Re: A possible GFDL compromise
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so angrily demanded by you. There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU Manifesto would still be freely available from the FSF website. Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a dictionary. Heh. Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom! Agree? GPL, section 3c, says exactly that - -- A computer without windoze is like a fish without a bicycle. Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who. Finger me for PGP public key. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE/Sx14+ZSKG3nWr3ARAnVKAJ4lRg0pupSAQyTG4f8i5rIH9IHIsACg4Gsp 5jahoMmGjxxEWdADOKntN4U= =zFjP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debconf or not debconf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Herbert Xu wrote: I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading hundreds of machines automatically. Would you prefer the old way of STDOUT with a hold prompt? - -- FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you! Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE/A0Hu+ZSKG3nWr3ARAl1SAJ0d8E9nrEwCIxduiWCYAaE6OOIDrQCgyUf3 FaRH2jyFLJrFgmStmomRV3s= =o3nt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:36:52PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: Because, at the time that we wrote it, non-free (in particular: PGP, ssh, Netscape, IIRC) was a much more important part of Debian than it is now. Those three sets of packages went from receiving extreme amounts of attention to being relegated to the junkpile. Why do you think that is? Because you evil bigoted zealots *KILLED* them! How did this killing happen? Certainly not by denying them space on Debian's servers. In fact, Mozilla killed Netscape because Netscape, Inc. got slammed by Microsoft in a denial of OS support play similar in some ways to what the GR proposes to do: make a partially incompatible version, then yank the carpet out from under the original. I once said that there was a special spot in Hell for the people who remove non-free: I guess that Hell in this case truly IS Redmond, WA. You bastards! /South Park -- Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: ITP: kernel-patch-selinux
First of all, I doubt that you're going to have too much trouble getting a response from SElinux. They've been pretty good on responding to their mailinglist: which, I might add, I see more than one Debian Developer has contributed to, yet you have not. It would behoove you to actually look as if you really cared before ITPing. Secondly, since Debian's warranty is no warranty, I fail to see how the expression of that in a license makes it non-free. Thirdly, isn't this a question for -legal? On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Russell Coker wrote: I intend to package the kernel patch for NSA Security Enhanced Linux. Below is all the details on licenses. My interpretation of the below license details (copied from the web site) is that the kernel patch is under the GPL and everything is fine. However is the issue about warranty exclusion etc which requires agreement before download going to force me to use non-free for my package? I know I could ask upstream for clarification of this issue, however the NSA takes a long time to prepare public statements, and I imagine that things will take longer now than they would have a few weeks ago... License statement from http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/license.html : All source code found on this site is released under the same terms and conditions as the original sources. For example, the patches to the Linux kernel, patches to many existing utilities, and new programs and libraries available here are released under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The patches to some existing utilities and libraries available here are released under the terms and conditions of the BSD license. I downloaded the patch from http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/src-disclaim.html which has the following disclaimer: Before downloading this software, you must accept the warranty exclusion and limitation of liability which appears below. WARRANTY EXCLUSION I expressly understand and agree that this software is a non-commercially developed program that may contain bugs (as that term is used in the industry) and that it may not function as intended. The software is licensed as is. NSA makes no, and hereby expressly disclaims all, warranties, express, implied, statutory, or otherwise with respect to the software, including noninfringement and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY In no event will NSA be liable for any damages, including loss of data, lost profits, cost of cover, or other special, incidental, consequential, direct or indirect damages arising from the software or the use thereof, however caused and on any theory of liability. This limitation will apply even if NSA has been advised of the possibility of such damage. I acknowledge that this is a reasonable allocation of risk. -- I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own decisions. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sox sucks !
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 02:37:55PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: Em Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:24:01 +0200 Eric Van Buggenhaut [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: Thanks to both of you (Dag Belgïe :) Fact is I didn't know about this option, it's documentation is totally hidden. Bug filed. hmmm I learned this option with a simple mpg123 --help... is it really hidden? btw, use mpg321 instead of mpg123 as mpg123 is non-free ;) [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ mpg321 --help 21 | grep wav --wav N or -w N Use wave file N for output []s! [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ mpg123 --help 21 |grep wav [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ -w filename write Output as WAV file case sensitive... :[ ! [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ mpg123 --longhelp 21 |grep wav -w f --wav f Writes samples as WAV file in f (- is stdout) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ Admit you have to know it ... -- The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done! a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a
Re: xplanet can use ssystem image file!
