> >people have left loudly, that's true, but there's al
On Thursday 06 June 2002 06:02 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
> > > btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
> > > me was routed via hungary?
> >
> > I belie
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:02:11 +0100
"Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I believe that that's due to somebody on the list with an extremely
> > stupid mail configuration that takes it upon itself to deliver to all
> > the addr
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
> > btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
> > me was routed via hungary?
>
> I believe that that's due to somebody on the list with an extremely
> stu
> I'm not really concerned with how much geeks and developers like potato
> for the simple reason that they (we) are capable of dealing with the
> uncertainties of woody/sid and might even be willing to do the occasional
> `./configure ; make ; make install` to get things that our distro(s)
> of ch
>>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
synthespian> For one thing, it would be good to know what the users
synthespian> think. Sure,
>> If you say so. I am not sure I personally have much interest
>> in the matter.
David> For someone who claims to not have much interest in wh
> synthespian> For one thing, it would be good to know what the users
> synthespian> think. Sure,
>
> If you say so. I am not sure I personally have much interest
> in the matter.
For someone who claims to not have much interest in what "the users"
think, you sure spend a
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 04:39:06PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> Your audience is not me. For *me*, potato is too old for desktop use.
...
> Your audience isn't a computer geek like me (who is also a developer)
Thanks for the reply! You've got some great reasons for wanting something
new
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 09:22:53 -0500 "Jamin W. Collins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:08:09 -0500
> "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd actually be in favour of dropping i386, most bugs and
> > complaints seem to come from there; dropping i386 shall mak
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 11:23:02AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
| On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:15:45AM -0300, synthespian wrote:
| > You can't use Potato for a desktop (to outdated) and you remain in this
| > security limbo...
|
|
|
| Why does everyone keep repeating this "potato is too old to
Ivo Wever wrote:
Manoj wrote:
> What the non free world does, or does not do, does not
> affect release decisions for Debian. We release when we are ready. We
> are not yet ready. Period.
I think what some people fear is that this implementation of the
Debian philosophy
might prove self
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 09:08:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| David> Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's
| David> 6. One could drop the 5 new arches without encountering this
| David> problem. Would droppin
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
|
| I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
|
| ( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
| forward together.
|
| ( ) i386 and PPC should take priority; other architectures
| can follow
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:49:02AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
| There are two justifications for supporting many architectures on
| the table:
| (1) We wanna.
Isn't this how all of OSS works?
| (2) It's for the good of the users.
| (2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had suff
Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:43:46PM +0200, Ivo Wever wrote:
> On a related matter: if a number of developers were at odds with part
> of the current policy, how would they be able to try and change the
> policy regarding that issue (supposing that if the majority of
> developer
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:15:45AM -0300, synthespian wrote:
> You can't use Potato for a desktop (to outdated) and you remain in this
> security limbo...
Why does everyone keep repeating this "potato is too old to be a
desktop" line? I heartily disagree and I have somewhere in the
neighb
>>"Ivo" == Ivo Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ivo> Manoj wrote:
>> What the non free world does, or does not do, does not
>> affect release decisions for Debian. We release when we are ready. We
>> are not yet ready. Period.
Ivo> I think what some people fear is that this implementation o
>>"Ivo" == Ivo Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ivo> On a related matter: if a number of developers were at odds with
Ivo> part of the current policy, how would they be able to try and
Ivo> change the policy regarding that issue (supposing that if the
Ivo> majority of developers, including th
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:43:46PM +0200, Ivo Wever wrote:
> On a related matter: if a number of developers were at odds with part
> of the current policy, how would they be able to try and change the
> policy regarding that issue (supposing that if the majority of
> developers, including those wit
you wrote:
Ivo Wever wrote:
> What happens when the amount of developers falls below the critical
> level?
That's certainly not the direction in which things are going. A few
people have left loudly, that's true, but there's also lots of new
blood, and plenty of experienced developers are sticki
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 09:57:07AM +0200, Ivo Wever wrote:
> What happens when the amount of developers falls below the critical
> level?
That's certainly not the direction in which things are going. A few
people have left loudly, that's true, but there's also lots of new
blood, and plenty of expe
Manoj wrote:
> What the non free world does, or does not do, does not
> affect release decisions for Debian. We release when we are ready. We
> are not yet ready. Period.
I think what some people fear is that this implementation of the Debian
philosophy
might prove self-destructive. A ce
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:15:45AM -0300, synthespian wrote:
> Em Ter, 2002-06-04 ?s 19:18, Colin Watson escreveu:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> > > How much are those of us who have been using woody and constantly
> > > updating and upgrading all this time actu
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 22:51, Oleg wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:31 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
>
>
>
> > YOU'RE WELCOME.
