Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: The Christian concept of a demon is a corruption (as it were) of the Greek concept of daemon Basically, no arguments with what you said, except I find inconsistent the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) FWIW I hate religious fundamentalists too. I try to be a libertarian and knock everybody with strong beliefs of any kind because I believe the fundamental problem to be psychologoical and related to power, *not* the specific content of the beliefs. Last post from me on this.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote: Besides, using Tolkien names is a long geek tradition. And that's what's wrong with it. The association of geeks and Tolkien is such a cliche[1] Same goes for Pratchett (not to mention he is rather overrated in my opinion.) No if you're going to go with demons try something more off the beaten path. How about characters from Michael Moorcock? Arioch Xiombarg Mabelode The conflict in his Eternal Champion stories isn't between good and evil but law and chaos both of which can be unwholesome when out of balance. Besides installing Debian requires blood and souls right? :-) [1] ...says the guy who went to see RotK at midnight. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And, pray tell, why is that? Hindu mythology had demons far longer than Christianity (indeed, probably longer than any of the faiths of the descendents of Abraham). If you are refering to Asuras, demon isn't quite the right word. They are more like a rival (losing) clan of Gods like the Greek Titans. Some of them (i.e. Prahlad, Bali) were quite benevolent. I'm content to cede demons to the Westerners :-) -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Bug#224081: ITP: ttf-tamil-fonts -- Free TrueType fonts for the Tamil language
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: ttf-tamil-fonts Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : The Tamil Linux Project * URL : http://www.tamilinux.org/ * License : GPL Description : Free TrueType fonts for the Tamil language This is a set of OpenType fonts released under the GNU General Public License for the Tamil Language. I made a package called ttf-indic as part of my (rather neglected) Debian-IN project. It contains a couple of Tamil fonts. Is there an overlap with your package? If you would like to help get Debian-IN off the ground it would great. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Bug#224081: ITP: ttf-tamil-fonts -- Free TrueType fonts for the Tamil language
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: I made a package called ttf-indic as part of my (rather neglected) Debian-IN project. It contains a couple of Tamil fonts. Is there an overlap with your package? If you would like to help get Debian-IN off the ground it would great. Oops, forgot the url: http://debian-in.alioth.debian.org/ -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Nah, bullshit. I've heard enough racists use that kind of reasoning. It's no big deal. Face it, you have to respect people. OTOH, I myself am going to lighten up. :-)
Bug#223772: Antwort: Re: Bug#223772: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 16.12.2003 19:15:43: now it is getting clearer. we are talking about different things. I'm talking about the md5sums files in the directory /var/lib/dpkg/info. You talk about the md5 sum of the whole package (MD5sum). so what I like to say is, that for the debian package bc (and many others) there is no file /var/lib/dpkg/info/bc.md5sums in place. this file is checked and used by the tool debsums. that is the thing I'm claiming about. I know. I'm talking about both. regards Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: goswin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc) Package: general Version: N/A; reported 2003-12-12 Severity: normal Tags: security Every package has a md5sum in the Package file. the answer is not correct. pls see as an example the package bc with version 1.06-8 or bzip2 version 1.0.2-1, Package: bc Version: 1.06-12 MD5sum: 9e9945dd5b84b14658c179c2b04c7b89 _EVERY_ deb has a md5sum in the Packages file. Some packages have a useless and space wasting md5sums file inside the package. Due to its uselessness the existance is rather a bug than its omission. i don't understand your comment above. why is the md5sums file useless and space wasting especially in terms of security? until now, I was of the opinion, that the md5sum gives me the guarantee that a debian package is not penetrated before installation and further - after having the packages installed on a machine - the md5sum files give me the confidence that the debian binaries are correct and consistent. Any attacker would surely change the md5sums file along with changing the actual files. Nothing guards againt the md5sums file getting changed intentionally or accidentally. Only the global md5sum in the Packages file says the file got not changed since, well, since the Packages file was generated. Since nothing checks the Release.gpg signature (wihtout apt-secure installed) thats not much more secure either. But you can make sure its not changed since ftp-master.debian.org generated the file. MfG Goswin MfG Goswin
[OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgp2BvcsJjaUc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 12:26, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p Of course an Ursula LeGuin reference would be that knowing an object's/person's real name allows you to control the object/person. sigh... I really do need to read the rest of the Wizard of Earthsea series. -- Stephen Depooter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#223772: Antwort: Re: Bug#223772: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc)
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 16.12.2003 19:15:43: now it is getting clearer. we are talking about different things. I'm talking about the md5sums files in the directory /var/lib/dpkg/info. You talk about the md5 sum of the whole package (MD5sum). so what I like to say is, that for the debian package bc (and many others) there is no file /var/lib/dpkg/info/bc.md5sums in place. this file is checked and used by the tool debsums. that is the thing I'm claiming about. regards Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: goswin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc) Package: general Version: N/A; reported 2003-12-12 Severity: normal Tags: security Every package has a md5sum in the Package file. the answer is not correct. pls see as an example the package bc with version 1.06-8 or bzip2 version 1.0.2-1, Package: bc Version: 1.06-12 MD5sum: 9e9945dd5b84b14658c179c2b04c7b89 _EVERY_ deb has a md5sum in the Packages file. Some packages have a useless and space wasting md5sums file inside the package. Due to its uselessness the existance is rather a bug than its omission. i don't understand your comment above. why is the md5sums file useless and space wasting especially in terms of security? until now, I was of the opinion, that the md5sum gives me the guarantee that a debian package is not penetrated before installation and further - after having the packages installed on a machine - the md5sum files give me the confidence that the debian binaries are correct and consistent. Any attacker would surely change the md5sums file along with changing the actual files. Nothing guards againt the md5sums file getting changed intentionally or accidentally. Only the global md5sum in the Packages file says the file got not changed since, well, since the Packages file was generated. Since nothing checks the Release.gpg signature (wihtout apt-secure installed) thats not much more secure either. But you can make sure its not changed since ftp-master.debian.org generated the file. MfG Goswin
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:09:37AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible; of course, most of the sources on daemons say that they are, as a rule, without names in the origional Greek usage. So? The Greeks were heretical pagans and some of them were even (gasp!) atheists. *snicker* My sister is a neo-Classisist (with, oddly enough, a degree in Classics - one of the few things less useful when job hunting than an English degree). I'm quite familiar with the variety of religious beliefs in the culture. I was mostly pointing out (after having looked) that it may not be possible to find *daemon* names, which would be slightly more apropos (to the geek in me, anyway) than demon names. Very slightly. But slightly. :) If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs, centaurs, etc. to choose from. Since the Greeks classified them as neither evil spirits nor deities, many of them would qualify as daemons in the classical sense. If Homer isn't copyright and trademark free, nothing is safe. In my perception, there is a difference between placation and tact; one of the primary points being the amount of effort that goes into it. Placating requires one to make changes that cost you something appreciable; tact is simply choice one of a number of otherwise equal options such that it has a reasonable chance of being less offensive to the target audience. We have DDs who are, clearly, offended - even if I consider that to be a rather silly thing, given my own beliefs. And if we didn't have another option, I'd probably say tough noogies. But since we *have* had a couple of other options come up, which have yet to generate any statements of offense from anyone who's bothered to put it where I could read it, and those options work just as well in both a practical and a geeky sense, I have no problem with choosing one of them out of tact. Tact is downright vital on debian-bsd. Otherwise, we'd have never got anything done. Unfortunately, it seems to be largely unknown on debian-devel, which is part of why I seldom read it. As may have become clear, my favorite bid so far is for Tolkien names, since the only opinions on d-l that have been cogently argued, or backed up with citations, indicate that using the *names* isn't going to get us in trouble - and because they're already in quite widespread use in the same basic context we intend to use them for. And Tolkien's estate appears to have had many opportunities to raise objections, and hasn't ever done so, to the best of my knowlege. [snip] True. I think Tolkien's work is still covered under the ever-expanding Disney extensions, but then, as I pointed out and d-l backed up, we're using Disney character names for an even more significant naming scheme - releases. If we're really worried about being sued over such, I'd be far more worried about Disney doing it... I think Tolkien's estate has specific interests, and people using the names for hostnames or OS release names aren't the sort of thing they're worried about. In fact, I strongly suspect they'll be occupied for the next few years trying to squelch the commercial opportunism surrounding the movies. I read that they're blocking making a movie of the Hobbit, and haven't been at all happy about the movies that have been made. If we're really worried about this, we can always use the names of the Dwarves in the Hobbit. Most (all?) of those names are from Icelandic sags, IIRC. So is Gandalf. ---Nathan