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 09:25:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
(no there aren't any Debian developpers on Mars (yet ?).)
One problem is that the maximum retransmission timeout in TCP isn't large
enough for a packet to the Mars...
RFC 1607 describes how to do it I think it's not due for at least
four more years.
;)
Marcus
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
Re: Making better use of multiple maintainers
How are things going to get better if new things like this aren't tried? It'll certainly knock out some issues in sponsorship and NM... If your only objections are those of the improbability of getting it to work, let Martin run with it and find out for hisself. On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Bugs could get fixed sooner since more people are working on the package. This would help us meeting our release goals. The Mythical Man Month, of which Debian is exemplary[0]. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow, of which Debian is also exemplary, is a another, prettier, way of saying men and months are interchangeable commodities only when a task can be partitioned among many workers *with no communication among them*. It doesn't mean throw more people at a problem and it will get solved faster. Your idea is practicable iff the group of maintainers actually communicate with each other, that is, the package is actually jointly maintained. Let me take two of my own packages as an example: * wmaker. It's not a complex package, but it operates under several different conditions (or enviroments) which are different enough from each other that makes it imposible for me to gain expertise in all of them (IOW, I don't use wmaker with GNOME, and it's very time consuming for me to try to figure out ways of reproducing bugs under those conditions, given the *absolutely* *wonderful* and *marvelous* documentation GNOME and its packages have) * celestia. Simple. Very limited scope. Not many configuration options. Would I like to find a co-maintainer for wmaker? Yes. Celestia? No. My criteria for considering co-maintainership is simple: Can I cover all the possible ways of using this package myself? [0] We never finished that conversation at Linux Tag. -- EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: why dig ? I wanna use nslookup !
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Enough said. Fuck him. On Wed, 2 May 2001, Gerrit Pape wrote: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html - -- Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBOvDMLR9mehuYcOjMEQKEmgCgv4EwW+oSR3rxjV2QXKoel0YLVWkAoMuW 3t+OVWOqO+U3rLTb6wUumkW1 =9YIc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Two debconf issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 2 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote: Simon Richter wrote: I'm currently debconfizing one of my packages, uptimed. Two quoestions have arised: That's debconfiscated[1]. No, that's what lilo did to install-mbr... schnip - -- Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBOvDNXB9mehuYcOjMEQKooACfVLZgJEzIt1Q2tjlY/A3MuiB+uL4AnArk YhCCMj6Qzd3LarvSunYR2mpA =DtWS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Developer Behavior
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote: On Wednesday 10 January 2001 03:23, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as THAT'S all it is... The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be easily fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy. A machine which boots up but which has broken keyboard mapping or broken NSS is much more effort to fix. Also if you have something like NSS break on you then you can logout and then when you realise that you've done the wrong thing it's too late, you're machine is stuffed because you can't login as root again! If your lilo.conf is wrong then you have between now and your next reboot to fix it. Of course, the .conf in lilo.conf implies that packages really shouldn't futz with it without warning. I really don't remember a exception in policy for things that are correctable before next reboot. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#81397: [authorization] fails silently for normal users, cannot start server
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Steve Langasek wrote: SLOn Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: SL SL Hamish Moffatt wrote: SL There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you SL without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if SL too many people are missing it. SL SL Do you think this is also what prevented display managers (xdm, gdm, wings SL are the ones that I tries) to function correctly? SL SLBranden diagnosed this bug correctly. A bug in the X server *cannot* cause SLxdm/gdm authentication to fail, unless perhaps Branden has started diverting SLfiles at random. (I'll let you check this if you like. Personally, I have SLgreater confidence in his integrity as a developer.) The display manager SLstarts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server SLhas no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication SLfailure you reported came from the display manager and PAM, /not/ from the X SLserver. SL SLIs it possible you missed a debconf question that controls authentication for SLdisplay managers when you upgraded? Yes, but it certainly wasn't in the X SLpackages. It's in one of the xserver packages...-common, I think. SLSteve Langasek SLpostmodern programmer SL SL SL -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [way OT] private emails