>
> Wow! I'm surprised at how much patience some people have! I didn't
> know people this nice and polite existed. My first reaction was to
> subscribe the jerk to [even mo
>>"synthespian" == synthespian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
synthespian> For one thing, it would be good to know what the users
synthespian> think. Sure,
If you say so. I am not sure I personally have much interest
in the matter.
synthespian> Those who are able, like you seem t
Em Ter, 2002-06-04 às 11:05, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
> David> I guess you're confident that the second option would only get
> David> 2 votes.
>
> And what
Em Seg, 2002-06-03 às 17:25, David Wright escreveu:
>
> > s/not\s+//;
>
> I appreciate the good-natured jibe. I didn't think the analogy to the
> Debian release process was so far-fetched, but it appears that it is.
>
> I never understood people who claim that to relase Woody for mainstream
> ar
Em Ter, 2002-06-04 às 19:18, Colin Watson escreveu:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> > How much are those of us who have been using woody and constantly
> > updating and upgrading all this time actually missing? What will the
> > move to stable actually get us that
Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeffrey Chimene wrote:
>> David:
>>
>>>(2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had sufficient resources
>>> to
>>>support obscure arches without hurting mainstream arch support. But
>>>experiment has proved that isn't the case.
>> Well, I for one am fr
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> How much are those of us who have been using woody and constantly
> updating and upgrading all this time actually missing? What will the
> move to stable actually get us that we don't already have?
Security updates (and advisories, e
On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 13:10:24 -0700
Jeffrey Chimene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it's frustrating waiting for Woody to move to Stable. Help or Cope.
> It's that simple.
Well it's not so much a matter of frustration. Some of us need to plan
work. And, unless I've missed it, there isn't a gr
Jeffrey Chimene wrote:
David:
(2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had sufficient resources
to
support obscure arches without hurting mainstream arch support. But
experiment has proved that isn't the case.
Well, I for one am friggin' glad that there are people out there willing
to sup
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:31 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
>
> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>
Wow! I'm surprised at how much patience some people have! I didn't know
people this nice and polite existed. My first reaction was to subscribe the
jerk to [even more] spam, but I resisted.
Oleg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
David:
> (2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had sufficient resources
to
> support obscure arches without hurting mainstream arch support. But
> experiment has proved that isn't the case.
Well, I for one am friggin' glad that there are people out there willing
to support Alpha and get do
>>"Jeremy" == Jeremy Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeremy> Managing the work would be easier, but for whom? Alienating
For people doing the work, of course. Those are the ones who
matter, right? People not doing the work have no work to ease.
Jeremy> Hmm ... Maybe UnitedLinux i
Message -
> From: "Jeremy Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:33 PM
> Subject: RE: this post is not off-topic
>
>
> > > -Original Message-
> >
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
>> I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
>
> Because those have always had the power to command what developers do,
> right?
>
>> ( ) No architecture should move forward
From: "Dave Sherohman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 01:36:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> > Please! Your last justification "we do it because it floats our boat,
not
>
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I certainly do not understand how you come to the
From: "Jeremy Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: this post is not off-topic
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Manoj Srivastava [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> &g
From: "Jamin W.Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:08:09 -0500
> "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>"David" == David W
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches t
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> > your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is equivalent
to
> > the totality of
From: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:43 am, David Wright wrote:
> > I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
> >
> > ( ) No archi
From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
> > btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
> > me was ro
From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:00:18AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> > Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
> >
> > > Ah, yes. So the secur
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I honestly
> belie
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
>
> > Ah, yes. So the security team will have to sup
From: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tuesday 04 June 2002 04:01 am, David Wright wrote:
> > > your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is
equivalent
> > >
From: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tuesday 04 June 2002 03:49 am, David Wright wrote:
> > Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I
honestly
> > believe tha
From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> > I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
>
> B
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Our users. Not our users of the most popular
> >
From: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tuesday 04 June 2002 12:16 am, David Wright wrote:
> > Maoj,
> >
> > Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overhea
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
>
> ( ) No architecture should m
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> > Our users. Not our users of the most popular
> > architectures. _all_ our
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> Maoj,
>
> Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overheated, I
&g
From: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> I was hoping someone who takes this position would ei
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 01:36:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> Please! Your last justification "we do it because it floats our boat, not
> for the users" was at least honest. One of your $250 hours would do more
> for "_all_ our users" if spent on a i386 than on 68k. This simple,
> irrefutable fac
> -Original Message-
> From: Manoj Srivastava [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I'd actually be in favour of dropping i386, most bugs and
> complaints seem to come from there; dropping i386 shall make the work
> small enough that we can manage it.
