Le decadi 20 thermidor, an CCXXIII, Thomas Schmitt a écrit :
> First i need to have it. How to apply the patches from
> dvd+rw-tools_7.1-11.debian.tar.bz2 to the unpacked
> dvd+rw-tools_7.1.orig.tar.gz so that i get the same source
> that is used for producing Debian binary packa
Hi,
Reco wrote:
> 1) Change the source as appropriate.
First i need to have it. How to apply the patches from
dvd+rw-tools_7.1-11.debian.tar.bz2 to the unpacked
dvd+rw-tools_7.1.orig.tar.gz so that i get the same source
that is used for producing Debian binary packages ?
I strive for the sou
t;
> Since growisofs has no upstream any more, i plan to submit
> patches towards Debian sid.
> But how to combine the growisofs source files of sid to the
> source installation which yields the sid growisofs binary ?
>
> In
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/video/dvd+rw-tools
ombine the growisofs source files of sid to the
source installation which yields the sid growisofs binary ?
In
https://packages.debian.org/sid/video/dvd+rw-tools
there are
http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dvd+rw-tools/dvd+rw-tools_7.1-11.dsc
http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dvd+rw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 02:57:49PM +0200, Frederic Marchal wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2015 18:51:24 Jose Martinez wrote:
> > NaCL -- Sodium Chloride -- common table salt. That just means you have
> > to add your own!!:-D
>
> Actually, it stands f
On Wednesday 24 June 2015 18:51:24 Jose Martinez wrote:
> NaCL -- Sodium Chloride -- common table salt. That just means you have
> to add your own!!:-D
Actually, it stands for Native Client
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client).
It is Google's attempt to re-invent javascript :-)
NaCL -- Sodium Chloride -- common table salt. That just means you have
to add your own!!:-D
On 06/22/2015 11:18 PM, Tim Beelen wrote:
Wow, thanks! An actual thing I can try.
I also found out in the mean time that Chromium does not come with/is
not compiled with NaCl enabled (whatever that
Wow, thanks! An actual thing I can try.
I also found out in the mean time that Chromium does not come with/is
not compiled with NaCl enabled (whatever that is) and that would prevent
actual execution of the plugin.
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the tools to figure out
what pr
Say, maybe a tin-foil hat for the affected system could be designed to
prevent this from happening?? :-D
On 06/22/2015 05:25 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:38:30PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 06/21/2015 06:42 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Tim Beelen writes:
How do I find out wh
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:25:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Tim Beelen wrote:
> > Is it true? Is Google actively listening in on my conversations?
>
> Google is if you're using google now, but chromium on Debian is not.
No, It has to be activated manually. One can use NO
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Tim Beelen wrote:
> Is it true? Is Google actively listening in on my conversations?
Google is if you're using google now, but chromium on Debian is not.
> Apparently this:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909
See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:38:30PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 06/21/2015 06:42 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> >Tim Beelen writes:
> >>How do I find out which application is accessing what device?
> >
> >It's all software. There is no hardware involved at all: they use a
> >virtual device. It works ev
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:14:23 +0100
Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:36:50 +0300
> David Baron wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> >Just because I am paranoid, that does not mean they are not, in fact,
> >after me.
>
> If they *are* after you, you're not paranoid.
>
But maybe they are aft
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:36:50 +0300
David Baron wrote:
Hello David,
>Just because I am paranoid, that does not mean they are not, in fact,
>after me.
If they *are* after you, you're not paranoid.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever imme
> > >>> How do I find out which application is accessing what device?
> > >>
> > >> It's all software. There is no hardware involved at all: they use a
> > >> virtual device. It works even when the computer is off. Doesn't matter
> > >> if your machine has a microphone or even any audio input c
On Monday 22 June 2015 12:49:19 Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 22/06/15 12:38, Ric Moore wrote:
> > On 06/21/2015 06:42 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> >> Tim Beelen writes:
> >>> How do I find out which application is accessing what device?
> >>
> >> It's all software. There is no hardware involved at all
On 22/06/15 12:38, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 06/21/2015 06:42 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Tim Beelen writes:
>>> How do I find out which application is accessing what device?