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: BROn Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 06:26:24PM -0600, Bud Rogers wrote: BR It is spectacularly bad form to quote private email in a public forum, BR but it is not illegal. And it is spectacularly naive to count on the BR privacy of anything you tell another human being in any medium, BR electronic or otherwise, unless that other human being is a doctor, a BR lawyer or a priest and thus bound by the ethics of their profession. BR BRAIUI, communications with spouses are privileged as well. Well, you and Erai ARE arguing like husband and wife BRFollowups to debian-legal? :) BR BR -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ITP: mboxgrep -- Grep through mailboxes
I guess that Raul WAS right when he told me there *IS* only one way to do it... On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: SBOn Monday 8 January 2001, at 9 h 5, the keyboard of Tollef Fog Heen SB[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SB SB I intend to package mboxgrep, a utility which greps mailboxes. SB SBBTW, we already have sgrep, which is fine for that purpose. SB SB SB SB -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote: In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers, which I might note you didn't include in your message. Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header? It would be in your case: Reply-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org no, that would make it difficult for people to reply privately to him. Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use. Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header! The closest thing to a registry that RFC822 implies is in the hands of SRI International is http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/ietf/mail-headers/ (jpalme is as much of a member as one can be of the IETF RFC822 WG) which says that a Followup-To: header is from RFC 1036, but RFC 1036 is for USENET messages, not email. The only thing I can think of is that somebody liked the usenet idea of the followup-to: and just appended a mail on it. Just because somebody breaks the standards does NOT mean that everybody should. The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in pine incorrect, again. the difference between mutt and pine is that mutt is a decent piece of free software that works and follows the relevant standards, while pine is a broken piece of non-free shit which doesn't. Horsefeathers! The Mail-followup-to: header is NOT a part of the relevant standards! mutt allegedly shares code with pine... since the source-code of both programs is readily available it should be easy enough to check this allegation. craig -- craig sanders -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:11:50PM -0700, John Galt wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use. Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header! The closest thing to a registry that RFC822 implies is in the hands of SRI International is the thing about internet standards such as the RFCs is that they tell you what you *must* do, and what you *must not* do. as long as you follow those rules faithfully you are free to implement as many other good ideas as you like. True, but you aren't free to bitch at people who follow the RFC's for their failures (Branden...). In fact, the header Branden's bitching about is an animal of a wholly different color: the Mail-copies-to: header Oh, BTW, I decided in the middle of this thread to finally throw in a reply-to header. You managed to email both myself and the list, so the reply-to won't prevent people from privately emailing Branden: it didn't prevent you from CCing the list (it's Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], FWIW)--you see, I DO prefer CCs of list mail: it allows me to pay extra attention to list mail directed at me. http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/ietf/mail-headers/ (jpalme is as much of a member as one can be of the IETF RFC822 WG) which says that a Followup-To: header is from RFC 1036, but RFC 1036 is for USENET messages, not email. The only thing I can think of is that somebody liked the usenet idea of the followup-to: and just appended a mail on it. Just because somebody breaks the standards does NOT mean that everybody should. well done! it only took you a few years to catch on. that header has been in common usage for several years. btw, it's interesting that you mention Jacob Palme. take a look at the following document written by him in November 1997: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Curious he doesn't have in his updated RFC2097 (the URL I used)... Well, I was looking for it, I found it (with your help). Still, M-F-T is designed for GROUP replies, not individual--from 2.2 The Mail-Followup-To header can be inserted by the sender of a message to indicate suggestions on where replies, intended for the group of people who are discussing the issue of the previous message, are to be sent. Here are some ways of constructing this header: Individual replies are still covered by the Reply-to: header, which is the second away in alphabetical order from 98Dec proceedings (Chris Newman at Innosoft wrote it): http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-replyto-meaning-00.txt ---paste--- 2. Reply-To Current Practice The Reply-To header is currently used for the following purposes: ---...--- (2) The author/sender can recommend an address or addresses to use instead of the from address for replies. (3) The author/sender can post to multiple mailing lists and suggest group replies go to only one of them. (4) When the author/sender is subscribed to a mailing list, he can suggest that he doesn't want two copies of group replies to messages he posts to the list. (5) A mailing list can suggest that the list is a discussion list and replies should be sent just to the list by default. ---end paste--- I believe that there is some bit of what this thread first started about within those 4 items... Network Working Group Jacob Palme Internet Draft Stockholm University/KTH draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Expires: May 1998 November 1997 The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in pine incorrect, again. the difference between mutt and pine is that mutt is a decent