Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yes, bullying happens too. but meekness happens whether there is any actual
> bullying or not.
Meekness isn't harmful, nor does it ever justify your bullying.
Thomas
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > meekness isn't about bullying.
> >
> > it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> > it is a disability which varies in severity from
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yes, bullying happens too. but meekness happens whether there is any actual
> bullying or not.
Meekness isn't harmful, nor does it ever justify your bullying.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > meekness isn't about bullying.
> >
> > it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> > it is a disability which varies in severity from
Anthony Towns writes:
> How come the keep non-free advocates seem to have to do everything?
They don't. This is Debian. Nobody has to do anything.
Anthony Towns writes:
> You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good
> because it's the current system.
I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost. Sven
sounded like he was saying that at some point it would be the right
time to change, but not now.
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate
> non-free.org archive?
Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's
different.
> What does it change in
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So that does mean, that this argument is not one you (and Mj Ray) think
> are the reason for moving non-free out of the debian archive ?
It might or might not happen that way. I believe that non-free should
be removed from Debian regardless. I've told
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, failing arguments, you play with words, how usual of this thread.
Huh? No, I said what the changes would be, and they are very
important changes to me. They are not important to you perhaps, but
it is true that they are important to me.
And it is
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Is this just a game to you?
>
> I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ende
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How come the keep non-free advocates seem to have to do everything?
They don't. This is Debian. Nobody has to do anything.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good
> because it's the current system.
I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost. Sven
sounded like he was saying that at some point it would be the right
time to cha
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate
> non-free.org archive?
Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's
different.
> What does it change in
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So that does mean, that this argument is not one you (and Mj Ray) think
> are the reason for moving non-free out of the debian archive ?
It might or might not happen that way. I believe that non-free should
be removed from Debian regardless. I've told
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, failing arguments, you play with words, how usual of this thread.
Huh? No, I said what the changes would be, and they are very
important changes to me. They are not important to you perhaps, but
it is true that they are important to me.
And it is
#include
* MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]:
> Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers,
> or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting
> their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on
> our ftp archive to those wh
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Is this just a game to you?
>
> I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ende
#include
* MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]:
> Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers,
> or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting
> their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on
> our ftp archive to those wh
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:31:42PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
[lots of partially amusing but mostly silly text snipped]
> Ooooh! There's another idea! We can feed Gone with the Wind (iirc that
> was the title), th script of Titanic and other stuff to a megahal, put a
> tama frontend on it, dress i
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:31:42PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
[lots of partially amusing but mostly silly text snipped]
> Ooooh! There's another idea! We can feed Gone with the Wind (iirc that
> was the title), th script of Titanic and other stuff to a megahal, put a
> tama frontend on it, dress i
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 01:36]:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; and
> helix tells me that this is how they are treated all the time
[...]
> However, #debian on irc.deb
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
> >that
> >that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
> >their licence.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> > with it:
> >
> > "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. ...
...
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments.
If it's true tha
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> > babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> with it:
>
>
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 01:36]:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; and
> helix tells me that this is how they are treated all the time
[...]
> However, #debian on irc.deb
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:18:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Or if it is clear that upstream is not going to change, have the
> possibility to remove it from our archive in retaliation (as is the
> case with the adobe package Branden mentioned a few weeks ago).
Dude, the adobe packages got remov
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:48:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But if you would have read the rest of my post, or my other mails, you
> > would know that i advocate a case by case schedule for this to happen.
>
> I don't understand. I'm aski
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:54:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I will most assuredly consider doing that. And i maintain one of the
> > most non-free packages that can be. One of the seven or so binary-only
> > kernel modules, which is a thing
[Andrew Suffield]
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
"Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we
have an oran
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:34:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out
> of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something
> more than a fiction to make you non-free removal advocate happy ? Do you
> really believe
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:53:30AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One of the main argument, used by Branden if i remember well, was that
> > removing non-free from the debian infrastructure would force authors of
> > non-free packages to revise t
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:52:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The response is easy: it won't have our name on it anymore, and we
> > > won't be devoting our resources to its support.