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:21:24AM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: The Christian concept of a demon is a corruption (as it were) of the Greek concept of daemon Basically, no arguments with what you said, except I find inconsistent the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) Er, no. I'm not. I'm saying that Christian demons are derived from Greek daemons; that isn't the same statement as them being the same thing. I also said that I consider it polite to respect the general BSD wish to *not* be associated with demons, as opposed to daemons. It's a subtle point, granted. It's also why I'm willing to grant as much leeway as I am to folks who feel uncomfortable about using demon names - as long as we have reasonable alternatives. Which I think we do, at this point. Debian Nuggen, Debian Nienna, Debian Nori... hey, I like that last one, if it gets me sushi... -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgp3JaY584eqH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs, centaurs, etc. to choose from. Since the Greeks classified them as neither evil spirits nor deities, many of them would qualify as daemons in the classical sense. We could also go for species, especially if we wanted recognizable names: FreeBSD - faun NetBSD - naiad or nereid OpenBSD - oread I also like the street idea (though I've forgotten whose it was, sorry); does anyone who actually knows the area have suggestions? IIRC, there are a bunch of DDs in the Bay Area -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:54:28PM -0500, Stephen Depooter wrote: On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 12:26, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p Of course an Ursula LeGuin reference would be that knowing an object's/person's real name allows you to control the object/person. This is, in fact, shared to some degree in Rowling's work. Note how few people know Voldemort's real name - and how much power that seems to grant them, in dealing with him. Or maybe it's just that they remember him being an adolescent prat, like everyone else, and don't see him as all that different. :) Voldemort! Voldemort! Voldemort! See, nothing hap... sigh... I really do need to read the rest of the Wizard of Earthsea series. Yes, you do. Don't forget the latest compilation of short stories. It gives a huge amount of (very valuble) context to the history behind some major plot points in the main series. Like why Roke has the strictures it does about the gender of students, and what they're allowed to do. Oh, and it wraps up some loose ends, too. Like the Master Summoner. And no, those aren't spoilers. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpEcuEMWUlkM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:04:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) Er, no. I'm not. I'm saying that Christian demons are derived from Greek daemons; that isn't the same statement as them being the same thing. It's a subtle point, granted. [Picking nits here] Picking demon names to describe daemons only seems to be a good choice if they are closely related. Either it's a poorly descriptive name or you *do* believe they are the same. (Note: this now has nothing to with BSD. I'm just saying it's either a bad choice for a name or they are, for the purposes by which you think the name descriptive, the same).
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:13:03PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote: If we're really worried about this, we can always use the names of the Dwarves in the Hobbit. Most (all?) of those names are from Icelandic sags, IIRC. So is Gandalf. All of them. I suppose they even have enough of the right letters to do the first-letter trick, at least once per. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpvV7fizhNiu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Hey, we already covered Lovecraftian names... -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpFjnRw0Nhdt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:22:07PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:04:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) Er, no. I'm not. I'm saying that Christian demons are derived from Greek daemons; that isn't the same statement as them being the same thing. It's a subtle point, granted. [Picking nits here] Picking demon names to describe daemons only seems to be a good choice if they are closely related. Either it's a poorly descriptive name or you *do* believe they are the same. It's a poorly descriptive name, because (if you look back at the origional post), there *are* no names for proper daemons. Demons are the next closest thing, and do have names. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgp1Y0Eq2gbfa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: experimental codename: scud?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:56:30AM +0100, Toens Bueker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hamish Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not on the list, just follow DWN. Just a thought, but naming something after a missile seems odd. Question is, after what the missile was named ... If I remember right, Scud is the name of Sid's dog, also broke a lot of things... /GCS
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:42:27AM -0800, Nunya wrote: IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Nah, bullshit. I've heard enough racists use that kind of reasoning. It's no big deal. Face it, you have to respect people. And way out from Right Field... OTOH, I myself am going to lighten up. :-) Excellent! Maybe this thread will eventually drop. Or maybe I'll just killfile it like I should have a week ago. -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgpSixT4XR20W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then
Which machine is best to build documentation package?
My package Debian Reference is large source files and it uses many TeX and SGML tools. Can anyone tell me which machine I should use to build and upload package. Since SSH upload has been disabled, it looks very slow and unreliable to upload. (Does dupload uses -C ? Somehow, I felt faster.) Can anyone suggest me the best machine for building larger SGML/LateX source? (I will do so next year.) Yes, I promise to sign package locally by moving changes and desc files. Osamu
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. That's another opinion expressed as a generalization. I think you better quit while you're ahead. No, I believe that's a factual statement, particularly if you read all of the parts of the statement, including words like primarily and in the context. I'm aware that there are other mythological contexts in which demon names would raise similar difficulties, but they don't tend to show up in these sorts of naming threads and they don't tend to get excited about these sorts of problems. This is hardly the first time that this has come up in the context of naming, and in my experience the overwhelming majority of the objections come from the context of Christian mythology. The most numerous and heated objections, again in my experience, come from people who self-identify as Christians. I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:21:40PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then There are very important distinctions between the following statements: Christians are stupid. Tenets of the Christian faith offend me. I consider a belief in X to be foolish/silly/stupid/whatever. Organized religion is meaningful only as a method of controlling people gullible enough to fall for it. [ ObDisclaimer: If you want to know which, if any, of the above are ] [ actually an opinion I hold, ask me in *private* email. ] One of these things is not like the others... one of these things is not the same. While the topicality is questionable (actually, it's not; it's pretty much completely off-topic), making assertions about behavior that happens to be a requirement for membership in a given group is not the same as making assertions about that group (for example, it applies equally to entities who are *not* part of that group, but exhibit the same behavior). -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpKOgpUatMr9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:00:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:21:40PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then There are very important distinctions between the following statements: Christians are stupid. Tenets of the Christian faith offend me. I consider a belief in X to be foolish/silly/stupid/whatever. Organized religion is meaningful only as a method of controlling people gullible enough to fall for it. I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html: (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith? No Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No Is It a statement about a Christian's belief? No That only leaves one alternative. Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, simply asserting it to be true. Until you research it, you don't know it. You only believe it.
Re: experimental codename: scud?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:56:21 +0100, GCS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:56:30AM +0100, Toens Bueker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hamish Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not on the list, just follow DWN. Just a thought, but naming something after a missile seems odd. Question is, after what the missile was named ... If I remember right, Scud is the name of Sid's dog, also broke a lot of things... /GCS Why not name it after the little girl in finding nemo. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com
Re: Bug#224286: ITP: dday -- D-Day Normandy, the original Quake2 WWII modification of First Person Shooters.