>>
>> It's all software. There is no hardware involved at all: they use a
>> virtual device. It works even when the computer is
On 06/21/2015 06:42 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Tim Beelen writes:
How do I find out which application is accessing what device?
It's all software. There is no hardware involved at all: they use a
virtual device. It works even when the computer is off. Doesn't matter
if your machine has a microp
Tim Beelen writes:
> How do I find out which application is accessing what device?
It's all software. There is no hardware involved at all: they use a
virtual device. It works even when the computer is off. Doesn't matter
if your machine has a microphone or even any audio input capability.
--
Is it true? Is Google actively listening in on my conversations?
Apparently this:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909
*Yesterday, news broke that Google has been stealth downloading audio
listeners onto every computer that runs Chrome, and transmits audio
data back to Goo
On 06/10/2015 09:10 AM, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
If you're building a new system, you might go with Intel at first, and
later buy a discrete graphics card (AMD) if you need higher performance.
I've had really good feedback from both AMD and Intel when filing bugs
and having problems. I'm sure the n
27;t equal to either by a long shot.
>> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amdnv-phoronix-11&num=1
>> >> <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amdnv-phoronix-11&num=2>
>> >>
>> >> So, in summary,
> >> <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amdnv-phoronix-11&num=2>
> >>
> >> So, in summary, I've always used nvidia as it's the same money as
> >> AMD and Intel and is generally always faster with the nvidia
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:45:07PM +0100, Terence wrote:
> Hi, Andrew,
>
> If what you say is correct about Nvidia only allowing signed code in future
> (and I have no doubt that you are correct) I, for one will break the habit
> of a long time, and c
proposes AMD or NVIDIA for the
> > workstations.
> >
> > I do not need a very fancy graphic card, I need something that
> > works. I will proabably buy AMD as it seems to work well with the
> > open source drivers.
>
> Intel is built-in to the modern CPUs, that's part
something that
> works. I will proabably buy AMD as it seems to work well with the
> open source drivers.
Intel is built-in to the modern CPUs, that's part of the beauty of it;
including plenty of good bang for your buck and lower energy options
than the "super" graphic card
idia as it's the same money as AMD
>> and Intel and is generally always faster with the nvidia drivers. So,
>> while many will piffle and claim to not be a gamer, what about video
>> editing? 3D Immersive education? Think you might want to do that at some
>> point i
will piffle and claim to not be a gamer, what about video
> editing? 3D Immersive education? Think you might want to do that at some
> point in your life?? I'm all about Open Source. But, I'm not about
> deliberate trashing of expensive hardware "for the cause". Nor do I
>
On 06/10/2015 03:01 AM, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 18:01 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
Which open source driver is better Nouveau or AMD open source driver?
It ALL depends on your needs. If you want gaming, or multi-card/monitor
support, with all the goodies turned on, you'll
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 23:28 +0200, Dan wrote:
> Hi,
> I would live to buy a workstation and install Jessie. I would like to
> use the open source drivers for the graphic card. What would you
> recommend? My choices are Nvidia or AMD.
>
> I checked the Nvidia/Debian wiki and t
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 18:01 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> > Which open source driver is better Nouveau or AMD open source driver?
> It ALL depends on your needs. If you want gaming, or multi-card/monitor
> support, with all the goodies turned on, you'll want the real drivers.
> I
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:38:46 +0900
Man_Without_Clue wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 10 June, 2015 07:01 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
> > On 06/09/2015 05:28 PM, Dan wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I would live to buy a workstation and install Jessie. I would like
> >> to u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:28:59PM +0200, Dan wrote:
> Hi,
> I would live to buy a workstation and install Jessie. I would like to
> use the open source drivers for the graphic card. What would you
> recommend? My choices are Nvidia or AM
On Wednesday, 10 June, 2015 07:01 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
On 06/09/2015 05:28 PM, Dan wrote:
Hi,
I would live to buy a workstation and install Jessie. I would like to
use the open source drivers for the graphic card. What would you
recommend? My choices are Nvidia or AMD.