> >
> > Which ressources ? Assuredly not the small time
> Please at least quote the post you are responding to. You don't seem to
> have the proper headers set, at least mutt is not able to thread your
> posting. Thus, I am completely unable to tell what you are talking
> about.
> Michael
my bad, i was using a rather crippled mailer, and not my usual
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:45:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this
> > > isn't it. You are saying that any time a maint
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:23:29AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Honest question: Did any unecessary/obsolete package get removed from
> non-free since the beginning of this debate in november?
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December.
dqs was removed on the request o
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
> >that
> >that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
> >their licence.
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That may be true. However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
> to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
> you seem to be asking for.
By no means would I ever say that the evidence isn't forthcoming.
I've seen it
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
> more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
> action based on your guess - go ahe
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
> similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
> result. And even to take action based on that assumption. Or do you
> always wait for perfect information befo
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> > with it:
> >
> > "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. ...
...
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will most assuredly consider doing that. And i maintain one of the
> most non-free packages that can be. One of the seven or so binary-only
> kernel modules, which is a thing _i_ consider evil, and a threat to all
> what debian represents in the long run
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments.
If it's true tha
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if you would have read the rest of my post, or my other mails, you
> would know that i advocate a case by case schedule for this to happen.
I don't understand. I'm asking "when is it appropriate to shut down
support for the non-free archive on Debian
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the main argument, used by Branden if i remember well, was that
> removing non-free from the debian infrastructure would force authors of
> non-free packages to revise their licence, or users to consider
> alternatives.
>
> Exactly in what way does
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The response is easy: it won't have our name on it anymore, and we
> > won't be devoting our resources to its support.
>
> Which ressources ? Assuredly not the small time the ftp-masters pass on
> it ? Assuredly not the minimal bandwidth requirement ?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org;
> 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through
>the new maintainer process;
> 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages,
>
> Some here claim that #1 is trivial to repl
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> > haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
> I consider this a good idea, yes. Thanks for that proposal.
Why do you think it's a good id
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this
> > isn't it. You are saying that any time a maintainer wants to put a
> > non-free package on the Debian server, this should b
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> > babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> with it:
>
>
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:09AM +, simon raven wrote:
> name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point,
> otherwise, instead of making up these weird arguments against
> something, how about partitcipating in the discussion instead of
> making up a totally irrelevant one?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:48:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Don't trivialise "on debian.org" to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry
> though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is
> quality control such as
>
> 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org;
> 2. Developers ve
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's take two examples :
>
> netscape : it was in non-free a long time ago, and since the advance
> of mozilla and the other free browser, i believe it reached a point
> where we could sanely say that there is no use for the ol
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040305 16:40]:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orph
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:18:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Or if it is clear that upstream is not going to change, have the
> possibility to remove it from our archive in retaliation (as is the
> case with the adobe package Branden mentioned a few weeks ago).
Dude, the adobe packages got remov
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:48:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But if you would have read the rest of my post, or my other mails, you
> > would know that i advocate a case by case schedule for this to happen.
>
> I don't understand. I'm aski
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:54:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I will most assuredly consider doing that. And i maintain one of the
> > most non-free packages that can be. One of the seven or so binary-only
> > kernel modules, which is a thing
[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix. I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel
name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point, otherwise,
instead of
making up these weird arguments against something, how about partitcipating in
the
discussion instead of making up a totally irrelevant one?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> > where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> > for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
[Andrew Suffield]
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
"Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we
have an oran
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:34:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out
> of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something
> more than a fiction to make you non-free removal advocate happy ? Do you
> really believe
[Andrew Suffield]
> Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> been
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:53:30AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One of the main argument, used by Branden if i remember well, was that
> > removing non-free from the debian infrastructure would force authors of
> > non-free packages to revise t
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:39:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
> >
> > Yes, very clever. And also very silly. When collated in large
> > numbers, anecdotes _do_ become data -- ask any psychologist or
> > sociologist.
>
> No, I refuse to accept
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:52:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The response is easy: it won't have our name on it anymore, and we
> > > won't be devoting our resources to its support.