Alejandro Arrieta Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: dday Version : 4.1.0 Upstream Author : ViperSoft Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.planetquake.com/dday/ * License : (GPL) Description : D-Day Normandy, the original Quake2 WWII modification of First Person Shooters. [...] Cool. So we can move quake2 (engine) to main. ;-) cu andreas PS: My memory might trick me, but Iirc quake2 is free save for the data-files. -- Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette! Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_ http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:16, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:00:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html : (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. Godwin. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Lustre File System Support?
All, I'm trying to find a distribution that would be willing to add Lustre file system support (it requires a kernel patch). If this group is interested, then I may be able to gather some resources to help add the support. It has recently reached production status(1.0), and would be a valuable tool to many in the linux community. http://www.lustre.org Please let me know if there is any interest. Thanks! Nick Pavlica __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Godwin. Copout.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Dec 17, 2003, at 10:20, Branden Robinson wrote: Given that we're going to be saddled with with a comprehension problem anyway, I say we abandon the effort to be descriptive in the product name. I proposed having a correlation between the first letter of the product name and the underlying BSD variant simply as a mnemonic convenience for people who already know what the products are supposed to be. We don't have to *completely* give up the effort to be descriptive. How about just calling it: Debian GNU/NBSD Debian GNU/FBSD Debian GNU/OBSD (if there's ever an OpenBSD port) It would have the advantage of being recognizable to most people, without actually using 'NetBSD' or so anywhere in the name. [ The following suggestion is possibly flameworthy. Please consider the above separate from the below. ] In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use Debian NBSD/NBSD basically having the first half signify which libc is used. However, if Debian is always going to use the GNU/ prefix, then perhaps make it something like Debian GNU/NBSD/NBSD with the third part signifying the libc used. Kevin
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:16:18PM -0800, Nunya wrote: I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html: (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith? No Correct. Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No Semi-correct. It is a statement about a sub-set of organized religion (to wit, the fanatical sub-set). But, technically, correct. Is It a statement about a Christian's belief? No Correct. That only leaves one alternative. Since you're fond of URLs: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html (I believe that's even the website that keeps appearing in this thread) I never claimed that the four statements I listed covered all statements made. To do so would, in fact, be a ludicrous statement. The statement above is not *any* of the four statements in my previous email; it is a fifth statement (among even more than that, but I can't be bothered to make a precise count; I simply know that it is no less than six, because Ican think of at least one additional statement that has been made). Therefore, it does *not* leave only one alternative. It leaves at least two, one of them being the exact statement made (granted, the statement was made in a context of humor based on informal empirical observation, rather than a rigorous scientific study, but since you have cited no such study to refute it, and it's my damn mailbox, I stand by my right to summarize it as I see it). Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. As someone else already said, Godwin. It may, or may not, be a true statement that I have authored or spoken a statement that would qualify; in fact, given the number of things I have said or typed over the years, many of them ill-advised, I probably HAVE do so in at least one incident at some point, or something that could reasonably be taken as such. However, the statement in question is not, and in asserting that it is, you're attempting to argue from a point of emotion rather than logic. For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. It's certainly easy to *feel* like folks might just hate your beliefs, and often you for having them, when they're willing to go that far. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpW9weTJjL3f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 00:21, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then Stupid people are stupid. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like this... If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate speech? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, so it's pretty hopeless. I've tried to appeal to your sense of fair treatment to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent people. I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient percentage of people on their own.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:49:06AM -0800, Nunya wrote: | | I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans | | intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and | | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. | | ... and in some cases justified. | | Who are you to pass judgement on others? I am Cameron :-) Seriously, judging people and their beliefs and actions - and acting on these judgments, discriminating against people because of them - is something that everyone does, and I don't see it as /necessarily/ being a bad thing. Life is a series of these decisions, and some of them will almost certainly involve considering people's beliefs and attitudes as being inferior to others'. You are doing it yourself, judging Branden (and others) based on his attitude toward a certain group of people - an attitude which you obviously disagree with strongly, but which you have offered little convincing evidence against. | | Please explain to me the relevance of these names without the specific | | intent of discomforting people. The *intent* is clear. | | They are a reference to the BSD association with daemons. I thought | that was quite obvious? | | Yeah, and the Duke Blue Devils and the Wake Forest Demon Deacons have | references to them to. I think if they used these names for their | dormatories people would raise an eyebrow. | | You are totally rationalizing. *sigh* From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names: We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot is the cute and devilish daemon), with the first letter shared by the demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. Once again, the stated intent /was/ a punning reference to the BSD daemon. Cameron.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect of Christianity under most circumstances, but drawing from the same traditions). Somehow, though, I find this unlikely. I haven't bothered to look closely at the smaller and more fundamentalist sects. The Unitarians might have a different position; they seem the most likely. But they don't have enough voting members to succeed against the above. Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, so it's pretty hopeless. I've tried to appeal to your sense of fair treatment to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent people. Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient percentage of people on their own. I cannot respond to this in any fashion that is anything except pointless invective. While it would relieve some tension for me, it wouldn't really serve any long-term purpose. So, instead, I'll remove the source of tension. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpxelvR913qN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. Point to something general, and I'll say point to something specific.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:35:54AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: | You are totally rationalizing. *sigh* From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names: We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot is the cute and devilish daemon), with the first letter shared by the demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. Once again, the stated intent /was/ a punning reference to the BSD daemon. Like I said, go right ahead. I really want to see how this plays out.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: | | Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what | you hate. | | Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like | this... | | If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate | speech? No, but if you say you hate Jews, then many would claim you are. If you wanted to be cynical, you could point out which side won the second world war... Cameron.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Godwin. Copout. Yes, it is too bad he is copping (sp) out on discussing all sorts of things immediately relevant to the development of Debian. Can we please get back to some more pertinent flames? -- gram signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:43, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. I along with many others are looking forward to seeing John Ashcroft being kicked out. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect [...] Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. So which civil rights are you referring to? The Anglican church seems to be doing reasonably well in terms of civil rights recently (I think that they already have gay priests, and gay marriage is being debated). Quite a number of Anglican ministers and members of the congregation have defected to the Catholic church because of this (and they apparently are not missed at all). I haven't been following the matter closely, I haven't been an Anglican (or any type of Christian) for some time. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? -- gram signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect [...] Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. So which civil rights are you referring to? The Anglican church seems to be doing reasonably well in terms of civil rights recently (I think that they already have gay priests, and gay marriage is being debated). Quite a number of Anglican ministers and members of the congregation have defected to the Catholic church because of this (and they apparently are not missed at all). I haven't been following the matter closely, I haven't been an Anglican (or any type of Christian) for some time. Details in a private reply (and I'll send them to those who ask - privately; we're already so far off topic we're losing sight of dry land). The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as such, but they WILL recognize an oath of enduring commitment sworn before God, under their doctrines - or at least, that is the summation of the ceremony issue that I was given by a member of said clergy and long-time friend, about a month ago, after the ordainment of the Bishop that caused the latest not-quite-schism). My personal experience is, in fact, that most members of the Anglican communion that I have contact with are, at worst (for me), somewhat discomfitted by a clash between doctrine and principle. They are the same people who voted to allow the recent changes. Which is one reason why I take issue with organized religion far more often than with people who happen to be members of it, but don't have personal problems with my actions - they happen to be the most likely to vote (in secular elections) against the implied vote that the doctrinal statement would expect. Or, to steal a quote, A *person* is smart. *People* are dumb, stupid, panicky animals and you know it. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpdMydc6X9DA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Man, that is so fucking weak.
Re: Lustre File System Support?
