> > Why change the version numbering scheme? It is a small change, it makes
> > sense for marketing reasons, it is easy to do, and there was no reason not
> > to do it. We're not holding up releases because of it.
>
> I suppose all 67 megs in bo-updates is being held there for some other
> reason?
> >> >my company uses Debian very seriously so I think is very fair to help the
> >> >project with donations. I have just bought 2 "Official Debian 1.3.1 CD's"
> >> >from LSL and I chose the product that includes a 5 dollar donation to the
> >> >Debian project.
> >>
> >> And since I am in such a pi
john wrote,
> This is the part that baffles me. Do you really believe that users who
> won't buy 1.3.1 because 1.3.2 is out will buy 1.3 revision 1 after 1.3
> revision 2 comes out?
actually, yes. I know the schemes are identical, but I think that "revision"
off to the side doesn't sound as m
On 22 Aug 1997 13:41:07 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> If you do not think that the discussion came to a conclusion
> (BTW, Bruce did shift from his original proposal), then the proper
> forum is debian-devel. I did not see your s=comments there. Nobody is
> squashing dissent. All we are
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 02:32:30 +0800, Dima wrote:
>OK Dave, here's a fresh one for you: remember LiGNUx? Here's what
>made him do that:
>
>> Note that FSF is the same kind of corporation, a non-profit with a 501(c)3.
And?
-
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:12:48 CDT, Rick Hawkins wrote:
>
>Dave Cinege wrote,
>
>> Yes you have. I'm saying the work done be the people outside the US is now
>> asscoiated with a US entity. It's not 'theirs' anymore, while it is in the
>> US.
>
>this is not true, in any sense of the word. The dif
On Aug 21, 10:04pm, David Puryear wrote:
> Since this is going around in a "circle," please lets all drop it.
>
Has anyone else noticed a lot of noise on this list lately from people with
technical questions? Would it be too much to ask for them to move to their own
list?
--
Michael Hill
Toront
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
> > Rev each change and I'm happy enough to be quite. This is the only reason I
> > started yelling, I still feel it is a good one.
>
> Yes, well, I'm suggesting you should shut up regardless.
Everyone could stop beati
Hi,
>>"john" == john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
john> I understand that. I understand what they are and what they do.
john> What I do not understand is why you think that a newbie who just
john> installed 1.3 and has gone to the ftp site to upgrade it will be
john> able to make any sense out of
Bruce writes:
> Hamm and Bo are code-names.
I understand that. I understand what they are and what they do. What I do
not understand is why you think that a newbie who just installed 1.3 and
has gone to the ftp site to upgrade it will be able to make any sense out
of names like bo-updates. IMHO
Hi,
>>"Clint" == Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A while ago we held a vote on the leadership of the project. The
>> developers strongly rejected the idea of a "Roman Senate" where all
>> decisions would be voted upon. They prefered to have an elected
>> executive and ratified me to
Cl
OK Dave, here's a fresh one for you: remember LiGNUx? Here's what
made him do that:
> Note that FSF is the same kind of corporation, a non-profit with a 501(c)3.
:)
--
Dimitri
emaziuk at curtin dot edu dot au
Please CC to me when replying to Usenet or a list
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAIL
Dave Cinege wrote,
> Yes you have. I'm saying the work done be the people outside the US is now
> asscoiated with a US entity. It's not 'theirs' anymore, while it is in the US.
this is not true, in any sense of the word. The difference between debian
unincorporated or incorporated makes absol
> A while ago we held a vote on the leadership of the project. The developers
> strongly rejected the idea of a "Roman Senate" where all decisions would be
> voted upon. They prefered to have an elected executive and ratified me to
As did I. However, I think it's slightly stretching the point to
> >The presence of developers and servers in Germany does not limit the
> >ability of the American legal system to reach the developers in the
> >U.S. So, yes, despite developers in Germany, the government is, and
> >always has been, involved. Think of the loop-hole if all you had to
> >do was se
Hi,
>>"Dave" == Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> keep their stock up to date.
>> AFAIK, people do _work_ on this _product_ in their free time. I
>> don't feel to have any moral right to tell them, how they should
>> spend it.