I checked the Nvidia
On 06/09/2015 05:28 PM, Dan wrote:
Hi,
I would live to buy a workstation and install Jessie. I would like to
use the open source drivers for the graphic card. What would you
recommend? My choices are Nvidia or AMD.
I checked the Nvidia/Debian wiki and the Nouveau drivers seems to work
very well
Hi,
I would live to buy a workstation and install Jessie. I would like to
use the open source drivers for the graphic card. What would you
recommend? My choices are Nvidia or AMD.
I checked the Nvidia/Debian wiki and the Nouveau drivers seems to work
very well:
"As of jessie, the need fo
On 05/25/2015 09:52 PM, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 21:22 +0800, mudongliang wrote:
5. I use "glxgears -info" to test the performance. However ,the
performance is so bad ! It seems no ati driver at all!
375 frames in 5.0 seconds = 74.986 FPS
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.857 FPS
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 21:22 +0800, mudongliang wrote:
> 5. I use "glxgears -info" to test the performance. However ,the
> performance is so bad ! It seems no ati driver at all!
> 375 frames in 5.0 seconds = 74.986 FPS
> 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.857 FPS
> 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.855 FP
:68e4] (rev ff)
2. the installation comes from https://wiki.debian.org/AtiHowTo
Installation
The following procedure will install the open source display driver
packages, DRI modules (for 3D acceleration) and driver firmware/microcode:
1)Add "contrib" and "non-free" co
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 08:07:01PM +0100, bluehut wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> Bear with me, this is a Debian question indeed.
> I would like to help with LXQt development and have a question about how
> to best go about this on Debian.
>
> As a general question:
> Should I clone the git repo, build
Hello list,
Bear with me, this is a Debian question indeed.
I would like to help with LXQt development and have a question about how
to best go about this on Debian.
As a general question:
Should I clone the git repo, build the programs and run them, or is
there a way to actively develop without
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 22:05:08, Joel Roth wrote:
>
> > Are you sure these files are from dbus? I'd rather guess they are from
> > the 'apt' source package. Anyway:
>
> Yes, they are. I'm curious at which step they get generated.
Me too. Care to explain
these files are from dbus? I'd rather guess they are from
> > the 'apt' source package. Anyway:
>
> Yes, they are. I'm curious at which step they get generated.
Have a look at the timestamps which might provide a clue. I cannot see
any integration tests or similar
ave "dbus" in the command:
$ apt-get source dbus
All files in .pc directories are generated when the source package is
unpacked. Please read the dpkg-source manpage. You are unpacking the
most common source format "3.0 (quilt)".
> I found the files listed above also need to
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 08:03:58AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 20 nov 14, 12:29:32, Joel Roth wrote:
> >
> > However, there are files that apt-get source downloads that
> > are not in the repository. Can someone tell me where they come from?
> > They appear n
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 12:29:32, Joel Roth wrote:
>
> However, there are files that apt-get source downloads that
> are not in the repository. Can someone tell me where they come from?
> They appear necessary for the package to build.
>
> .pc/
> Package
Hi list,
I'm trying to build the dbus package from source.
I can do it the usual way:
apt-get source
cd dbus-1.18.10
debuild -uc -us -b
However, I would like to use the git repository. apt-get
source helpfully announces:
NOTICE: 'dbus' packaging is maintained in the '
Hi.
Im running Pulseaudio on a pretty stock Wheezy installation. Im trying to get a
USB audio output device to work, but it's not showing up in my Pulseaudio
volume control.
The device is an Audioengine AW1, and Id previously used this on my system with
no problems. But now when I plug it in,
:fed5:2fda: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64
> > > > > > time=0.205 ms 64 bytes from fe80::207:95ff:fed5:2fda:
> > > > > > icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.201 ms 64 bytes from
> > > > > > fe80::207:95ff:fed5:2fda: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.256 ms 64
> > > > &
t; > > > > time=0.205 ms 64 bytes from fe80::207:95ff:fed5:2fda:
> > > > > icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.201 ms 64 bytes from
> > > > > fe80::207:95ff:fed5:2fda: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.256 ms 64
> > > > > bytes from fe80::207:95ff
icmp_seq=5 ttl=64
> > > > time=0.199 ms
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > HTH!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:55:38 +0200
> > > > Julien b wrote:
> &g
> > > ttl=64 time=0.199 ms
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > HTH!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:55:38 +0200
> > > Julien b wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everybody
> &
n Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:55:38 +0200
> Julien b wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody
> >
> > I'm very new to lists.debian.org so please appologize if I am doing
> > something wrong by sending this email. I'm just out of idea with a
> > behavior in NDP and m
or in NDP and must find a solution. I didn't find anything on
> the internet.