Nick, *, Nick Pavlica, on 2003-12-17, 16:28, you wrote: I'm trying to find a distribution that would be willing to add Lustre file system support (it requires a kernel patch). If this group is interested, then I may be able to gather some resources to help add the support. It has recently reached production status(1.0), and would be a valuable tool to many in the linux community. This is definitely something we should include in our shiny new Enteprise Subproject. Since I am interested in distributed filesystems I would be willing to start packaging what is necessary for running luterfs on Debian, but not before New Year ;-) Joerg -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#224232: ITP: yahoo2mbox -- retrieve and store Yahoo! Groups messages
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:59:33AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:15:59PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: yahoo2mbox Version : 0.15 Upstream Author : Vadim Zeitlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~zeitlin/yahoo2mbox.html * License : Public Domain Description : retrieve and store Yahoo! Groups messages yahoo2mbox is a small Perl script which retrieves all messages from a mailing list archive at Yahoo! Groups and stores them into a local file in MBOX format. How is this any different than fetchyahoo? fetchyahoo downloads mails from _your_ yahoo account. This one downloads mail archives from any mailing list at http://yahoogroups.com/, you don't need a Yahoo mail account. Ganesan -- Ganesan R (rganesan at debian dot org) | http://www.debian.org/~rganesan/ 1024D/5D8C12EA, fingerprint F361 84F1 8D82 32E7 1832 6798 15E0 02BA 5D8C 12EA
Re: Lustre File System Support?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:57 -0800 (PST), Nick Pavlica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I'm trying to find a distribution that would be willing to add Lustre file system support (it requires a kernel patch). If this group is interested, then I may be able to gather some resources to help add the support. It has recently reached production status(1.0), and would be a valuable tool to many in the linux community. http://www.lustre.org Please let me know if there is any interest. Thanks! Nick Pavlica You could just package the kernel patch, then use make-kpkg (a utility for building kernel packages) to make your own kernel, or even a kernel for the distribution. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:12:21AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: I think you trimmed away content that was crucial for understanding the parts you did quote, but whatever. If you need reptition or elaboration, I'll provide it. Please do. I found nothing in your article that seemed to provide answers to my questions. I ask again: How do you suggest that the NetBSD people should have communicated their misgivings to us? One possibility would have been to not raise the trademark issues at all. Which would amount to saying We won't tell you why, but please change your name. I think that would be discouteous in the extreme. Possible approaches include: 1) don't ask, don't tell 2) order us to stop 3) grant us a license 4) Ask us nicely to stop. 1) is no longer on the table. They didn't do 3), though they might still. That leaves 2). And (4). I don't think you have provided *any* evidence that (4) was not what they did, and I think that to react as if (2) was the case would be silly and excessively confrontational. I'm generally in favor of a use or lose it approach to intellectual property, but this is more like be an asshole or lose it. I still cannot see how you imagine that they could have *told* us about their misgivings at all in a way that you wouldn't equal with being an asshole. -- Henning Makholm In my opinion, this child don't need to have his head shrunk at all.
Re: Bug#224081: ITP: ttf-tamil-fonts -- Free TrueType fonts for the Tamil language
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:08:17PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: ttf-tamil-fonts Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : The Tamil Linux Project * URL : http://www.tamilinux.org/ * License : GPL Description : Free TrueType fonts for the Tamil language This is a set of OpenType fonts released under the GNU General Public License for the Tamil Language. I made a package called ttf-indic as part of my (rather neglected) Debian-IN project. It contains a couple of Tamil fonts. Is there an overlap with your package? I am not sure. I'll take a look. If you would like to help get Debian-IN off the ground it would great. Certainly. I attented the Linux Bangalore 2003 conference and the IndLinux project (http://www.indlinux.org) seems to be coming along pretty well. They're based on Morphix. Getting all the packages into Debian can be only a good thing. Ganesan -- Ganesan R (rganesan at debian dot org) | http://www.debian.org/~rganesan/ 1024D/5D8C12EA, fingerprint F361 84F1 8D82 32E7 1832 6798 15E0 02BA 5D8C 12EA
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:19:58PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:03, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be unacceptable about it, and why is it only a borderline
case? What would push it over the borderline?
Demons are evil, and the BSD mascot is a demon (albeit a stylised
Below is the first definition provided by the dict daemon command in
Debian.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Demon \Demon\, n. [F. d['e]mon, L. daemon a spirit, an evil
spirit, fr. Gr. dai`mwn a divinity; of uncertain origin.]
1. (Gr. Antiq.) A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a
middle place between men and deities in pagan mythology.
[1913 Webster]
I have no opinion either way, but, just to be fair, the full entry from
Webster's 1913 is:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Demon \Demon\, n. [F. d['e]mon, L. daemon a spirit, an evil
spirit, fr. Gr. ? a divinity; of uncertain origin.]
1. (Gr. Antiq.) A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a
middle place between men and deities in pagan mythology.
The demon kind is of an intermediate nature between
the divine and the human. --Sydenham.
2. One's genius; a tutelary spirit or internal voice; as, the
demon of Socrates. [Often written {d[ae]mon}.]
3. An evil spirit; a devil.
That same demon that hath gulled thee thus. --Shak.
--
gram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: No list archives getting updated at all
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:17:50 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides, NNTP is better-suited for it, and BTW is already available at www.gmane.org. If we start referring people to GMANE, we should drop them a load of older list archives for import. They only started in mid-2002. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Re: Debian wxWindows - XML Resources?
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Manuel Bilderbeek wrote: I originally sent the message below to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but it seems he's not responding to my mails. Ron is the maintainter of the wxWindows packages for Debian. I was hoping that sending it to this mailinglist would be more fruitful. Please let me know if there's something better I could do. :) While I had several contacts to Ron who is Debian maintainer and member of upstream team I guess he might be on vacation if not responsive ... OK, here's what I sent: Me and a friend just started to work on a project that uses wxWindows (in C++) and we'd like to use the wxWindows XML Resources, to easily separate the UI from the actual implementation. But, it seems that the wxWindows XML Resources are not included in Debian. Is that correct? I do not know that personally but the best thing to do is to file a bug report with severity wishlist to the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS). You might use the tool reportbug for this purpose. Appending a patch might speed things up drastically. If you need more information, please let me know. Using the BTS is the best way to archive bugs. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing scripts. update_excuses for gjdoc says gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 0) which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC bugs, no matter how you count. (It should be non-buggy, 1 3; and even if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 2, not 1 0.) Uh, no, it's not non-buggy if it has RC bugs. If gjdoc has an RC bug, it's not suitable for testing or release. Fix that now. The less buggy stuff should be considered an optimisation, if it doesn't hit your package when it should, the solution is to fix the RC bugs in your package. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 pgpx8ql8tH7Fi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Unidentified subject!
10(10) 13305245548 13951246713 13305241895 0527-3553418 0527-3558461 0527-8380396 8380360 8388218 0527-3558461 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1010%1001010100*10%
experimental codename: scud?
