Once again, you rant multiple lists whilst hiding who you are.
I am Zenaan Harkness. I have some (not all) strongly held views.
As an aside, I shall use systemd and have tried a few times now, but
have a technical issue or two with my setup when using systemd, which
I need to find time to solve
This is called projection.
The poster evidently has a very hard case of it.
The world is so mean. I didn't get what I want. So I'm going to keep
crying publicly and say a bunch of untrue and severe exaggeratons.
Oh well, hopefully time will heal...
Zenaan
On 3/4/14, Arnold Bird
By emailing each of the above email mailing lists, it's not hard to
guess who you are.
It is sad.
It is in your interests (for sanity, to stop your tsunami of loss of
respect, etc) to simply stop.
Take a holiday.
Come back in a time (weeks, months) that provides for you to return to
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 09:41, Arthur de Jong wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The technical committee is waiting to see the outcome of this GR, but
informally
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg2.html
If the RM has delegated the descision of the
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 00:21, MJ Ray wrote:
Remember that debian-legal is a mailing list of many
developers and other contributors, not a single person.
Well, actually, sometimes if you skip the posts of a single person
(which can at times be more than every second new post), it does appear
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 01:00, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And seriously, but does a we should stay
polite to RMS strike you as a serious argument you can bring to
upstream when discussing this issue.
There was a lot more detail beyond
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 00:55, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i would like to know if you (or any other we you are refering to
here) are in any way related to an exterior to debian organisation or
company or whatever, which may have a
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 01:00, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And seriously, but does a we should stay
polite to RMS strike you as a serious argument you can bring to
upstream when discussing this issue.
There was a lot more detail beyond
Sven, thou hast all but redeemed thyself with this post...
:)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 22:46, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Simon Law ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040304 12:40]:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:22:00AM +0100, Massimo Coletti wrote:
Removing the non-free section will narrow the perspective of the Linux
world offered by Debian, and somehow limit a degree of
Sven, thou hast all but redeemed thyself with this post...
:)
On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 22:46, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Simon Law ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040304 12:40]:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:22:00AM +0100, Massimo Coletti wrote:
Removing the non-free section will narrow the perspective of the Linux
world offered by Debian, and somehow limit a degree of
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 04:12, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-02 15:20]:
3. Do you think Debian should continue to support non-free?
No. Debian is about creating a operating system with free software,
and I don't think we should be in the business of
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 11:12, Amaya wrote:
As a female hacker/geek/DD I find myself more and more concerned about
the gender ratio in the Debian Developer/User comunity. How can we say
make a Universal OS when it's do scarcely related to half the
population of the world... I think we all agree
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 04:12, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-02 15:20]:
3. Do you think Debian should continue to support non-free?
No. Debian is about creating a operating system with free software,
and I don't think we should be in the business of
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see
the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or promote
non-free software or software
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see
the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or promote
non-free software or software
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
unambiguous
in the message: non-free is not part of the Debian operating
system.
But forgetting what we told in section
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:11, MJ Ray wrote:
However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
software could only be distributed in non-free.
As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
different. I think the project is already not DFSG-like
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
unambiguous
in the message: non-free is not part of the Debian operating
system.
But forgetting what we told in section
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 21:01, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think
non-free aids in that.
Well, I respect your personal opinion, but I tend to have another one.
This is the
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 21:01, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think
non-free aids in that.
Well, I respect your personal opinion, but I tend to have another one.
This is the
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:28, Raul Miller wrote:
Old: 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
interpretations of this phrase.
[A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
remain completely free.
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:51, Raul Miller wrote:
[B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing
only free software.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:43:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
You are missing my interpretation:
[C] Debian is constituted by 100% Free
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:28, Raul Miller wrote:
Old: 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
interpretations of this phrase.
[A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
remain completely free.
25 matches
Mail list logo