Dave> When they are acting as the official Debian entity you
> "Joost" == Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joost> The point I am trying to make is mostly to tell some nice
Joost> folklore. But hey, don't you folks see the analogy * porn
Joost> <--> ms apps * ?
This is the funniest thing I've ever heard.
--
Brought to you by the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Dave> If the orginization were not invloded in promotions, and makings
> Dave> CD-Rom, they could get back to simply working towards the
> Dave> orginazation of a quality product. Thats their purpose as far
> Dave> as I'm concerned, not worring about if CD makers can k
First let me say Bruce, you've done a great job in the past, and I
realize it's been no easy task. You've taken a lot of uncalled for flack
recently, mostly due to misconceptions and pointless debates. When the
time comes, I hope you decide to continue as the project leader.
On Fri, 22 Aug 19
Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> You could try lobbying Guy Maor (gently, please). But there has to be a
> date beyond even updates for an old release get purged. We want the mirror
> space for more current stuff, and with $4 CDs nobody has much of an excuse
> for missing upgrades any more.
What are the
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:12:59 -0400 (EDT), Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
> >
> >> It's not about .1 R1, or Asub1, to the 2nd power of 4.
> >> It's about something that is frozen, actully staying frozen.
> >> If the disc
On 21 Aug 1997 23:28:31 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Bonser writes:
>> I think the idea is, you buy the 1.3 CDROM and pick up the revisions from
>> the net.
>> ...
>> In this way, if a distribution goes defunct and is replaced, only the
>> X.x-updates directory needs to be left around f
George Bonser writes:
> I think the idea is, you buy the 1.3 CDROM and pick up the revisions from
> the net.
> ...
> In this way, if a distribution goes defunct and is replaced, only the
> X.x-updates directory needs to be left around for people that might want
> to update a disk that is a couple o
George B.:
> I suppose that my point was that after a distribution "expires" from the
> ftp site, if the updates directory could remain, a person with an older
> cdrom could still possibly update to a newer version. If they have an X.x
> cdrom, they select X.x-updates then upgrade to the current s
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:52:43 +0200, Ciccio wrote:
>> If the orginization were not invloded in promotions, and makings CD-Rom,
>> they
>> could get back to simply working towards the orginazation of a quality
>> product.
>> Thats their purpose as far as I'm concerned, not worring about if CD ma
> The new version naming scheme and control is based on politics and not
> technical reasons.
Until now, I didn't notice any decrease in functionality.
> If the orginization were not invloded in promotions, and makings CD-Rom, they
> could get back to simply working towards the orginazation of
Bruce,
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clint Adams)
> > Did I miss the developer vote on the version numbering scheme change?
>
> A while ago we held a vote on the leadership of the project. The developers
> strongly rejected the idea of a "Roman Senate" wher
From: George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> maybe debian should just
> put the updates in a directory called 1.3-updates and not use symlinks to
> point updates packages to the updates from the base 1.3 tree.
Guy Maor, the person who does the work of maintaining the archive, rejected
the above schem
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> And choosing a simple, consistent, and comprehensible release naming scheme
> is such an issue. Hambone, bopeep, 1.3.1, and now revision 2... all
> very confusing.
> I've been trying to convince the people in the seul project to use Debian:
> they think Debian is flaky.
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Paul Wade wrote:
[snip]
> Then they should have been reversed. If they were done in error, where was
> the warning message to prevent people from using the 'bad' Debian?
Once again, our regular archive maintainer, who is not paid for his time,
is on vacation. You sure want t
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clint Adams)
> Did I miss the developer vote on the version numbering scheme change?
A while ago we held a vote on the leadership of the project. The developers
strongly rejected the idea of a "Roman Senate" where all decisions would be
voted upon. They prefered to have an
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Paul Wade wrote:
>
> > Good point, John. It seems that the sugar-coated explanation still doesn't
> > taste very good. Hey, users who are listening - Debian 1.3.3 is out but
> > it's still called 1.3.1 so nobody who buys those
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Paul Wade wrote:
> Good point, John. It seems that the sugar-coated explanation still doesn't
> taste very good. Hey, users who are listening - Debian 1.3.3 is out but
> it's still called 1.3.1 so nobody who buys those CD sets will feel
> inferior? We need someone with a Ph.D.