I'm not on the list, just follow DWN. Just a thought, but naming something after a missile seems odd. Hamish
Re: BTS (Normal and Important) -- more issues?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 06:32:01PM -0500, sean finney wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:22:57PM +, Colin Watson wrote: Fixed now. earlier today i submitted a bug against an orphaned package in wnpp, and haven't yet recieved a reply. normally the replies come back pretty quick (like 5 or 10 minutes max), but in this case it's been over 4 hours now... maybe the message wasn't delivered when the disks filled up on bts? is it still queued? ack... b.d.o doesn't seem to be responding to http requests now, so i'm guessing something's up (and that someone's probably already working on it :) It responds fine to HTTP for me. if it's helpful at all, here's some info: bug #196199 sent at Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:28:45 -0500 and here's the relevent line from my postfix logs: Dec 16 15:28:46 sativa postfix/smtp[3894]: 70ECA15834: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=master.debian.org[146.82.138.7], delay=1, status=sent (250 OK id=1AWLoE-0007ok-00) should i re-send the message, or am i just being too impatient? I don't see it in the bugs.debian.org logs at all, so I guess it must still be queued in exim somewhere (which I don't have privileges to check). It'll try to check further and get back to you. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Office2000
debian-devel:! Office2000 Office2000() http://www.onlinedown.net/soft/5959.htm Office2000 Office2000, Office2000 http://www.newhua.com/soft/4952.htm Office2000 http://www.onlinedown.net/soft/15683.htm ! 2003-12-17
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [snip] I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. Yeah, let's avoid conversation altogether, or only talk about the weather... [snip] /David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/
Re: experimental codename: scud?
Hamish Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not on the list, just follow DWN. Just a thought, but naming something after a missile seems odd. Question is, after what the missile was named ... by Töns -- There is no safe distance.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:24:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [snip] I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. Yeah, let's avoid conversation altogether, or only talk about the weather... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Damn, that was too easy.
Bug#223772: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: goswin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc) Package: general Version: N/A; reported 2003-12-12 Severity: normal Tags: security Every package has a md5sum in the Package file. the answer is not correct. pls see as an example the package bc with version 1.06-8 or bzip2 version 1.0.2-1, Package: bc Version: 1.06-12 MD5sum: 9e9945dd5b84b14658c179c2b04c7b89 _EVERY_ deb has a md5sum in the Packages file. Some packages have a useless and space wasting md5sums file inside the package. Due to its uselessness the existance is rather a bug than its omission. i don't understand your comment above. why is the md5sums file useless and space wasting especially in terms of security? until now, I was of the opinion, that the md5sum gives me the guarantee that a debian package is not penetrated before installation and further - after having the packages installed on a machine - the md5sum files give me the confidence that the debian binaries are correct and consistent. Any attacker would surely change the md5sums file along with changing the actual files. Nothing guards againt the md5sums file getting changed intentionally or accidentally. Only the global md5sum in the Packages file says the file got not changed since, well, since the Packages file was generated. Since nothing checks the Release.gpg signature (wihtout apt-secure installed) thats not much more secure either. But you can make sure its not changed since ftp-master.debian.org generated the file. MfG Goswin
Re: experimental codename: scud?
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 11:56, Toens Bueker wrote: Hamish Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not on the list, just follow DWN. Just a thought, but naming something after a missile seems odd. Question is, after what the missile was named ... Extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud: Scud is the NATO reporting name (not an acronym) for a Soviet army short-range liquid propellant surface-to-surface ballistic missile, the SS-1. [...] The name Scud is also used to refer to an Iraqi modification of the same missile. by Töns -- There is no safe distance. There is: more than 700kms for a Scud-D (aka: SS-1e) :-) -- Vincent RENARDIAS http://www.renardias.com/
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:10:32AM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:24:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [snip] I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. Yeah, let's avoid conversation altogether, or only talk about the weather... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Damn, that was too easy. Sigh... It's obvious that it's hopeless to try to be ironic. Next time I'll do like anyone else and go for moronic instead. Regards: David Weinehall (Any bad mood on my part can probably be attributed to lack of sleep. A total of 5 hours the last few days isn't ideal...) -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/
Bug#224232: ITP: yahoo2mbox -- retrieve and store Yahoo! Groups messages
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: yahoo2mbox Version : 0.15 Upstream Author : Vadim Zeitlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~zeitlin/yahoo2mbox.html * License : Public Domain Description : retrieve and store Yahoo! Groups messages yahoo2mbox is a small Perl script which retrieves all messages from a mailing list archive at Yahoo! Groups and stores them into a local file in MBOX format. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux andlx-anamika 2.6.0-test11 #1 Sat Nov 29 09:34:15 IST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Am 16.12.03 um 17:34:45 schrieb Will Newton: It is worth noting that any project name may also be used for associated domain names, file names etc., so ASCII is nice. Irrelevant with the advent of domain names containing arbitrary Unicode characters. Besides, as was said, there are easily identifiable ASCII-only versions of the proposed names (just like many people would recognize Smeagol, although that's not the way it's properly spelled). Bye, Mike -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831
Re: experimental codename: scud?
Vincent Renardias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not on the list, just follow DWN. Just a thought,
but naming something after a missile seems odd.
Question is, after what the missile was named ...
Extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud:
Scud is the NATO reporting name (not an acronym) for a Soviet army
short-range liquid propellant surface-to-surface ballistic missile, the
SS-1.
[...]
The name Scud is also used to refer to an Iraqi modification of the
same missile.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dict scud
4 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Scud \Scud\, v. i. [imp. p. p. {Scudded}; p. pr. vb. n.
{Scudding}.] [Dan. skyde to shoot, shove, push, akin to skud
shot, gunshot, a shoot, young bough, and to E. shoot.
[root]159. See {Shoot}.]
1. To move swiftly; especially, to move as if driven forward
by something.
The first nautilus that scudded upon the glassy
surface of warm primeval oceans. --I. Taylor.
The wind was high; the vast white clouds scudded
over the blue heaven. --Beaconsfield.
2. (Naut.) To be driven swiftly, or to run, before a gale,
with little or no sail spread.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Scud \Scud\, v. t.
To pass over quickly. [R.] --Shenstone.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Scud \Scud\, n.
1. The act of scudding; a driving along; a rushing with
precipitation.
2. Loose, vapory clouds driven swiftly by the wind.
Borne on the scud of the sea. --Longfellow.
The scud was flying fast above us, throwing a veil
over the moon.--Sir S. Baker.
3. A slight, sudden shower. [Prov. Eng.] --Wright.
4. (Zo[o]l.) A small flight of larks, or other birds, less
than a flock. [Prov. Eng.]
5. (Zo[o]l.) Any swimming amphipod crustacean.
{Storm scud}. See the Note under {Cloud}.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
scud
n : the act of moving along swiftly (as before a gale) [syn:
{scudding}]
v 1: run or move very quickly or hastily; She dashed into the
yard [syn: {dart}, {dash}, {scoot}, {flash}, {shoot}]
2: run before a gale [syn: {rack}]
[also: {scudding}, {scudded}]
by
Töns
--
There is no safe distance.
