On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I believe that Debian can be the world's first large-scale Free-only
operating system project.
I believe it already is.
non-free part of our archive. Imagine, then, how much greator those
effects would be by completely banning
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free
Software and then eventually see Oh, there's this non-free
stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there.
I think that with the old non-free question, most people
On 2004-01-07 04:18:38 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i is the time saved by not having to worry about non-free stuff. I
expect
that's pretty small, but non-zero.
n is the time taken trying to maintain software with poorer
infrastructure
than Debian has.
X is the time taken
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
Yep,
On 2004-01-07 14:11:05 + Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. The web of trust issue.
The web of trust can probably be extended through some signing of
external package providers and a web of trust being established
between them. That extends the general web of trust, which may be a
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example [...]
On 2004-01-07 18:30:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I'd rather you faced this fear than make everyone else
help you avoid it.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at
On 2004-01-08 13:25:56 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I doubt anyone with a package in contrib wants to keep it there, no
matter what their position on non-free is. Having no packages that're
worth maintaining in contrib would be a strong argument that non-free
software isn't
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:11:40 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is
based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
Someone
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested plan. I
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:57:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If his answer to what's the point? is nothing more involved than
because I want it to be known where the developership stands on the
question I proposed, and he gets the requisite seconds, isn't it
better to call the vote rather
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:45:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Are you objecting to finding the real reasons underlying this issue?
Actually, I am. Finding the real reasons underlying this issue is
synonymous with Have a big argument. We don't actually need to trawl
everybodies opinions out on
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:11:05AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
It is not Debian's historical policy to make things harder solely to
pursue a political goal.
Funnily enough, when Debian was first formed, a lot of people
loudly disagreed with this.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:46:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in
this debate than you are.
I can categorically tell you that all forms of this statement are
always false in every non-trivial scenario.
I have never heard of
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:02:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If the committee currently working with the
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yes, I think that not only free programs have cornered the
market for being useful and important (unless you are a zealot, when
this is all moot anyway).
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:33:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is
not
evidence of absence.
Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
the word, and what will actually happen.
Not just word play, as
[a] he hasn't gotten the requisite number of seconds,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:47:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Do stop waving that around. I rounded up enough people in under an
hour, just by asking on IRC, last weekend (but haven't bothered to
chase them up just yet, for reasons of
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:54:12AM +0800, Cesar B. Umali wrote:
I got a banner that said I was the 50,000,000 visitor. To close
window contact the prize department.
Cesar:
We do not know what prize you are talking about. Debian is a volunteer
organization dedicated to providing a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:07:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to
setup
a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X
isn't trivially small.
It looks like some things need clarifying (eg Origin/Bugs) to make
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
It's just not conclusive evidence.
I think that may be an irrational view.
Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer.
Not for long. The bunny would
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. The lack of evidence
is due to the fact that (almost)
Hello,
I thought it interesting to find out just how much non-free is used. I
wrote up a quick Python script that analyzes the latest
popularity-contest results. Any cavets that apply to popcon results
will, of course, apply this this analysis.
Below you will see some selected output from the
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I thought it interesting to find out just how much non-free is used. I
wrote up a quick Python script that analyzes the latest
popularity-contest results. Any cavets that apply to popcon results
will, of course, apply this this
Hello John,
Fo a special Project I need to create new Debian-CD's but
'Console Only'. For this I need to know, in which sequenz
I must put the packages onto the CD's...
Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ?
If yes, where can I get it ?
In general I need only 'main', 'contrib'
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:47:19PM +0100, Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
I find it somewhat ironical that you bring up something like this, since I
personally have to admit that your permanently repeated insinuations about
how people not wanting to drop non-free are perhaps also in favor of
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your
level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the
proposal is less appealing by the moment. This is like sayting that
we already had a file
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of
support the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually
remove non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
pass, then well, it would
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :)
He didn't speak as Secretary, just for himself, AFAICT.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:30:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It is intriguing to me that some folks whom I have seen vigorously
espousing ad-hoc problem solving suddenly become advocates of a highly
bureaucratized approach when it comes to dropping non-free. From my
perspective,
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:50 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still
vote it below the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions
under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
in favor of retaining non-free do
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work,
and I am not going to insist on that people write any software.
On the other hand, the recent
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
You seemed to claim that
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:16:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
One effect of removing non-free from Debian is that we can't use all the
infrastructure we already have for non-free -- the archive, the BTS, the
buildds, and everything else (our n-m process, the PTS, whatever). This
means that
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
http).
Thanks for
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions
under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
I confess I have to wonder how many people
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
infrastructures behind Debian non-free can be
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
So far, the proposals have gotten as far as Deals with a problem.
[In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
think non-free is a thing we
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work,
and I am not going to insist on that people write any software.
On the other hand, the recent
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
http).
Ahh, you should
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to
my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
I, for one, share them, and wish I was as gifted with the keyboard to be
able to express them as
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:51:36PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ?
If yes, where can I get it ?