>
> RFC4861 section 7.2.2 says that the source address in NDP neighbor
> solicitations can be any one of the addresses assigned to the
> interface. It also says that using the prompting packet's sourc
Hello everybody
I'm very new to lists.debian.org so please appologize if I am doing
something wrong by sending this email. I'm just out of idea with a behavior
in NDP and must find a solution. I didn't find anything on the internet.
RFC4861 section 7.2.2 says that the source
> had with the package in stable (i.e. the reason an update would be
> useful).
So something like:
"Integrity/authenticity of linux_3.2.57-3+deb7u2.dsc could not be
verified because of missing key, RSA ID 1343CF44, in d-k."
?
I would have thought that my statement on
$ dpkg-source
On Vi, 13 iun 14, 14:10:12, Simon Hollenbach wrote:
>
> I just filed a wishlist bug for this:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=751480
> I felt like not needing to explain the request in great lengths, if
> anyone of you can contribute further information, I would really
> appr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 13/06/2014 12:44, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 13 iun 14, 12:07:00, Simon Hollenbach wrote:
>> I am asking myself why the updated debian-keyring package is not
>> available from wheezy-backports repository. Can someone shed some
>> light on thi
On Vi, 13 iun 14, 12:07:00, Simon Hollenbach wrote:
> On 12/06/2014 21:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Matthias Großmann wrote:
> >> after downloading the most recent linux source package for wheezy
> >> on my wheezy system, I noticed that dpkg
On 12/06/2014 21:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Matthias Großmann wrote:
>> after downloading the most recent linux source package for wheezy
>> on my wheezy system, I noticed that dpkg-source fails to verify its
>> signature:
> [...]
>> I would
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Matthias Großmann wrote:
> after downloading the most recent linux source package for wheezy
> on my wheezy system, I noticed that dpkg-source fails to verify its
> signature:
[...]
> I would expect everything required to verify packages in wheezy to be
> inc
Hi All,
after downloading the most recent linux source package for wheezy
on my wheezy system, I noticed that dpkg-source fails to verify its
signature:
$ dpkg-source -x linux_3.2.57-3+deb7u2.dsc
gpgv: Signature made Thu Jun 5 10:38:20 2014 CEST using RSA key ID 1343CF44
gpgv: Can't
On 5/18/14, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> You get the world you consent to.
>
> Brother Zenaan, why do I hear "Unmarked Helicopters" by Soul Coughing
> when these kind of issues spring up?? It's on YouTube, you'll love it!
:)
Thanks Ric, and Curt, and S
Scott Ferguson writes:
> No - you didn't. Please learn to read and stop spreading more rubbish
> (or just go back to setting fire to cats and winos).
>
Good lord Scott, we're getting a bit wild here aren't we... hehe.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
On 2014-05-17, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>
>> "censure"? Did we miss something? Ric
>
> Yes :)
>
> Some more riveting moments... on ... Come on Down Debian .. have we
> got some fun for you tonight.
I never know what the hell you're talking about.
:-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-req
http://xkcd.com/386/
/raffaele
On 5/17/14, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 08:55 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>> Okay, I take it back.
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>> Scott, you're not adding anything to the conversation, either.
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Scott Ferguson
>>> wrote:
[som
Heh. If you missed my sarcasm below, more power to you.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 08:55 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>> Okay, I take it back.
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>>
>>> Scott, you're not adding anything to the conversation,
On 05/16/2014 08:55 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
Okay, I take it back.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Scott, you're not adding anything to the conversation, either.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Scott Ferguson
wrote:
[something about something called "Fffflash" that may or may
Okay, I take it back.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> Scott, you're not adding anything to the conversation, either.
