On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.
False. The minimum discu
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
>
> I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
> you should spot them.
>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.
False. The minimum discu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?
An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has
been exceeded, in the (bit over
On 2004-01-09 03:05:23 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
If nonfree.org *will* happen, then the hypothetical benefits to our
users
due to more work happening on free software because of the lack of
non-free
software aren't going to come to pass.
I don't think that conclusion follows.
And by con
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?
An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has
been exceeded, in the (bit over
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of
> the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I
> believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to
> the question "what wil
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
> >
> > Ah, co
On 2004-01-09 03:05:23 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If nonfree.org *will* happen, then the hypothetical benefits to our
users
due to more work happening on free software because of the lack of
non-free
software aren't going to come to pass.
I don't think that conclusion follow
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
>
> Ah, come on craig.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of
> the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I
> believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to
> the question "what wil
On 2004-01-09 01:58:46 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand,
suggest
nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other
hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical,
even though it supports the ar
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
> >
> > Ah, co
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
> decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
> proving it is possible, and thus towards defeating their own preference.
Huh? Why do you t
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
>
> Ah, come on craig.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > > super major
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> > that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it."
> It's totally inadequate evidence, but ne
On 2004-01-09 01:58:46 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand,
suggest
nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other
hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical,
even though i
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
but you did make a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
> decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
> proving it is possible, and thus towards defeating their own preference.
Huh? Why do you t
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [...]
Dear PedantBot 2004,
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
craig
ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly te
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > > super major
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> > that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it."
> It's totally inadequate evidence, but ne
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
but you did make a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [...]
Dear PedantBot 2004,
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
craig
ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly te
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, I wrote:
> By "insincere ballot option" I mean an option which does not represent
> the true preference of the people proposing it.
Actually, I meant a bit more than that -- I meant an option which not
only doesn't represent the true preference of the peop
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a
> complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you
are not telepathic).
Un
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:05:52PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Sorry, "insincere ballot options" doesn't parse. Insincere voting
> refers to the process of strategically ranking options on a ballot in a
> way that does not correspond to the voter's true preference. You must
> be using the word
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:57:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > That's where we address things like "what's the point"?
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
> > supposed to be used as a filibuster
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:07:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?
I don't know about you, but I need to get myself non-production machine
set up before I can even test the in
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> It says it doesn't support all the various RAR formats yet, but with
> a little work I assume it could become a fully adequate alternative to
> the unrar in non-free (unless RAR is patent-encumbered, of course).
I believe that th
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> > on the det
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, I wrote:
> By "insincere ballot option" I mean an option which does not represent
> the true preference of the people proposing it.
Actually, I meant a bit more than that -- I meant an option which not
only doesn't represent the true preference of the peop
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a
> complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you
are not telepathic).
Un
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's your definition of a "problem"?
In this context
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
> > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved
> > that."
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:05:52PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Sorry, "insincere ballot options" doesn't parse. Insincere voting
> refers to the process of strategically ranking options on a ballot in a
> way that does not correspond to the voter's true preference. You must
> be using the word
> > Also, are any of the java packages actually distributed by Debian? I
> > thought there were legal issues that prevented even non-free
> > distribution (though j2re/sdk packages are available elsewhere).
>
> Excellent points. No, acroread is not in non-free. j2re1.4 also is
> not, nor is j2d
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:57:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > That's where we address things like "what's the point"?
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
> > supposed to be used as a filibuster
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system
> I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue.
> At the moment, it's "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out
> and shot." [I'm relaying a sent
* Steve Langasek
> Of course, tar and unzip are no substitute for unrar.
* John Goerzen
> It, of course, depends on what you're doing, but yes, I realize that. I
> just tried to show a smattering of similar programs so people can
> compare.
>
> I was actually surprised at the popularity
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> than any of the other proposals?
What's your definition of a "problem"?
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian GN
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:10:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, I believe including rationale in the body of the resolution is
> sometimes important
I'm not sure this issue "Stop distributing non-free? (y/n)" is one of
those. In fact I'm pretty confident it isn't.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
> >already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
> >plain English. What's with the
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:38:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
Does that look like a quest
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
> >
> > On the one hand, it's much more co
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:07:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?
I don't know about you, but I need to get myself non-production machine
set up before I can even test the in
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> It says it doesn't support all the various RAR formats yet, but with
> a little work I assume it could become a fully adequate alternative to
> the unrar in non-free (unless RAR is patent-encumbered, of course).
I believe that th
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:11:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But that's not true. The practical consequences are many: Debian ceases
> supporting every non-free package, non-free maintainers have to setup their
> own archives, contrib becomes at best much harder to support well and at
> worst u
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> > shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
>
> Another instance is s
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
>
> Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
>
> On the one hand, it's much more cohesi
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> > on the det
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
> > > not support non-free.
>
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Well, not
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's your definition of a "problem"?
In this context
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:03:20AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > By the way, doc-rfc is an example of a package in non-free which is
> > useful to some people. If a person is doing network development, they're
> > likely to need this
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
> > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved
> > that."