> >
> > Which ressources ? Assuredly not the small time
> Please at least quote the post you are responding to. You don't seem to
> have the proper headers set, at least mutt is not able to thread your
> posting. Thus, I am completely unable to tell what you are talking
> about.
> Michael
my bad, i was using a rather crippled mailer, and not my usual
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:06:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
> >> > women in male do
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:26:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:58:03 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> > On Fri
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:23:29AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Honest question: Did any unecessary/obsolete package get removed from
> non-free since the beginning of this debate in november?
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December.
dqs was removed on the request o
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:45:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this
> > > isn't it. You are saying th
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That may be true. However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
> to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
> you seem to be asking for.
By no means would I ever say that the evidence isn't forthcoming.
I've seen it
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
> more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
> action based on your guess - go ahe
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
> similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
> result. And even to take action based on that assumption. Or do you
> always wait for perfect information befo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will most assuredly consider doing that. And i maintain one of the
> most non-free packages that can be. One of the seven or so binary-only
> kernel modules, which is a thing _i_ consider evil, and a threat to all
> what debian represents in the long run
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if you would have read the rest of my post, or my other mails, you
> would know that i advocate a case by case schedule for this to happen.
I don't understand. I'm asking "when is it appropriate to shut down
support for the non-free archive on Debian
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the main argument, used by Branden if i remember well, was that
> removing non-free from the debian infrastructure would force authors of
> non-free packages to revise their licence, or users to consider
> alternatives.
>
> Exactly in what way does
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The response is easy: it won't have our name on it anymore, and we
> > won't be devoting our resources to its support.
>
> Which ressources ? Assuredly not the small time the ftp-masters pass on
> it ? Assuredly not the minimal bandwidth requirement ?
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
> > very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
> > we have a reason t
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org;
> 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through
>the new maintainer process;
> 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages,
>
> Some here claim that #1 is trivial to repl
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> > haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
> I consider this a good idea, yes. Thanks for that proposal.
Why do you think it's a good id
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:08:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, as you all know i have upto now be mostly a proponent of the keep
> > non-free camp, because, altough i fully would prefer every software in
> > debian to be free, i feel tha
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this
> > isn't it. You are saying that any time a maintainer wants to put a
> > non-free package on the Debian se
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:41:36PM -0800, David Schleef wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:05:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Additional developers, such as myself, would be willing to work
> > > on non-free packages, *provided that they are outside of Debian*.
> >
> > Why ? And why do you n
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:23:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And more to the point, what would be the benefit to debian and the
> > free/open/whatever community, since the main point is that these
> > non-free packages are evil ?
>
> No, th
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:21:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would be really interested in your response to the part of my post you
> > silently skipped, namely :
> >
> > Sure, but please tell me, if we are going to move non-free stuff
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:09AM +, simon raven wrote:
> name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point,
> otherwise, instead of making up these weird arguments against
> something, how about partitcipating in the discussion instead of
> making up a totally irrelevant one?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:48:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Don't trivialise "on debian.org" to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry
> though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is
> quality control such as
>
> 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org;
> 2. Developers ve
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's take two examples :
>
> netscape : it was in non-free a long time ago, and since the advance
> of mozilla and the other free browser, i believe it reached a point
> where we could sanely say that there is no use for the ol
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040305 16:40]:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > > duties and don't follow documented pr
[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix. I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel
name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point, otherwise, instead
of
making up these weird arguments against something, how about partitcipating in the
discussion instead of making up a totally irrelevant one?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject o
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> > where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> > for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:16:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Do you believe instead that their stated willingness to contribute
> automatically justifies risking the QA/MIA workload associated with
> cleaning up after the developer if they disappear again?
No, I think we need to be able to
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this
> isn't it. You are saying that any time a maintainer wants to put a
> non-free package on the Debian server, this should be possible. You
> are proposing
[Andrew Suffield]
> Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> been
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:39:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
> >
> > Yes, very clever. And also very silly. When collated in large
> > numbers, anecdotes _do_ become data -- ask any psychologist or
> > sociologist.
>
> No, I refuse to accept
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:08:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:30:48PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> > The problem is not that user consider debian or not, it is that some
> > of them need non-free.
>
> The question is not whether users need non-free or not, but whether
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