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Scott Ferguson
> wrote:
>> [something about something called "Fffflash" that may or may not be relevant
>> to something]
Scott, you're not adding anything to the conversation, either.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Scott Ferguson
wrote:
> [something about something called "Fffflash" that may or may not be relevant
> to something]
--
Joel Rees
Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.
On 2014-05-15 22:02, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 16/05/14 05:53, Eelis wrote:
On 2014-05-15 21:49, Scott Ferguson wrote:
From the page you started this scare campaign with:-
"Mozilla will distribute the sandbox alongside Firefox, and we are
working on deterministic builds[*1] that will allow dev
>>>> encrypted by the plugin. *If* you choose to install it (and why
>>>>>> would you?).
>>>>>
>>>>> The article talks about "preventing users from saving the content".
>>>>> That's content that the closed-so
On 16/05/14 05:53, Eelis wrote:
> On 2014-05-15 21:49, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> From the page you started this scare campaign with:-
>> "Mozilla will distribute the sandbox alongside Firefox, and we are
>> working on deterministic builds[*1] that will allow developers to use a
>> sandbox compiled
On 16/05/14 05:51, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Scott Ferguson
> wrote:
>> (sigh, it's 5:30am here, I'm tired)
>
> Ditto here. I have to say, this debate is somewhat interesting,
It shouldn't be a debate. Debating DRM in Iceweasel is like debating
gravity - the occup
* are only restricted in how you can *playback* media
encrypted by the plugin. *If* you choose to install it (and why
would you?).
The article talks about "preventing users from saving the content".
That's content that the closed-source CDM plugin decrypted and passed
on to Firefo
#x27;s a sandbox. The sandbox restricts the close
>>>> plugin. *You* are only restricted in how you can *playback* media
>>>> encrypted by the plugin. *If* you choose to install it (and why
>>>> would you?).
>>>
>>> The article talks about
On 2014-05-15 21:49, Scott Ferguson wrote:
From the page you started this scare campaign with:-
"Mozilla will distribute the sandbox alongside Firefox, and we are
working on deterministic builds[*1] that will allow developers to use a
sandbox compiled on their own machine with the CDM as an alte
On 16/05/14 05:29, Eelis wrote:
> On 2014-05-15 20:35, Eelis wrote:
>> On 2014-05-15 20:27, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> Mozilla will be shipping an Open Source sandbox for the plugin.
>>
>> Ah yes, that's also an interesting point, because one of the blog pos
. *If* you choose to install it (and why
would you?).
The article talks about "preventing users from saving the content".
That's content that the closed-source CDM plugin decrypted and passed
on to Firefox, isn't it?
Yes.
(sigh, it's 5:30am here, I'm tired)
Perh
>> encrypted by the plugin. *If* you choose to install it (and why
>> would you?).
>
> The article talks about "preventing users from saving the content".
> That's content that the closed-source CDM plugin decrypted and passed
> on to Firefox, isn't it?
On 2014-05-15 20:35, Eelis wrote:
On 2014-05-15 20:27, Scott Ferguson wrote:
Mozilla will be shipping an Open Source sandbox for the plugin.
Ah yes, that's also an interesting point, because one of the blog posts
says:
“Adobe and the content industry can audit our sandbox (as it is
On 16/05/14 04:51, Eelis wrote:
> On 2014-05-15 20:48, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 16/05/14 04:35, Eelis wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-15 20:27, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>> Mozilla will be shipping an Open Source sandbox for the plugin.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, that
On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:12:23 +0200
Eelis wrote:
Hello Eelis,
>it open source software if during runtime it starts downloading and
>running binary blobs from Adobe? :/
It (Firefox/Iceweasel) will already do that, if you let it (viz: flash).
I've not read any of the relevant ar
On 2014-05-15 20:48, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 16/05/14 04:35, Eelis wrote:
On 2014-05-15 20:27, Scott Ferguson wrote:
Mozilla will be shipping an Open Source sandbox for the plugin.
