If you are officially representing Devuan and "a long email" described why 
Devuan should not be trusted, I'd say it is your problem the inability to read 
and understand the technical content.  If you are really unable to understand 
the technical content of this "long email" then you are definetely the wrong 
person to be "officially" responding.

What else is there to say?  If I no longer trust devuan for the very specific 
reasons and evidence I have provided why would I have a technical problem and 
if I did why would I trust you to help me with it?

End of story, I think.  Nowhere in either of my two previous "long messages" 
have I even hinted to a "personal issue or technical problem I need help with".

Your response is every proof I needed that there is something fishy going on.  
It may be legal to be deceiving people but the question is whether it is 
ethical and whether once you discover a rat are you responsible to make the 
discovery public.  That is the dilemma.   There is nothing technical about it!

-------- Original Message --------
 On February 15, 2018 3:04 AM, KatolaZ <kato...@freaknet.org> wrote:

>On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 07:43:30PM -0500, Fungal-net wrote:
> [cut]
>>Obviously the way you are handling the response to me is evidence that there 
>>is something to the story.
>>PLEASE do not forget to point us to the reference on when was there a public 
>>announcement that onion address users were shoved over to a beta testing 
>>system.  I simply have missed it.
>>What I am trying to establish here is trust in devuan's officially announced 
>>means of accessing the repositories.  How important this may be is an other 
>>issue I do not care to discuss here.  We are all mature kids we can think for 
> It is not clear at all what you want to "establish" here.
> The officially announced means of accessing Devuan repositories are
> explained at www.devuan.org. The repositories are signed with the
> signatures available in the package devuan-keyring. The fact that the
> onion address points to a server or another is irrelevant. You have to
> trust the signatures on the Release files, and this is done
> automatically by apt. Alternatively, you can download the pubkeys,
> download the InRelease files, and verify them by hand.
> You don't seem to have any specific technical issue to point out, only
> rants to vomit. And your preference for writing long emails do not
> help identifying the technical content (if any) which you are
> referring to.
> You have not yet provided a technical description of the kind of
> breakage you have experienced, if any.
> Please be specific, and we will try to help you.
> KatolaZ
>[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab  ]
> [     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ]
> [       @) http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
> [     @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ]
> [ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]
>Dng mailing list

Dng mailing list

Reply via email to