piece of free software that works and follows the relevant standards, while pine is a broken piece of non-free shit which doesn't. Horsefeathers! The Mail-followup-to: header is NOT a part of the relevant standards! that wasn't what i said, and i in no way meant to imply that failure to implement an optional but well-documented and well-known header is what makes pine broken. pine is broken in numerous other ways. craig -- craig sanders -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Steve Greenland wrote: SGOn 03-Jan-01, 22:53 (CST), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SG On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: SG SG I didn't say there was. Does Mail-Copies-To: begin with an X? SG SG RFC 822 this time: SG SG http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html SG SG and Mail-Copies-To: fails to rear it's ugly head, so really should be SG under user-defined fields, which are supposed to be X- SG SGUh, there have been headers added since 822. SG SG SG Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header? SG SG It would be in your case: SG SG Reply-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org SG SG would avoid the unnecessary CCs, which is what I assume you want to do. SG SGWrong. This would break my MUA so that reply no longer sends mail back SGto the originator, as it is supposed to do. Well, you replied to the list alone despite my reply-to, so I guess your actions don't match your words... SG SG The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in SG pinemutt allegedly shares code with pine... SG SGExtremely unlikely, as it originated from elm. Let's see: Pine Is Nearly (no-longer lately...) Elm, you say that mutt actually derives from elm, yet they don't share code. Um, yeah, sure, whatever. BTW from the LG article about mutt... http://www.ssc.com/lg/issue14/mutt.html Michael Elkins is a programmer who at one time was involved in the development of the venerable mail-client, Elm. He had some ideas which he would have liked to include in Elm but for whatever reasons the other Elm developers weren't receptive. So he struck out on his own, creating a text-mode mailer which incorporates features from a variety of other programs. These include other mailers such as Elm and Pine, as well as John Davis's Slrn newsreader. As an indication of the program's hybrid nature he has named it Mutt. Although the mailer began as an amalgamation of features from other programs, it has begun to assume an identity of its own. Presumably, the Mutt team at least looked at Pine's implementation if for no other reason than to see what to avoid. SGSteve SG -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: our broken man package
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote: JHPeter Makholm wrote: JH We have alternatives on almost everything but dpkg and man. If someone JH thinks it's worth the effort to make alternatives for these they JH should do it. If there is a general agreement that the alternatives is JH better than the original packages we just switch prioryties. JH JHIs that even necessary? I mean, alternatives makes sense for programs JHlike MTAs and editors, which have a diverse range of interface, JHfunctionality, and use. Man formats a page and displays it in $PAGER; JHits usage is pretty set in stone since a long time ago. One man program JHmight be faster or more secure, or less buggy than another, but it's JHgoing to look and operate the same, so it seems everyone is going to JHgravitate to the best one available, so why bother with alternatives for JHthe rest? JH JHIn other words, if you can have a religious war over it, we need an JHalternative. I have never seen a religious war over man. :-) Never heard RMS on info pages? JH -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On 4 Jan 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote: MSJohn == John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MS MS SG Wrong. This would break my MUA so that reply no longer sends mail back MS SG to the originator, as it is supposed to do. MS MS John Well, you replied to the list alone despite my reply-to, so I guess your MS John actions don't match your words... MS MS He may have, as I do, intend to reply to the list, so everyone MS can see the conversation. (Quite properly, my MUA ignored the reply MS to on a list reply; had I cared to respond to you personally, the MS reply-to header would have been respected). Yeah, but he was making the point that the reply-to header broke things like listreplies. They still seem to work MS manoj MS -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, D-Man wrote: DOn Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote: D mutt allegedly shares code with pine... ^^ D D DThat would be very strange since mutt's author was a part of the elm Dgroup. Wouldn't mutt then have started with the elm code base? (or Dat least part of it) You're a day late and a dollar short. Please note that you didn't have to COPY my genotype to SHARE 99% of it D -- D Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a D damn. D DOh, yeah, you got that part right. Jeez! OH NO! I've been signature flamed!!! Talk about below the bottom of the barrel! Did you OD on your dumbass pills this morning, or is this a chronic thing? D email [EMAIL PROTECTED] D D D-D D D D -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: our broken man package