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:30:52 -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
>> >The government has always been involved. In general though, it is
>>
>> With the developers and servers in Germany? nl?
>
>The presence of developers and servers in Germany does not limit the
>ability of the American legal system to reach
On 21 Aug 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
> > Each revision will be properly noted.
>
> > We aren't doing this for the benefit of CD makers. This is for the
> > benefit of the end user (remember them?) who needs to be able to go to a
> > local retailer and purchase the Debian
On 21 Aug 1997 16:08:05 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There are no fewer release. All releases are numbered (with
> revisions, not point versions). Technically, the two schemes are the
> same. Mr Cinege has escalated a percived, non-technical difference
> into a jihad.
No I'm talking ab
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:12:59 -0400 (EDT), Dale Scheetz wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
>
>> It's not about .1 R1, or Asub1, to the 2nd power of 4.
>> It's about something that is frozen, actully staying frozen.
>> If the disc says 1.3.1, I should be able crccheck the whole damn th
Since this is going around in a "circle," please lets all drop it.
Thanks,
David
On 21-Aug-97 "Dave Cinege" wrote:
---cut---
Oh boy...is this going in a circle...
---cut---
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail
Dale Scheetz writes:
> Each revision will be properly noted.
> We aren't doing this for the benefit of CD makers. This is for the
> benefit of the end user (remember them?) who needs to be able to go to a
> local retailer and purchase the Debian distribution. If the CD
> manufacturer is forced to
> And the people who contribute to it should decide the
> direction in which it goes.
Did I miss the developer vote on the version numbering scheme change?
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
just my two cents...
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: For those who care, the old scheme was to have revisions
: called 2.0.1 etc, the new scheme calles them revisions.
: old new
: === ===
: 2.0.02.0
: 2.0.1
Just wanted to say that I'm glad to be able to contribute the $5, delighted to
have access to the developers, generally pleased with the spelling on the list,
and although I may not agree with it, I'll defend Dave's right to be bounced.
I'd like to direct my user-vote in favour of good behaviour s
> > They could have not followed anything past the guy that caused it.
> > Now they can.
> With all due respect, I think you have it backwards. Now, the
> corporation protects not just those beyond the guy that caused the
> problem. It even protects that particular guy.
you are correct.
Howev
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Paul Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I suppose all 67 megs in bo-updates is being held there for some other
> > reason?
>
> I had a phone conversation with Guy Maor. He says he'll make the release
> next week. He says he has no problem with the versio
Hi,
I think while the current 1.3.1 was being created, there was
an error, making 1.3.1 replace (instead of add a few packages to)
1.3. That, though regrettable, shall not be repeated.
As to bug fixed in bo-updates, they have not yet been
released, they are in the test phase, a
From: Paul Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suppose all 67 megs in bo-updates is being held there for some other
> reason?
I had a phone conversation with Guy Maor. He says he'll make the release
next week. He says he has no problem with the version numbering scheme.
He was not waiting for me. He says
Hi guys,
I agree with donations and the incorporation. I've seen some messages in
this thread that attributes to me some sentences I did not say, like this
one:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Dave> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
It sounds so good, but where is the clear admission that the 1.3.1 on ftp
is not the same as the CD? It should be at least 1.3.1 r2 by now. The
consumer should be able to quickly visit ftp.debian.org before he hands
money to a retailer for a product. Expecting a software buyer not to do
that is ta
> >The government has always been involved. In general though, it is
>
> With the developers and servers in Germany? nl?
The presence of developers and servers in Germany does not limit the
ability of the American legal system to reach the developers in the
U.S. So, yes, despite developers in Ge
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Why change the version numbering scheme? It is a small change, it makes
> sense for marketing reasons, it is easy to do, and there was no reason not
> to do it. We're not holding up releases because of it.
I suppose all 67 megs in bo-updates is being hel
Hi,
This is a silly argument. And the person conducting the other
end has managed to annoy a number of people who actually contribute
to the project, and hasd decended to profanity, so this is my last
word on the matter.
For those who care, the old scheme was to have revisions
> (anyone else thinking of Natasha and Boris?).