Managing the work would be easier, bu
>>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I certainly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that
>> this statement of mine is dishonest;
David> I didn't mean that perjoratively, but I did mean it
How can an accusation of dishonesty be anything _but_ pejorati
On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:08:09 -0500
"Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's
> David> 6. One could drop the 5 new arches without encountering this
> David> proble
>>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's
David> 6. One could drop the 5 new arches without encountering this
David> problem. Would dropping these 5 not help?
I'd actually be in favour of dropping i386, mos
>>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
David> I guess you're confident that the second option would only get
David> 2 votes.
And what purpose would such a poll serve? I sure am not going
to make a majo
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
> btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
> me was routed via hungary?
I believe that that's due to somebody on the list with an extremely
stupid mail configuration that takes it upon itself to deliver to all
the add
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:00:18AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
>
> > Ah, yes. So the security team will have to support both potato and
> > woody, because both will be stable on different architectures. Package
> > maintainers will have to support wildly different v
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 04:01 am, David Wright wrote:
> > your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is equivalent
> > to the totality of users. it's that simple.
>
> That's less flawed than assuming that a minority of users is equivalent to
> the totality of users.
yes, that would
> your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is equivalent to
> the totality of users. it's that simple.
That's less flawed than assuming that a minority of users is equivalent to
the totality of users.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
> Ah, yes. So the security team will have to support both potato and
> woody, because both will be stable on different architectures. Package
> maintainers will have to support wildly different versions of their
> packages in stable. All this until the other archite
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 03:49 am, David Wright wrote:
> Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I honestly
> believe that I am making a valid point that reflects the opinion of a
> significant fraction of the Debian community. And you just might someday
> see my name on the N
Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I honestly
believe that I am making a valid point that reflects the opinion of a
significant fraction of the Debian community. And you just might someday
see my name on the NM list. So I'll try this one more time with as much
dry, bori
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:43 am, David Wright wrote:
> I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
>
> ( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
> forward together.
>
> ( ) i386 and PPC should take priority; other architectures
> can follow when they're
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
Because those have always had the power to command what developers do,
right?
> ( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
> forward together.
>
> (
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
forward together.
( ) i386 and PPC should take priority; other architectures
can follow when they're ready.
I guess you're confident that the second option would onl
>>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Our users. Not our users of the most popular
>> architectures. _all_ our users.
David> Please! Your last justification "we do it because it floats
David> our boat, not for the users" was at least honest.
I see that you can't ma
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 12:16 am, David Wright wrote:
> Maoj,
>
> Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overheated, I
> think it contains the core of a argument to which I can respond, so I'm
> going to try...
>
> > We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because that
> Our users. Not our users of the most popular
> architectures. _all_ our users.
Please! Your last justification "we do it because it floats our boat, not
for the users" was at least honest. One of your $250 hours would do more
for "_all_ our users" if spent on a i386 than on 68k. This sim
>>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because that
>> pleases our muse.
David> Point 4. of http://www.debian.org/social_contract says "Our
David> Priorities are Our Users and Free Software". I think even you
David> will agre
Maoj,
Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overheated, I
think it contains the core of a argument to which I can respond, so I'm
going to try...
> We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because that
> pleases our muse.
Point 4. of http://www.debian.org/social_co
>>"David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> I was hoping someone who takes this position would either
David> explain why my ananlogy fails or explain why we really should
David> spend on all 11 diseases equally, even though this does not
David> help the most people that we can
> it fails because it appears to be based on a false premise: that port
> specific bugs are significantly holding up the release process.
I wish this were true, but the official information is that the problems
of supporting many obscure architectures is EXACTLY what is holding up
woody. See, for
> "David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> s/not\s+//;
David> I appreciate the good-natured jibe. I didn't think the analogy
David> to the Debian release process was so far-fetched, but it
David> appears that it is.
I'll admit to being one (of many, probably) who read the f
Well, I can't make the claim that I understood the analogy, so my
apologies for not grasping the connection.
I have no interest in commenting on decisions about release dates, since
that is very much in others' areas of expertise. The question of the value
of social equality, though, is in my expe
> s/not\s+//;
I appreciate the good-natured jibe. I didn't think the analogy to the
Debian release process was so far-fetched, but it appears that it is.
I never understood people who claim that to relase Woody for mainstream
architectures (essentially i386 and PPC) before releasing it for
non-m
Makes me think of http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990807
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s/not\s+//;
--
Andrew J Perrin - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * andrew_perrin (at) unc.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
93 matches
Mail list logo
