Bonjour,
Ce message est envoyé automatiquement suite au mail que vous avez
adressé au service Facturation de FreeTelecom
"information".
Vous n'avez pas besoin de répondre à ce message maintenant.
Nous avons attribué le numéro d'identification [freetelecom.fr #1698607]
à votre demande.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality
>> it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality
>> that pure
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:15:02 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think the Technical Committee is mostly not working because of its
> current members; this is related to the structure of the Technical
> Committee and the way members are appointed.
I see. As a tech ctte
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> close to being free it was at the time.
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> > My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> > about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> > share that vision unabashedly with anyon
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:33:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/
And which distribution does that user use now? G
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot.
Indeed, it's almost a tradition...
-Miles
--
"I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task."
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:33:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/
And which distribution does that user use now? G
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
> >>wrote:
> >>>[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
> >>>a thread i
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits
> saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward
> assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*.
Uh, no, it's not: it's a stra
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous.
The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive
way of having a conversation.
> For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot.
Indeed, it's almost a tradition...
-Miles
--
"I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task."
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous. For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns is wrong" should
> probably have read "Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong" -- which
> simply uses Anthony'
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't make me laugh... the extent of the acceptance and enforcement of the
> mailing list code of conduct is common knowledge.
Sure, but we have recently identified and discussed that many people
would like Debian to be more welcoming to people who have h
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without
causing
problems.
Is it
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>>[...] Avoiding making ind
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits
> saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward
> assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*.
Uh, no, it's not: it's a stra
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous.
The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive
way of having a conversation.
> For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns i
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous. For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns is wrong" should
> probably have read "Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong" -- which
> simply uses Anthony'
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:22:15 +0100, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
>> wrote:
>> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem
>> >
On 08 Mar 2004 13:49:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
>> wrote:
>> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > It's impossible to enforce a "STFU about it" option.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > similarly, it's impossib
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just ret
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
> wrote:
>> -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
> >
> > i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if
> > you don't like some of th
On 10 Mar 2004 11:25:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Necessary for what purpose?
> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity. I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> fo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's
> debatable, but the "let's make everything better for the meek" program
> just isn't relevant to it.
Debatable? The mailing list policy prohibits swearing.
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > something about it - unfortunate
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> > > trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
> > If so, it's not intentional, and pl
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't make me laugh... the extent of the acceptance and enforcement of the
> mailing list code of conduct is common knowledge.
Sure, but we have recently identified and discussed that many people
would like Debian to be more welcoming to people who have h
Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the
> lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Do the Debian list managers enforce this policy, or is it merely a
wish?
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to
> complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to
> complain about your pedantic idiocy.
Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic.
But rega
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> > personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> > Mr Troup" or "Why A
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over
> the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy.
I don't doubt that -- I'm definitely ranking you above the default option.
But, I still have
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:22:15 +0100, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
>> wrote:
>> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem
>> >
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:06:52PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I think what the Technical Committee should be doing is rather well
> explained in the Constituion. As I said, I think the Technical
> Committee should be a fall-back rather than a general-purpose solution
> - most issues should b
On 08 Mar 2004 13:49:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
>> wrote:
>> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > It's impossible to enforce a "STFU about it" option.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > similarly, it's impossib
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
> wrote:
>> -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
> >
> > i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if
> > you don't like some of th
On 10 Mar 2004 11:25:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Necessary for what purpose?
> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity. I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> fo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's
> debatable, but the "let's make everything better for the meek" program
> just isn't relevant to it.
Debatable? The mailing list policy prohibits swearing.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > something about it - unfortunate
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 14:23]:
> So... what is it that you think the technical committee should be doing?
>
> Also, why do you think it should be the technical committee doing these
> things?
I think what the Technical Committee should be doing is rather well
explained in t
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> > > trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
>
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 13:52]:
> But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and
> drive.
>
> That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you.
I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over
the last years. You'll se
Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the
> lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Do the Debian list managers enforce this policy, or is it merely a
wish?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to
> complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to
> complain about your pedantic idiocy.
Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic.
But rega
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:22:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > > something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> > >
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:15:02PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I think the Technical Committee is mostly not working because of its
> current members; this is related to the structure of the Technical
> Committee and the way members are appointed. As I have argued in
> another posting, I don'
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> > personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> > Mr Troup" or "Why A
* Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 23:42]:
> Your platform[3] contains a lot of references to your organisational
> skills and your people skills. I appreciate that last year you
> attended a lot of conferences too. You *do* mention transparency
> and accountability as well, but y
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 00:14, Craig Sanders wrote:
> but i forget - certain words in the English language are allegedly beyond the
> pale, they are a magically perfect excuse for ignoring the actual substance of
> what someone has to say and to instead concentrate on whining about a few
> choice wo
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has
> significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first
> place? I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me
> as approachable
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over
> the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy.
I don't doubt that -- I'm definitely ranking you above the default option.