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote: JHJohn Galt wrote: JH JHIn other words, if you can have a religious war over it, we need an JH JHalternative. I have never seen a religious war over man. :-) JH JH Never heard RMS on info pages? JH JHThat's a file format religious war, not a man program religious war. /etc/alternatives/help-file-format? :) JH -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard. There is nothing about honoring X headers at all. In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers, which I might note you didn't include in your message. Basically, you're on the wrong side of RFC 1855 on this issue and all the bitching in the world isn't going to change it. If I'm wrong, prove it: I've provided my proof in the form of RFC 1855. On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 10:57:35PM -0800, Chris Lawrence wrote: I suspect most people's MUA's don't display non-standard headers by default But there is also this, which *is* standard[1], and which I also have: Mail-Copies-To: never So not only are people stupid, but their MUA's are as well. [1] at least as much of a standard as there appears to be for this -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
Why the hell should we go on #debian on OPN when you so much as admitted that the ops on it have some kind of power trip: devoicing instead of rebutting when they have an issue with what's said? If I help somebody, I really don't want to have to stay politically correct: getting the problem solved is much more important than keeping somebody's ego stroked. It sounds like ATM I could not in good conscience recommend that a newbie get help on OPN, because it sounds like the people who are genuinely trying to help are also the ones that cannot speak. On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Jim Lynch wrote: Date:03 Jan 2001 15:23:09 +0100 To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org From:Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long) Jim Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you want to advocate the use of unstable software, please be my guest... but not on #debian. it changes daily, and can potentially break every Again, what is you right too say so other than it is you oppinion? It's more than opinion, it's fact for reasons already stated; It's not smart to run debian dists that are not released/stable on mission-critical servers. It sometimes causes those servers to break, sometimes in nasty ways. I've seen it happen over and over again. People sometimes get fired from their jobs over this. (Sometimes is good news: in many instances, debian performs extremely well in mission-critical situations, most of the time when the packages all fit together and do not change.) When machines break for whatever reason, sometimes people come to #debian for help. It's unhelpful to encourage people to break their mission-critical servers... If Eric wants to do it himself, fine. If he wants to say he did it, fine too, if he warns about instability (which his original letter shows he had plenty of.) He said he helps on the channel, and that's fine. But it's not fine to be unhelpful when others have to try to help undo the damage it causes. I'm not even saying he did; I'm just letting him know, so that if he does tell someone who is (say) new, who has a job tending a mission- critical server that they should run unstable on it, then gets quieted by me on channel, he'll know why :) But, as I use the quieting as an opportunity to have a short, private discussion of the matter usually followed by an unquieting, it's not a big problem. (these are fairly narrow circumstances; I may widen them somewhat depending on the situation.) Of course, not many developers like coming to #debian due to its present noisiness and relative newbishness, or maybe for other reasons; there used to be more (heck, it used to be all-developer, before the channel was known.) But I'm presently one of the channel operators, so I make decisions, and I act. If you want to discuss rights of myself and others to act, please come to the channel and help out for about a year. Then discuss; you'll know what's up then. As for myself, I've been around #debian since very close to its inception; possibly as long as 6 years ago. -Jim -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:56:38PM -0700, John Galt wrote: FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard. There is nothing about honoring X headers at all. I didn't say there was. Does Mail-Copies-To: begin with an X? RFC 822 this time: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html and Mail-Copies-To: fails to rear it's ugly head, so really should be under user-defined fields, which are supposed to be X- 4.7.5. USER-DEFINED-FIELD Individual users of network mail are free to define and use additional header fields. Such fields must have names which are not already used in the current specification or in any definitions of extension-fields, and the overall syntax of these user-defined-fields must conform to this specification's rules for delimiting and folding fields. Due to the extension-field publishing process, the name of a user- defined-field may be pre-empted Note: The prefatory string X- will never be used in the names of Extension-fields. This provides user-defined fields with a protected set of names. In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers, which I might note you didn't include in your message. Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header? It would be in your case: Reply-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org would avoid the unnecessary CCs, which is what I assume you want to do. Basically, you're on the wrong side of RFC 1855 on this issue and all the bitching in the world isn't going to change it. If I'm wrong, prove it: I've provided my proof in the form of RFC 1855. Yes, you obviously attached quite a bit of RFC reading material to your message. Would you have preferred me to attach the entirety of 3.1, 3.1.1 and 3.1.2? Six screensful of information in lynx? Any way you slice it, it's that much more than you provided... How about a URL http://faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Now, let's examine the headers of YOUR message... From: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Actually, that's on your side--the To header left here empty, since it had To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I simply removed it (cut) as per your wishes... Had you properly set a Reply-to: header, none of this would've happened. Well, that's clever. Are you messages so important that you (or your MUA) feels they should be read twice? (Fortunately, I think either an RFC or the mailing list software squelches the duplicate.) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh well, at least the clue ratio of your MUA is homologous to your own, thus preserving notions of symmetry in the universe. The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in pinemutt allegedly shares code with pine... -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#80343: general: Lack of policy on which files should be owned by which user