Ah yes, that's also an interesting point, because one of the blog posts
says:
“Adobe and the co
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Eelis wrote:
>
> I read[1] that Firefox will start shipping parts for which they won't
> provide the source code (something to do with DRM..). Can I trust that
> Iceweasel will remain open source, or will I have to switch to Lynx if I
> want t
On 16/05/14 04:35, Eelis wrote:
> On 2014-05-15 20:27, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> Mozilla will be shipping an Open Source sandbox for the plugin.
>
> Ah yes, that's also an interesting point, because one of the blog posts
> says:
>
> “Adobe and the content industry
On 16/05/14 04:29, Eelis wrote:
> Wow, you're a very angry person.. :(
Not usually.
Oh, and what sort of person do you call someone who claims to have read
things that weren't written? Someone with good intentions?
>
> On 2014-05-15 20:27, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 16/05/14 03:51, Eelis wrote
On 2014-05-15 20:27, Scott Ferguson wrote:
Mozilla will be shipping an Open Source sandbox for the plugin.
Ah yes, that's also an interesting point, because one of the blog posts
says:
“Adobe and the content industry can audit our sandbox (as it is open
source) to assure themselves
On 16/05/14 04:12, Eelis wrote:
> Ah, thanks for the clarification! But now I'm confused; in what sense is
> it open source software if during runtime it starts downloading and
> running binary blobs from Adobe? :/
The plugin is separate, it doesn't change the code for Firefo
On 16/05/14 04:00, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 15/05/14 01:51 PM, Eelis wrote:
>> I read[1] that Firefox will start shipping parts for which they won't
>> provide the source code (something to do with DRM..). Can I trust that
>> Iceweasel will remain open source, or will I have
care campaign - what the article
*actually* says is that the closed source bits will *not* be shipped by
Mozilla - they are a plugin from, like most plugins, a third-source.
Like Fffflash.
And just like Fffflash you don't have to install it unless you have a
compelling reason (whatever you define a
Ah, thanks for the clarification! But now I'm confused; in what sense is
it open source software if during runtime it starts downloading and
running binary blobs from Adobe? :/
On 2014-05-15 20:09, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2014-05-15 19:51 +0200, Eelis wrote:
I read[1] that Firefox will
On 2014-05-15 19:51 +0200, Eelis wrote:
> I read[1] that Firefox will start shipping parts for which they won't
> provide the source code (something to do with DRM..).
You read incorrectly, here is the relevant part from [1]:
,
| As plugins today, the CDM itself will be distribut
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 07:51:09PM +0200, Eelis wrote:
> I read[1] that Firefox will start shipping parts for which they
> won't provide the source code (something to do with DRM..). Can I
> trust that Iceweasel will remain open source, or will I have to
> switch to Lynx if I wa
On 15/05/14 01:51 PM, Eelis wrote:
I read[1] that Firefox will start shipping parts for which they won't
provide the source code (something to do with DRM..). Can I trust that
Iceweasel will remain open source, or will I have to switch to Lynx if
I want to use an open source br
I read[1] that Firefox will start shipping parts for which they won't
provide the source code (something to do with DRM..). Can I trust that
Iceweasel will remain open source, or will I have to switch to Lynx if I
want to use an open source browser? :)
Cheers,
Eelis
[1]
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:16:32PM +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Thanks for your replies.
No problem, glad I could help.
> I guess I'll have to submit some reports, for example that the man
> does not says explicitly the order of the arguments. I'll do some
> other tries before t
Le 30.04.2014 00:01, Tom Furie a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 05:00:03PM +0100, Tom Furie wrote:
The URI needs to be the last element of the command. You will find
most
of the required files if you mount the iso and pass the mount point
with
--scan, passing the iso file finds 0 files. Usi
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 05:00:03PM +0100, Tom Furie wrote:
> The URI needs to be the last element of the command. You will find most
> of the required files if you mount the iso and pass the mount point with
> --scan, passing the iso file finds 0 files. Using --scan causes jigdo to
> not ask for f
601 - 700 of 4656 matches
Mail list logo