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:00:59AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> If you want to change the status quo, convince the voters.
Maybe they're conviced already. Let's have the vote and see.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous
Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:13:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> > community. We will place their interests first in our
> > priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation
> > in many different
Le Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen écrivait:
> I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see RAR
> files used anywhere.
It's commonly used to distribute DivX or other big multimediua files
through NTTP (alt.binaries.*).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- ht
> > Also, are any of the java packages actually distributed by Debian? I
> > thought there were legal issues that prevented even non-free
> > distribution (though j2re/sdk packages are available elsewhere).
>
> Excellent points. No, acroread is not in non-free. j2re1.4 also is
> not, nor is j2d
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system
> I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue.
> At the moment, it's "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out
> and shot." [I'm relaying a sent
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
> RAR files used anywhere.
I believe they still in wide use as transport for games with, uhm,
"removed copy protection". At least one of my former flatmates had load
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:48:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can I ask what useful things you do for the Project, apart from serving
Yeah, but I've been largely offline for most of the past two years,
so most of what I did was pretty ancient.
Let's see... I documented dpkg-deb (and the fil
* Steve Langasek
> Of course, tar and unzip are no substitute for unrar.
* John Goerzen
> It, of course, depends on what you're doing, but yes, I realize that. I
> just tried to show a smattering of similar programs so people can
> compare.
>
> I was actually surprised at the popularity
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> than any of the other proposals?
What's your definition of a "problem"?
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian GN
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:10:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, I believe including rationale in the body of the resolution is
> sometimes important
I'm not sure this issue "Stop distributing non-free? (y/n)" is one of
those. In fact I'm pretty confident it isn't.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
> >already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
> >plain English. What's with the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:11:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> >I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin
> >non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over dropping
> >non-free seems to be about havi
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion,
> good enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is
> worth little.
It is your contention, then, that our Standard Resolution Procedure as
exerc
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >From the data, we can see that:
>
> > * The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
> >use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
>
> acroread is no longer distributable (or distributed), so shou
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That you appear not to have found any of them persuasive means neither
> that they weren't offered, nor that no one else found them compelling.
Actually, John Goerzen pointed out some of his to me.
However, his rationale seems to
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:38:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
Does that look like a quest
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
> > > recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You haven't made any proposa
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:51:36PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ?
>
> If yes, where can I get it ?
>
> In general I need only 'main', 'contrib' and 'non-US'
Yes, the full raw data is available
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr//popcon/
-- J
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
> >
> > On the one hand, it's much more co
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to
> my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
I, for one, share them, and wish I was as gifted with the keyboard to be
able to express them as
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:11:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But that's not true. The practical consequences are many: Debian ceases
> supporting every non-free package, non-free maintainers have to setup their
> own archives, contrib becomes at best much harder to support well and at
> worst u
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
> for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
> http).
Ahh, you shoul
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> > shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
>
> Another instance is s
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
> > replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work,
> > and I am not going to insist on that people write any software.
> >
> > On the other hand, t
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
>
> Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
>
> On the one hand, it's much more cohesi
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
> > > not support non-free.
>
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Well, not
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:03:20AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > By the way, doc-rfc is an example of a package in non-free which is
> > useful to some people. If a person is doing network development, they're
> > likely to need this
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:00:59AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> If you want to change the status quo, convince the voters.
Maybe they're conviced already. Let's have the vote and see.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous
Debian GNU/Linux
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
> > > [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
> > > think non-free is a t
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:13:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> > community. We will place their interests first in our
> > priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation
> > in many different
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
> >> Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
> >> infrastructures behind Debian "non-
Le Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen écrivait:
> I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see RAR
> files used anywhere.
It's commonly used to distribute DivX or other big multimediua files
through NTTP (alt.binaries.*).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- ht
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions
> > under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
>
> I confess I have to wonder how many pe
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
> for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
> http).
Thanks for und
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:16:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> One effect of removing non-free from Debian is that we can't use all the
> infrastructure we already have for non-free -- the archive, the BTS, the
> buildds, and everything else (our n-m process, the PTS, whatever). This
> means that
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
> RAR files used anywhere.
I believe they still in wide use as transport for games with, uhm,
"removed copy protection". At least one of my former flatmates had load
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:48:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can I ask what useful things you do for the Project, apart from serving
Yeah, but I've been largely offline for most of the past two years,
so most of what I did was pretty ancient.
Let's see... I documented dpkg-deb (and the fil
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
>
> > You seemed to cla
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
> replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work,
> and I am not going to insist on that people write any software.
>
> On the other hand, the recent
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:11:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> >I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin
> >non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over dropping
> >non-free seems to be about havi
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion,
> good enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is
> worth little.
It is your contention, then, that our Standard Resolution Procedure as
exerc
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >From the data, we can see that:
>
> > * The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
> >use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
>
> acroread is no longer distributable (or distributed), so shou
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