Isn't there rudimentary ACL implementation in the kernel? An ACL would do the job nicely... On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: Peter Eckersley wrote: If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I can set permissions: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ ls -l plot-against-fred -rwr--1 pde fred 1 Dec 27 17:12 plot-against-fred Of course, I need root access to do it :( ^^^ That's what troubles me. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
195 days is a lot of time to have an important package orphaned. At 6 or so months of orphaned-ness, if a maintainer is not found, one should and IMHO must look at the very real at that point possibility of going on without it. If this necessitates further changes as in removal of an entire architecture, then I'd say that it's time to shit or get off the pot, to use the vernacular. It can't be too damned important if nobody steps up and adopts it for ~6.5 months... ATM, though, it's not a real issue, but I think that in addition to the bug horizons, there needs to be a wnpp check on a freeze: orphaned packages die during a freeze unless adoped post haste (I can't remember if this means that silo would've died during the potato freeze...). On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 07:06:30PM -0700, John Galt wrote: If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC community shows for Debian? What the fuck are you talking about!?! For one the damn thing isn't changed that often. Upstream isn't making frequent updates, and the fucking thing works. You need to find your red herrings some place else. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dueling banjos
DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine specializing in sound-alikes for lousy spellers... On 26 Dec 2000, Ben Gertzfield wrote: Kim == Kim Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kim could you please mail me sheet music for dueling banjos This is about the third or fourth time we've gotten this request. Does anyone know why? :) (Here's an earlier one I found.) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:06:26 +0100 From: Martin Eldridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dueling banjos- sheet music Could you please send me the sheet music for Dueling Banjos, Regards Martin Ben -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dueling banjos
Bzzt! mentioned three times by my recollection in the dualling banjos thread. Half the distance to the goal line, loss of down: second down! On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, John Leuner wrote: I thought it was some metaphor for SMP DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine specializing in sound-alikes for lousy spellers... On 26 Dec 2000, Ben Gertzfield wrote: Kim == Kim Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kim could you please mail me sheet music for dueling banjos This is about the third or fourth time we've gotten this request. Does anyone know why? :) (Here's an earlier one I found.) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:06:26 +0100 From: Martin Eldridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dueling banjos- sheet music Could you please send me the sheet music for Dueling Banjos, Regards Martin Ben John Leuner -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC community shows for Debian? On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. You can only remove this if you want sparc to be unbootable, which I hope is not your intention. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Boost Windows Reliability!!!!!
You going to send them the bill then? At the bottom off the mailinglist subscription page: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe is the mailinglist policy. Basically, the policy says either pay us $1,000 up front or $1,999 after. Martin (Joey, whatever you prefer...), Remco, Alexander, Anand (the listed mailing lists administration members): I think that you have some volunteers to send dunning notices within this thread (myself included). If you already are, could you post a summary of your actions and results on a periodic basis to somewhere that we can refer the close the list thread starters to? On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Robert van der Meulen wrote: Quoting Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): BTW, I'm on a 28.8, and I get over 1000 emails a day from all the lists I am sub'd to. So I do see a lot of spam, even beyond Debian's lists. If I can ignore it, so can everyone else, IMNHO. Ignoring spam has made the internet the spam-ridden place it is right now. As long as people do not do anything about it, spam will be as commonplace and as 'ignorable' as spam by snailmail. I do not like that, and lots of people don't. Apart from the annoyances, spammers almost regularly clobber up mailservers, network links, and are being _very_ intrusive. Spam is not an ignorable problem, and every spam-account i can manage to get killed, will get killed. If your opinion is that we shouldn't actively try to bring down the spam to a minimum, and just delete it - that's your opinion, but definately not mine, and not a lot of others' too ;) Greets, Robert -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Boost Windows Reliability!!!!!