In general I need only 'main', 'contrib' and 'non-US'
Yes, the full raw data is available
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr//popcon/
-- John
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You haven't made any proposals. You
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That you appear not to have found any of them persuasive means neither
that they weren't offered, nor that no one else found them compelling.
Actually, John Goerzen pointed out some of his to me.
However, his rationale seems to
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
From the data, we can see that:
* The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
acroread is no longer distributable (or distributed), so should
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion,
good enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is
worth little.
It is your contention, then, that our Standard Resolution Procedure as
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:11:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be about having things
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:48:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Can I ask what useful things you do for the Project, apart from serving
Yeah, but I've been largely offline for most of the past two years,
so most of what I did was pretty ancient.
Let's see... I documented dpkg-deb (and the
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR files used anywhere.
I believe they still in wide use as transport for games with, uhm,
removed copy protection. At least one of my former flatmates had loads
Le Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen écrivait:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see RAR
files used anywhere.
It's commonly used to distribute DivX or other big multimediua files
through NTTP (alt.binaries.*).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+-
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:13:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
community. We will place their interests first in our
priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation
in many different kinds
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:00:59AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
If you want to change the status quo, convince the voters.
Maybe they're conviced already. Let's have the vote and see.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous
Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:03:20AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
By the way, doc-rfc is an example of a package in non-free which is
useful to some people. If a person is doing network development, they're
likely to need this
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Another instance is still
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:38:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
Does that look like a
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
plain English. What's with the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
What's your definition of a problem?
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian
* Steve Langasek
Of course, tar and unzip are no substitute for unrar.
* John Goerzen
It, of course, depends on what you're doing, but yes, I realize that. I
just tried to show a smattering of similar programs so people can
compare.
I was actually surprised at the popularity of
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system
I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue.
At the moment, it's Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out
and shot. [I'm relaying a sentiment
Also, are any of the java packages actually distributed by Debian? I
thought there were legal issues that prevented even non-free
distribution (though j2re/sdk packages are available elsewhere).
Excellent points. No, acroread is not in non-free. j2re1.4 also is
not, nor is j2dsk1.4
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your definition of a problem?
In this context, I
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
on the details.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
It says it doesn't support all the various RAR formats yet, but with
a little work I assume it could become a fully adequate alternative to
the unrar in non-free (unless RAR is patent-encumbered, of course).
I believe that the
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:07:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
can all get back to working on the sarge installer?
I don't know about you, but I need to get myself non-production machine
set up before I can even test the
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:57:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's where we address things like what's the point?
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
supposed to be used as a filibuster.
I
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a
complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you
are not telepathic).
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, I wrote:
By insincere ballot option I mean an option which does not represent
the true preference of the people proposing it.
Actually, I meant a bit more than that -- I meant an option which not
only doesn't represent the true preference of the people
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
Dear PedantBot 2004TM,
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
craig
ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
but you did make a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it.
It's totally inadequate evidence, but
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible, and thus towards defeating their own preference.
Huh? Why do you
On 2004-01-09 01:58:46 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand,
suggest
nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other
hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical,
even though it
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of
the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I
believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to
the question what will
On 2004-01-09 03:05:23 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If nonfree.org *will* happen, then the hypothetical benefits to our
users
due to more work happening on free software because of the lack of
non-free
software aren't going to come to pass.
I don't think that conclusion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
can all get back to working on the sarge installer?
An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has
been exceeded, in the (bit over)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has
been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.
False. The minimum
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
you should spot them.
In
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense
their software under the
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free
Software and then eventually see Oh, there's this non-free
stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there.
I think that with the old non-free question, most people
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's not currently a relevant issue.
That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
non-free contains packages some people rely
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I believe that Debian can be the world's first large-scale Free-only
operating system project.
I believe it already is.
non-free part of our archive. Imagine, then, how much greator those
effects would be by completely banning
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
On 2004-01-07 18:30:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example [...]
Personally, I'd rather you faced this fear than make everyone else
help
you avoid it.
Personally, I do not plan
On 2004-01-07 14:11:05 + Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. The web of trust issue.
The web of trust can probably be extended through some signing of
external package providers and a web of trust being established
between them. That extends the general web of trust, which may be
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example [...]
On 2004-01-07 18:30:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I'd rather you faced this fear than make everyone else
help you avoid it.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:16:48PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
but things like
inability to repair is more important: users get used to some
software, then it gets deleted thanks to an unfixable serious bug. Ow.
Well, the only bugs in this category (would cause it's removal and can't
be fixed) are
On 2004-01-07 14:13:23 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is the temporal scope of our social contract? [...] If
forever, [...] Why is there a way to change it in the constitution?
If you mean dropping promised support with no transition, then
forever.
...and if I
On 2004-01-07 04:18:38 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
i is the time saved by not having to worry about non-free stuff. I
expect
that's pretty small, but non-zero.
n is the time taken trying to maintain software with poorer
infrastructure
than Debian has.
X is the time
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently
exists.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:08:05AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Obviously, some people would. That's why we need to vote.
So the reason why we need to
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:11:40 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is
based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
Someone
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