But, I still have
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:06:52PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I think what the Technical Committee should be doing is rather well
> explained in the Constituion. As I said, I think the Technical
> Committee should be a fall-back rather than a general-purpose solution
> - most issues should b
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> share that vision unabashedly with anyone who will listen.
>
> What I'm seeing (again) from the two mainstream ca
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> to persuade more people to avoid silently "idling out" by
> threatening some sort of denigrated sta
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 00:57]:
> In fact, Martin criticized me last year for not having novel ideas:
[..]
> Note that he didn't say he thought they were bad ideas; instead he
> asserted that I would be ineffective at achieving them.
Yes, and I still assert the same. As
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 14:23]:
> So... what is it that you think the technical committee should be doing?
>
> Also, why do you think it should be the technical committee doing these
> things?
I think what the Technical Committee should be doing is rather well
explained in t
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 13:52]:
> But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and
> drive.
>
> That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you.
I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over
the last years. You'll se
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:22:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > > something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> > >
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 20:34]:
> And you seriously thing that a non-free.org, being setup by debian
> people in the wake of the non-free removal vote, will not be
> considered as having official endorsement, especially given the
> opinion of at least two of the three DPL cand
* Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 14:19]:
> Do you think Debian should work more pro-activelly in supporting
> free hardware initiatives? Do you think Debian money could be
> invested in such initiatives? What, if elected, you plan to do with
> respect to bringind Debian close
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 22:16]:
> wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
>
> Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
> inactivity, for which a maintainer should be excluded from the
> Project? Should we think about
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong". But you don't seem interested
> in doing anyt
hi ted, craig,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Craig,
> Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of
> discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that
> they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> wrong. i will say what i please when i please.
Which pretty much adresses your point about getting people to STFU.
--
Raul
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:15:02PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I think the Technical Committee is mostly not working because of its
> current members; this is related to the structure of the Technical
> Committee and the way members are appointed. As I have argued in
> another posting, I don'
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
> >things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
> >thread is both more obnoxious, an
* Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 23:42]:
> Your platform[3] contains a lot of references to your organisational
> skills and your people skills. I appreciate that last year you
> attended a lot of conferences too. You *do* mention transparency
> and accountability as well, but y
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 00:14, Craig Sanders wrote:
> but i forget - certain words in the English language are allegedly beyond the
> pale, they are a magically perfect excuse for ignoring the actual substance of
> what someone has to say and to instead concentrate on whining about a few
> choice wo
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has
> significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first
> place? I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me
> as approachable
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying
> and outrageously abusive language.
No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null.
--
- mdz
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> share that vision unabashedly with anyone who will listen.
>
> What I'm seeing (again) from the two mainstream ca
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> to persuade more people to avoid silently "idling out" by
> threatening some sort of denigrated sta
Hallo, Andy
Thank You for Your kind and patient answer. I'll think about
possibilities of trying testing release.
It couldn't harm if there'll be some easier-to-install, quite functional
testing, however :o)
The most problems I have had were: freezing installer, unresolvable ways
of installe
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 00:57]:
> In fact, Martin criticized me last year for not having novel ideas:
[..]
> Note that he didn't say he thought they were bad ideas; instead he
> asserted that I would be ineffective at achieving them.
Yes, and I still assert the same. As
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
>
> i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you
> don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a
> life.
Craig,
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 20:34]:
> And you seriously thing that a non-free.org, being setup by debian
> people in the wake of the non-free removal vote, will not be
> considered as having official endorsement, especially given the
> opinion of at least two of the three DPL cand
* Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 14:19]:
> Do you think Debian should work more pro-activelly in supporting
> free hardware initiatives? Do you think Debian money could be
> invested in such initiatives? What, if elected, you plan to do with
> respect to bringind Debian close
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 22:16]:
> wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
>
> Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
> inactivity, for which a maintainer should be excluded from the
> Project? Should we think about
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong". But you don't seem interested
> in doing anyt
hi ted, craig,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Craig,
> Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of
> discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that
> they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> wrong. i will say what i please when i please.
Which pretty much adresses your point about getting people to STFU.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
> >things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
> >thread is both
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying
> and outrageously abusive language.
No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Hallo, Andy
Thank You for Your kind and patient answer. I'll think about
possibilities of trying testing release.
It couldn't harm if there'll be some easier-to-install, quite functional
testing, however :o)
The most problems I have had were: freezing installer, unresolvable ways
of installer
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
>
> i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you
> don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life.
Craig,
I
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not
> promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM
> procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an
> NM-for-non-free.org process would have to g
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore? Is anyone willing to
> say it's necessary? And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?
It's necessary for Asterisk music-on-hold, because mpg321 can't resample its
output. The
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not
> promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM
> procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an
> NM-for-non-free.org process would have to g
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to
> make the "meek" feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up.
Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek.
If some
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> > pedantic froth
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
things
unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
thread
is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems.
Is it really signifi
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:18:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> >personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems
> >with
> >Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