I was kind of feeling sorry about including you as a CC in the last post--partial oversight, partial personal policy (I never quite know how to deal with tertiary CCs: I generally detest people who adulterate a message they're replying to, but I also think that responsibility for replies stops about third-hand). This eases my conscience somewhat: Sending bills and dunning letters IAW a pre-existing policy sounds like it fits your kill the root, not the offspring ethos... So are you a part of the problem in this case or willing to be part of the solution? On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 02:21:46AM +0100, Robert van der Meulen wrote: Quoting Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): BTW, I'm on a 28.8, and I get over 1000 emails a day from all the lists I am sub'd to. So I do see a lot of spam, even beyond Debian's lists. If I can ignore it, so can everyone else, IMNHO. Ignoring spam has made the internet the spam-ridden place it is right now. As long as people do not do anything about it, spam will be as commonplace and as 'ignorable' as spam by snailmail. I do not like that, and lots of people don't. Apart from the annoyances, spammers almost regularly clobber up mailservers, network links, and are being _very_ intrusive. Spam is not an ignorable problem, and every spam-account i can manage to get killed, will get killed. If your opinion is that we shouldn't actively try to bring down the spam to a minimum, and just delete it - that's your opinion, but definately not mine, and not a lot of others' too ;) My opinion is that trying to block spam is a losing battle. Trying to attack it at it's roots by closing open relays, filing suit on people breaking the law, etc..is the right thing. It's like arresting drug users, as opposed to arresting the drug smugglers. You should kill the root, not the offspring. Ben -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE2 - nice demolition job ...
I thought the netbase breakup was because of a old-BSD/GPL license incompatibility... On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: John Galt wrote: The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing issues Not as far as I can remember. The X breakup and the netbase breakup, for instance, had nothing to do with licenses that I know of. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dualing banjos
NOTHING strikes me as bizzare at [EMAIL PROTECTED] anymore... On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Mike Markley wrote: Does anyone else find it bizarre that this is the *second* such request this list has received in recent months? :) On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:49:47AM -0700, marty macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake forth: Hi, I saw your ad about sheet music for this. Could you please send it to me? I did find it on olga.net but it looks incomplete. Cheers Marty __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE2 - nice demolition job ...
The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing issues (either a license incompatibility that's been pointed out or a change in licensing that broke compatibility), so the bug pointing out the license issue might be seen as forcing the breakup... On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:12:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:47:22AM -0700, erik wrote: I just can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer and the unnecassary divisions (read demolitions) of KDE packages are the last straw BTW, what would it take for someone to be forced to break up a package or make some other major change? The only thing I can think of that could do it is a amendment to policy or something more drastic. (Is this written in some document that I need to read?) -- You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote: snip First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked there were ~350 official developers in the keyring. Right, so this proves my point in that we should encourage developers to put a priority on frozen and the next release cycle. And please stop refering to stable. That is not my main concern here, and I never brought it into this conversation. No, that means you should OPEN NEW-DEVELOPERS! Jesus! On the one hand I hear all of these complaints about not having enough help and the other hand is flipping a big 'ol bird at anyone who's offering to help. The only way I see new manpower being added to Debian ATM is cloning, and I'm kind of hoping nobody in Debian qualifies as sheep or pigs. we now return you to your regularly scheduled snip ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done! a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a
Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)
I'll believe it when I see a newly minted developer. It never should have been closed in the first place, so therefore I see the fact that it HAD to be opened as doubt-inspiring as to whether there will ever be a newly minted developer. Until I see a working new-developers mechanism, I see complaints about lack of manpower as rhetorical at best, hypocritical at worst. On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:24:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote: snip First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked there were ~350 official developers in the keyring. Right, so this proves my point in that we should encourage developers to put a priority on frozen and the next release cycle. And please stop refering to stable. That is not my main concern here, and I never brought it into this conversation. No, that means you should OPEN NEW-DEVELOPERS! Jesus! On the one hand I hear all of these complaints about not having enough help and the other hand is flipping a big 'ol bird at anyone who's offering to help. The only way I see new manpower being added to Debian ATM is cloning, and I'm kind of hoping nobody in Debian qualifies as sheep or pigs. New Maintainer is OPEN. They posted a call for applications from currently sponsored developers last week. This means that people who are currently helping via the sponorship program are going to get in quite quickly. IMNHO, this is exactly the right thing to do. People who have shown that they are willing to contribute, even if it means waiting, have shown they have what it takes to become a developer. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