I was thinking of Ren and Stimpy, or maybe Itchy and Scratchy :-)
Lots of people were calling for us to "get real" rather than just be a
"toy distribution". A few people resent the baggage that comes with
that. The solipsist craves a world with no l
Gee, calm down a bit please, Dave.
Where has the money gone? So far, it's mostly been into the bootstrap
expenses of a non-profit. This was something like $400 for incorporation,
and $2000 for the IRS 501(c)3. Once the 501(c)3 is completed, U.S. citizens
who donate to Debian can write off their do
On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
> Rev each change and I'm happy enough to be quite. This is the only reason I
> started yelling, I still feel it is a good one.
Yes, well, I'm suggesting you should shut up regardless.
Mike.
--
Don't touch that! It's the History Eraser Button
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FR
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
> It's not about .1 R1, or Asub1, to the 2nd power of 4.
> It's about something that is frozen, actully staying frozen.
> If the disc says 1.3.1, I should be able crccheck the whole damn thing
> against the
> master 1.3.1 dist, and have it come up clean.
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:52:36 -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
>> The purpose behind the official incorporation for Debian is still
>> beyand me, and the more I think about it I don't like it. The
>> project (like linux) has always been for freeholders all over the
>> world. Why the US government sudden
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:44:11 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
>>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:23:27 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
I don't see the need.
>>>Well, many others did. And many others agreed with the other changes
>>>you disagr
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:05:09 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>> >On top of that, not everyone can donate time or resourses, but they can
>> >contribute money.
>>
>> To who? Am I a part of Debian.org? Do I have a vote.even if I maintain
>> 50
>> packages??
>
>Do you maintain even one?
N
On 21 Aug 1997 13:23:32 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Hi,
>>>"Dave" == Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Dave> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
>
>
>Dave> I think Debian was doing just fine before it started to receive
>Dave> cash donations. What expenses does it
> The purpose behind the official incorporation for Debian is still
> beyand me, and the more I think about it I don't like it. The
> project (like linux) has always been for freeholders all over the
> world. Why the US government suddenly has to get involded, I have
> no idea. Why does Debian ne
The discussion is funny but inappropriate, but I think this is just what
Dave wanted. However:
On Aug 21, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dave" == Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> You are perfectly free to start your own distribution of
> Linux, you and all other ``anarchists
On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:23:27 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
>>>I don't see the need.
>>Well, many others did. And many others agreed with the other changes
>>you disagree with. These decisions have been made. The time for
>>discussion
On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:42:02 -0400, Behan Webster wrote:
>
> >Dave Cinege wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
> >>
>
> >On top of that, not everyone can donate time or resourses, but they can
> >contribute money.
>
> To wh
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:20:36 -0400 (EDT), Will Lowe wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
>
>> If the orginization were not invloded in promotions, and makings CD-Rom,
>> they
>> could get back to simply working towards the orginazation of a quality
>> product.
>> Thats their purpose
Hi,
>>"Dave" == Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> The new version naming scheme and control is based on politics
Dave> and not technical reasons.
But it is not technically inferior to the previous naming
convention in any way.
Dave> If the orginization were not invloded in
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
> Sidetracking the issue insults my intellegence. Fuck you.
>
Your own comment insults your intellegence (what little I have seen) far
more than Behan.
Try a comment with more thought involved,
Dwarf
P.S. I've never understood why that particular phrase
Hi,
>>"Dave" == Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
Dave> I think Debian was doing just fine before it started to receive
Dave> cash donations. What expenses does it have? Can you make your
Dave> books public Bruce?
Pers
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:11:16 -0400, Marc W. Brooks wrote:
>Okay, I'm not sure where we disagree then. You admit that "In most cases it
>won't even be feasible", but this also means that in some cases, it would
>be feasible.
Could be...could.
>Why not give that option to people? Just wondering.
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:23:27 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:33:41 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>> >One of the reasons is that when people make a donation, it could be
>> >tax deductable. Right now it is not. We have to get 501(c)3 status
>
At 02:56 PM 8/21/97 -0400, Dave Cinege wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:19:55 -0400, Marc W. Brooks wrote:
>>What about people who would like to donate with the tax write off? Why
>>should that avenue be blocked because it won't help everyone involved? As
>>long as it does not actually hinder people,
In your email to me, Dave Cinege, you wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>
> >In your email to me, Dave Cinege, you wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:42:02 -0400, Behan Webster wrote:
> >> >Personally I think you're blowing things way out of proportion s
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:19:55 -0400, Marc W. Brooks wrote:
>At 02:00 PM 8/21/97 -0400, Dave Cinege wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:33:41 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>One of the reasons is that when people make a donation, it could be
>>>tax deductable. Right now it is not. We have to ge
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>In your email to me, Dave Cinege, you wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:42:02 -0400, Behan Webster wrote:
>> >Personally I think you're blowing things way out of proportion simply
>> >because you can't have things your way. Venting t
> >One of the reasons is that when people make a donation, it could be
> >tax deductable. Right now it is not. We have to get 501(c)3 status
> >with the US IRS first.
> Why? Of what intestest is that to the people that don't live in the USA.
and of what harm? if there's enough interest from ou
In your email to me, Dave Cinege, you wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:42:02 -0400, Behan Webster wrote:
> >Personally I think you're blowing things way out of proportion simply
> >because you can't have things your way. Venting this anger by
> >trying to imply that donated money is somehow bein
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:42:02 -0400, Behan Webster wrote:
>Dave Cinege wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
>>
>> >my company uses Debian very seriously so I think is very fair to help the
>> >project with donations. I have just bought 2 "Official Debian 1.3.1 CD'
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
> If the orginization were not invloded in promotions, and makings CD-Rom, they
> could get back to simply working towards the orginazation of a quality
> product.
> Thats their purpose as far as I'm concerned, not worring about if CD makers
> can
> kee
On Aug 21, Dave Cinege wrote
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:33:41 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
> >One of the reasons is that when people make a donation, it could be
> >tax deductable. Right now it is not. We have to get 501(c)3 status
> >with the US IRS first.
> Why? Of what intestest is that to the p
At 02:00 PM 8/21/97 -0400, Dave Cinege wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:33:41 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>
>>
>>One of the reasons is that when people make a donation, it could be
>>tax deductable. Right now it is not. We have to get 501(c)3 status
>
>Why? Of what intestest is that to the people
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:33:41 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>
>One of the reasons is that when people make a donation, it could be
>tax deductable. Right now it is not. We have to get 501(c)3 status
>with the US IRS first.
Why? Of what intestest is that to the people that don't live in the USA.
H
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:57:33 +0200, Ciccio wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:51:09 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> I think Debian was doing just fine before it started to receive cash
donations. What expenses
>
>What's going wrong now?
>
>I'm using debian quite heavily, and nobod
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:51:09 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I think Debian was doing just fine before it started to receive cash
> >> donations. What expenses
What's going wrong now?
> does
> >> it have? Can you make your books public Bruce?
> >
> >Check the donations page. It
Dave Cinege wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
>
> >my company uses Debian very seriously so I think is very fair to help the
> >project with donations. I have just bought 2 "Official Debian 1.3.1 CD's"
> >from LSL and I chose the product that includes a 5 dollar
In your email to me, Dave Cinege, you wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:51:09 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I think Debian was doing just fine before it started to receive cash
> >> donations. What expenses
> does
> >> it have? Can you make your books public Bruce?
> >
> >Check t
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:51:09 -0400 (EDT), Tim Sailer wrote:
>>
>> I think Debian was doing just fine before it started to receive cash
>> donations. What expenses
does
>> it have? Can you make your books public Bruce?
>
>Check the donations page. It will show what has been collected. The only
In your email to me, Dave Cinege, you wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
>
> >my company uses Debian very seriously so I think is very fair to help the
> >project with donations. I have just bought 2 "Official Debian 1.3.1 CD's"
> >from LSL and I chose the product
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:28:10 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
>my company uses Debian very seriously so I think is very fair to help the
>project with donations. I have just bought 2 "Official Debian 1.3.1 CD's"
>from LSL and I chose the product that includes a 5 dollar donation to the
>Debian project.
87 matches
Mail list logo