Bug#224234: ITP: clientcookie -- Python module for automating HTTP Cookie management
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: clientcookie Version : 0.4.9 Upstream Author : Noah Spurrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/pexpect * License : Python Software Foundation License Description : Python module for automating HTTP Cookie management ClientCookie is a pure Python module for handling HTTP cookies on the client side, useful for accessing web sites that require cookies to be set and then returned later. It also provides some other (optional) useful stuff: HTTP-EQUIV and Refresh handling, automatic adding of the Referer header and lazily-seek()able responses. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux andlx-anamika 2.6.0-test11 #1 Sat Nov 29 09:34:15 IST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:49:39PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 07:03:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:21:30PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote: I'll suggest Offler (or Om), Foorgol (I don't like Fate) and, um, some other god coming out of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, preferably whose name starts with an N. Or something like that. Mr. Pratchett's attorneys might take exception to that. If that's a real concern, then Ogg Vorbis is in a lot of trouble. :) Ah; I knew the Ogg Vorbis name came from contemporary fiction, but I've never read Pratchett (my two most recent reads have been _Blinded by the Right_ by David Brock and _Understanding Power_ by Noam Chomsky -- not the sort of works that are useful for mining code names :) ). Given that apparently unchallenged precedent, I'd agree it's unlikely that Pratchett names are risky choices. Still the nice thing about using old, old names like the ones I proposed is that you can be almost positive no one has a leg to stand on in any claim to own the name. -- G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:00:56PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:11:20AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Unfortunately, my experience with the topic tends to indicate that the same folks who care are very likely to consider there mere *concept* of a 'daemon' to be anathema, evil, foul, unclean, and all sorts of other descriptives. Cf. Jesux. ...which has gone for some years without attracting anyone who is both pious enough and clueful enough to develop it. I find this inverse correlation suggestive. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|No executive devotes much effort to Debian GNU/Linux |proving himself wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Laurence J. Peter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:03:00PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [I am not subscribed to debian -bsd.] What would be unacceptable about it, and why is it only a borderline case? What would push it over the borderline? Demons are evil, Demons don't exist. Consequently, their moral value is undefinable. and the BSD mascot is a demon (albeit a stylised one). What does a *non*-stylized demon look like? Have you ever met one? Can you bring it over to my house so I can get a good look, put it in my car, and drive it to the Indianapolis Zoo? I'm sure they have some hungry students there who'd just love to get a paper in _Nature_ out of it. On the other hand, it's not /intended/ to be evil. Eh? I thought you just said demons *are* evil (meaning, I presume, that evil is an inherent and essential characteristic of demons). Where, pray tell, do the intentions of the originators of BSD enter into the picture? In this particular case, my personal thought on this is that the intent outweighs the fact that it's a demon (come on, the BSD daemon on the front of my FreeBSD Services box is holding a spanner and wearing trainers--that's not exactly evil, is it?). What's evil about a name? I don't have any good ideas as or an alternative right now--it's worse than a tiebreaker! This is revealing. If you say so... The fundamentalist mind is much more practiced at identifying what it's opposed to, than at identifying what it supports. Err, I disagree with choosing a name of evil meaning, Surely it's excusable, if our intentions are not evil, per your argument above. Or perhaps it isn't excusable, because intent cannot change essential characteristics, also per your argument above. but haven't got a (good) alternative readily to hand, so suddenly I'm a fundamentalist?! That's quite amusing. I'm amused as well as enlightened by your manner of argument. John H. Schaar said, a fundamentalist is someone who hates sin more than he loves virtue. You appear to be letting your subjective valuations of names from medieval Christian demonology outweigh your subjective valuation of the Debian *BSD porting efforts, which I presume you regard as a virtuous activity (else, you'd exhort us to stop doing it). So, from my perspective, the shoe fits well. A coherent rebuttal is welcome. -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:59:57AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Or read Stephen Brust's _To Reign in Hell_, which posits an alternative explanation of the creation of the world, the nature and causes of the conflict between the angels under Yahweh and those under Satan, and the origin of humankind. Hey! A fantasy novel I've actually read! I feel so cultured now! /me puts on his mailing list charter cop uniform and arrests himself -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:20:32AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [...] a comic which by the way is being made into a movie with Keanu Reeves (it's being filmed as we speak). http://www.insanerantings.com/hell/movie/ [Heaven is oppressive, right-wingers are malevolent, world saved by the paganists/hell.] Wow, even despite the Keanu factor, this film already sounds like a shoo-in for an Oscar. Best Documentary, of course. -- G. Branden Robinson| If you're handsome, it's flirting. Debian GNU/Linux | If you're a troll, it's sexual [EMAIL PROTECTED] | harassment. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Carlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:19:47PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:29:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And, pray tell, why is that? Hindu mythology had demons far longer than Christianity (indeed, probably longer than any of the faiths of the descendents of Abraham). So what makes the Christian mythology more dominant? (even by sheer numbers of adherents, past and present, I would wonder if Hinuism would obviously have to cede ground there). No, no, no, that's the wrong way to approach it. Instead of getting into a pissing contest about who's relgion is better, pray enlighten us with your beliefs about demons, and we'll make up our own minds :-) I think it's better that the parochial religionists on this list be brought to light like roaches in the kitchen. -- G. Branden Robinson|I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, Debian GNU/Linux |and say that if God really existed, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |it would be necessary to abolish http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |him. -- Mikhail Bakunin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:42:47PM -0800, Nunya wrote: I hope I'm attributing correctly. My philosophy of good and evil is private and irrelevant -- but this conversation has made me uncomfortable. I'm killfiling it but -- I'm uncomfortable. Could you take it elsewhere? If you've killfiled it, why does it matter if we keep discussing it? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] | outlaws will @goH7Ok=q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] [We're back off-topic for -legal.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 07:33:17PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have little patience for superstitious beliefs, and less still for people who claim to be defending the tender feelings of the ignorant. But why use names correlated with evil That's not an objective observation. Most people won't know what the hell (so to speak) the names refer to. when other options are available which interfere less with Debian's goals? There's no interference if there is no apprehension of the purported evil correlation. I recognize Forneus and Orobos -- Naberius I'd have to look up. You're better educated in this stuff than I am -- I hadn't heard of any of the three until reading the list, and this is after 20 years of exposure to heavy metal music and Dungeons and Dragons, which should have exposed to me to all the evil there is. At least that's what the fundies tell me. In any event, for any name that doesn't raise trademark issues (and thus potentially jeopardize the entire project), I'd say the choice remains up to those who are actually doing the work -- and that would be the Debian *BSD porters. Street names from Berkeley have appeal, and few fundies assign Manichean properties to asphalt. You haven't met the Amish? :) Anyway, that doesn't sound like a bad naming scheme in principle. Got any specific names in mind? -- G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:23:39PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. That's another opinion expressed as a generalization. I think you better quit while you're ahead. It seemed inductively valid, but easy enough to disprove. Anyone care to provide a counter-example? Do any non-Christians wish to express personal discomfort or offense with the names I proposed? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:37:44PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I doubt you'd have known they were names from Christian demonology if I hadn't told you. I didn't propse that we use better known names like Lucifer or Satan. Even names like Belial, Asmodeus, and Mephistopheles are unfamiliar to uneducated Christians (which is most of them, at least in the U.S.). Sorry, I had a somewhat unique education. Anyway most people in the U.S. are appallingly uneducated, regardless of their religion. We're certainly in agreement there. I fail to see the point. The point is that one has to both be fairly knowledgeable *and* parochial in one's viewpoint to be offended by this choice of names. I'm saying that segment of our audience is too small to worry about. For me, parochiality of mindset is not a factor to be taken into account in the first place, but other Debian developers may disagree, in which case I point out that the number of people likely to be bothered as matter of practical fact is very likely vanishingly small. One other proposal has us using slang names for LSD -- am I the only one who's able to predict an avenue of tiresome critique for *that* choice? Come on, who *really* believes more people are familiar with the demon name Forneus than the drug term acid? For myself it's not a matter of offense. I simply don't want my work named after evil, whether real or imaginary. Think of this as an opportunity to rehabilitate the names. Redemption's a Christian concept, ain't it? In any event, for any name that doesn't raise trademark issues (and thus potentially jeopardize the entire project), I'd say the choice remains up to those who are actually doing the work -- and that would be the Debian *BSD porters. As one of the Debian BSD porters, I'm objecting. Okay. I think your reasons are flimsy, but if you're one of the people doing the work, I won't object to you casting your vote. -- G. Branden Robinson|For every credibility gap, there is Debian GNU/Linux |a gullibility fill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Richard Clopton http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible; of course, most of the sources on daemons say that they are, as a rule, without names in the origional Greek usage. So? The Greeks were heretical pagans and some of them were even (gasp!) atheists. *snicker* My sister is a neo-Classisist (with, oddly enough, a degree in Classics - one of the few things less useful when job hunting than an English degree). I'm quite familiar with the variety of religious beliefs in the culture. I was mostly pointing out (after having looked) that it may not be possible to find *daemon* names, which would be slightly more apropos (to the geek in me, anyway) than demon names. Very slightly. But slightly. :) It's impossible to not offend fundamentalists. Once you have done so there is no reconciliation and no compromise. You either subordinate yourself to their will or you are condemned as immoral. I honestly don't think it's worth the time to try and placate them. Nor do I. I mean, consider the fact that my personal email is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I use it quite extensively (just check the list archives) - this is not exactly something used by someone big on placating fundies. On the flip side, I *don't* use that address, as a general rule, for things like: * Submitting resumes * Contracting work under the house consulting company * Things where I'm speaking as a Debian Developer * Work-related tasks In my perception, there is a difference between placation and tact; one of the primary points being the amount of effort that goes into it. Placating requires one to make changes that cost you something appreciable; tact is simply choice one of a number of otherwise equal options such that it has a reasonable chance of being less offensive to the target audience. We have DDs who are, clearly, offended - even if I consider that to be a rather silly thing, given my own beliefs. And if we didn't have another option, I'd probably say tough noogies. But since we *have* had a couple of other options come up, which have yet to generate any statements of offense from anyone who's bothered to put it where I could read it, and those options work just as well in both a practical and a geeky sense, I have no problem with choosing one of them out of tact. As may have become clear, my favorite bid so far is for Tolkien names, since the only opinions on d-l that have been cogently argued, or backed up with citations, indicate that using the *names* isn't going to get us in trouble - and because they're already in quite widespread use in the same basic context we intend to use them for. And Tolkien's estate appears to have had many opportunities to raise objections, and hasn't ever done so, to the best of my knowlege. I think the point about the author's potential issue with them (whether or not it's legal, it has many of the same potential problems) may well be enough reason to avoid that one, sadly. Amusing as I find it. I suppose we could always pull names from Lovecraft; I think the names from his work have long since lost any protection they might have had. Debian Nylarthotep, anyone? Okay, maybe not. Heh, well, I'm pretty sure the names of Lovecraftian gods would be just as objectionable to fundies; secondly, some of those names are too damned hard to pronounce :); and third, I think Arkham House (publisher) continues to *act* like the works of Lovecraft are under copyright, and no one yet has had the balls to try an unauthorized edition on the principle that they have passed into the public domain. It wasn't a terribly serious suggestion, you'll note. :) The third point is unfortunate, but mostly for reasons unrelated to this discussion (other than a proven propensity for ignoring the law in favor of lawsuits, which does make it a distinctly less prefferable candidate). Still, at least a challenge to our usage of Lovecraftian names would be rickety on two planks instead of just one, as in the case of Pratchett. True. I think Tolkien's work is still covered under the ever-expanding Disney extensions, but then, as I pointed out and d-l backed up, we're using Disney character names for an even more significant naming scheme - releases. If we're really worried about being sued over such, I'd be far more worried about Disney doing it... -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpGilWod7pcx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: Catholics compared to their Protestant brethren. I should think if anyone were taught demonology these days, it would be kids in Catholic I knew all about demons around that age, and I'm not even a religious person. Doom taught me everything I needed to know, such as the number of shells required to take one down. Thank you, id! Mike
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible; of course, most of the sources on daemons say that they are, as a rule, without names in the origional Greek usage. So? The Greeks were heretical pagans and some of them were even (gasp!) atheists. It's impossible to not offend fundamentalists. Once you have done so there is no reconciliation and no compromise. You either subordinate yourself to their will or you are condemned as immoral. I honestly don't think it's worth the time to try and placate them. I think the point about the author's potential issue with them (whether or not it's legal, it has many of the same potential problems) may well be enough reason to avoid that one, sadly. Amusing as I find it. I suppose we could always pull names from Lovecraft; I think the names from his work have long since lost any protection they might have had. Debian Nylarthotep, anyone? Okay, maybe not. Heh, well, I'm pretty sure the names of Lovecraftian gods would be just as objectionable to fundies; secondly, some of those names are too damned hard to pronounce :); and third, I think Arkham House (publisher) continues to *act* like the works of Lovecraft are under copyright, and no one yet has had the balls to try an unauthorized edition on the principle that they have passed into the public domain. Still, at least a challenge to our usage of Lovecraftian names would be rickety on two planks instead of just one, as in the case of Pratchett. -- G. Branden Robinson| Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |umount;sleep signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:41:50AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: I consider myself educated, and I've never heard of any demons in school where we had 13 years of religious (catholic) education. I can definitely say that I'm not offended, and I doubt that anyone I know would be. Thanks for reinforcing my generally positive view of present-day Catholics compared to their Protestant brethren. I should think if anyone were taught demonology these days, it would be kids in Catholic school, since as I understand it, Christian demonology was an enterprise unique to the Catholic church. By the time the Protestant Reformation rolled around, it was no longer necessary for Christians to *invent* demons; there were plenty to slaughter in sectarian wars. I like Branden's proposition very much. (Other than the proposed Pratchett names.) The Pratchett names weren't my suggestion; if they're adopted, then I cannot claim the credit for proposing them. -- G. Branden Robinson|Computer security is like an onion: Debian GNU/Linux |the more you dig in, the more you [EMAIL PROTECTED] |want to cry. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Cory Altheide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Paul Baker wrote: On Dec 13, 2003, at 3:27 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: Thus: Debian FreeBSD - Debian Forneus (BSD) Debian NetBSD - Debian Naberius (BSD) Debian OpenBSD - Debian Orobos (BSD) While at first I did like these names (better than the tolkien ones being tossed around now), but I fail to see how this addresses: 2) the comprehensibility of our OS names to the pubic. Thanks for asking; I should indeed have made this more clear. Basically, my reasoning is that Debian GNU/KLNetBSD has enough familiar terms in it that one is likely to try to parse it. GNU...okay, yeah. NetBSD...yeah, okay, I know what that is. What's this KL business in the middle? What's KLNetBSD? Is that a version of NetBSD I haven't heard of? Has there been another fork? Given that we're going to be saddled with with a comprehension problem anyway, I say we abandon the effort to be descriptive in the product name. I proposed having a correlation between the first letter of the product name and the underlying BSD variant simply as a mnemonic convenience for people who already know what the products are supposed to be. And it does not necessarily address how there can be multple versions of these when you differentiate by the libc used as well. That's true. I'd suggest using a different name that starts with the same letter. I think sticking closer to the original idea of Debian GNU/KNetBSD is actually the way to go, but perhaps the punctuation is what needs tweaking. I know the first time I saw the uppercase K it immediately made me think of KDE. For whatever reason this is what immediately comes to mind when ever I see a uppercase K infront of an otherwise familar name. And now the Gnome community has also started in the practice of taking things that started with K to imply KDE and putting a G infront instead[1]. What I propose to solve this is to lowercase the K. I think Debian GNU/kNetBSD reads a little better. It takes the emphasis off the k. And when adding the l for libc as well, Debian GNU/klNetBSD. Another option may also be putting the k/l after the BSD. Debian GNU/NetBSDk and Debian GNU/NetBSDkl. I find your proposal unesthetic, but not otherwise objectionable. My entire proposal is grounded on the notion the we might want to just get away from trying to pack the product name itself with descriptive data. People who don't share that notion are unlikely to find my proposal satisfactory. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | De minimis non curat lex. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:10:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek, I rather like the notion of using the Valar - they're fictional, and Tolkien's work isn't yet out from under copyright, but they *are* reasonably well-known (Okay, not as well as Pratchett, but better than Christian demonology), and if we're liable to get in trouble over using just the names, we should probably strongly reconsider our use of Toy Story character names for tagging distributions... Suppose it's time to dig out my reference books and see if I can come up with a suitable set of names out of that mythos. Besides, using Tolkien names is a long geek tradition. You seem to have already noted this, but I should re-emphasize that since the Tolkien novels are still under copyright, then legally the names from them are just as much risky choices as names from Pratchett are. Indeed, noted. From a practical standpoint, they may be worse. If Pratchett is aware of Ogg Vorbis, then he presumably tolerates that usage. The Tolkien estate is already known to have threatened people for using names (not even proper names!) from the works of Tolkien, when they threatened TSR with a lawsuit in the 1970s over the use of words like ent, hobbit and balrog in early editions of the _Dungeons and Dragons_ game. Finally, the recent movie productions and consequent blitz of commercialization has probably got the Tolkien estate in a mood to squash anything that looks even vaguely like unlicensed usage, even if you have to squint and cock your head just right to see it. Hmmm. I know that there was a lot of nasty infighting around TSR and the early DD games - going in *all* directions. Of course, that lawsuit would appear to have much more to do with the *concepts* of 'ent', 'hobbit', 'balrog', and the like, than the mere names. Since concepts are potentially copyrightable, and names aren't, it may not really be the same situation. As for the latter; if they were going to do it, I'd have expected to see it well before now. The first movie has been out for two years now, and the marketing blitz was going on well before that. And they don't appear to have gone after the huge number of folks using the names out there already. I suppose this one may simply have to be a point of disagreement, though, since I certainly can't claim to have researched everything the estate has done in court over the past 10 years or so. The other thing to keep in mind, about the origional lawsuit, is that my (hazy) recollection of it was that it involved a desire for licensing, and thus, royalties, for profiting from the concepts, and the fact that they formed an immediate association with a fantasy world. Apart from Nethack, Debian really isn't in the same field of endeavour, isn't making a profit, and isn't using the concepts, only the names. To me, that's enough to cast a significant doubt on whether their past actions are indicative of any desire to file lawsuits in our situation. Remember, outside the Free Software community, copyright is used only as a destructive weapon, not a tool for promoting cooperation and harmony. All too true. I therefore think using names from Tolkien is imprudent, *even if* we're on a good legal footing. Then we're back to ancient names, of which the only ones even remotely associated are objected to by at least some of the principal participants. Or asphalt, which the Amish don't like, but then, they'll probably never see Debian in the first place... -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgprsAVcmELY4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:42:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:02:44 -0500, Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just the same if you wanted to call them Loki, Kali or Hitler. (To pick a few at random.) Using names of evil, real or imagined, is not something that would be helpful to Debian. That kind of publicity we don't need. Excuse me? Since when is Kali, the name of one of my Godesses, a name of evil? What do you have against my religion? I am not happy with you bandying around such aspersions. I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. It might offend your freedom of speech but I think we should just all agree to drop it, and avoid subjects like this in future. I think the fundies should crawl back into their spider holes to await the Apocalypse, while us heathens and sinners who don't TRULY know the saving grace of Jesus Christ can get back to making the world a better place. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:31:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:23:39PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. That's another opinion expressed as a generalization. I think you better quit while you're ahead. It seemed inductively valid, but easy enough to disprove. Anyone care to provide a counter-example? Do any non-Christians wish to express personal discomfort or offense with the names I proposed? Muslims and Jews also believe in demons. Witches believe in demons. African nature-religionists also believe in demons. Face it dude, you're hatred and unfairness towards one specific group of people is shining through. I don't think this project is so enlightened after all.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek, I rather like the notion of using the Valar - they're fictional, and Tolkien's work isn't yet out from under copyright, but they *are* reasonably well-known (Okay, not as well as Pratchett, but better than Christian demonology), and if we're liable to get in trouble over using just the names, we should probably strongly reconsider our use of Toy Story character names for tagging distributions... Suppose it's time to dig out my reference books and see if I can come up with a suitable set of names out of that mythos. Besides, using Tolkien names is a long geek tradition. You seem to have already noted this, but I should re-emphasize that since the Tolkien novels are still under copyright, then legally the names from them are just as much risky choices as names from Pratchett are. From a practical standpoint, they may be worse. If Pratchett is aware of Ogg Vorbis, then he presumably tolerates that usage. The Tolkien estate is already known to have threatened people for using names (not even proper names!) from the works of Tolkien, when they threatened TSR with a lawsuit in the 1970s over the use of words like ent, hobbit and balrog in early editions of the _Dungeons and Dragons_ game. Finally, the recent movie productions and consequent blitz of commercialization has probably got the Tolkien estate in a mood to squash anything that looks even vaguely like unlicensed usage, even if you have to squint and cock your head just right to see it. Remember, outside the Free Software community, copyright is used only as a destructive weapon, not a tool for promoting cooperation and harmony. I therefore think using names from Tolkien is imprudent, *even if* we're on a good legal footing. -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:12:21AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you didn't bother to read any of the parts of my message that you didn't quote. I did. But I trimmed away those that were not necessary for the reader to be reminded of the context. That is, I belive, common netiquette. I think you trimmed away content that was crucial for understanding the parts you did quote, but whatever. If you need reptition or elaboration, I'll provide it. I ask again: How do you suggest that the NetBSD people should have communicated their misgivings to us? One possibility would have been to not raise the trademark issues at all. As far as I can see, your complaint is that the misgivings they speak about *could* in theory be used as grounds for legal proceedings. If you insist on seeing evil intentions behind the mere mention of them, how on earth do you want them to act? Where did I talk about evil? Please do not put words in my mouth. I already said I didn't think they were acting irrationally. They acted in one of a few manners I would expect once I learned they had registerd NETBSD as a mark. Possible approaches include: 1) don't ask, don't tell 2) order us to stop 3) grant us a license 1) is no longer on the table. They didn't do 3), though they might still. That leaves 2). I already said that this is how trademark law works in the U.S. It gives you a gun and orders you to shoot people with it if they step onto your lawn, or it will be taken away. If your neighbor decides to surprise you by mowing your lawn for you, the theory is that the whole rest of the town will see this and declare open season on your home. I'm generally in favor of a use or lose it approach to intellectual property, but this is more like be an asshole or lose it. Given the choice, I understand why people who've gone to the trouble of acquiring a mark choose to be assholes about them. The law makes friendly oversight a bit risky. (Implying that you'll have no choice but to take someone to court if they don't do as you say counts as being an asshole in my book. Your mileage may vary.) -- G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#224232: ITP: yahoo2mbox -- retrieve and store Yahoo! Groups messages
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:15:59PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: yahoo2mbox Version : 0.15 Upstream Author : Vadim Zeitlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~zeitlin/yahoo2mbox.html * License : Public Domain Description : retrieve and store Yahoo! Groups messages yahoo2mbox is a small Perl script which retrieves all messages from a mailing list archive at Yahoo! Groups and stores them into a local file in MBOX format. How is this any different than fetchyahoo? -- gram signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:24:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: | Demons are evil, | | Demons don't exist. Consequently, their moral value is undefinable. I claim that their moral value /is/ definable in the context of a particular mythology even if they don't exist. In the case of the Christian religion, demons are generally believed to be evil. The Christian religion also has plenty of fundamentalists willing to bash a project merely on the force of the connotations of its name, as this thread has demonstrated. I'm not convinced that this is a valid reason to shun demons as codenames for Debian operating systems, though. Cameron.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:31:17AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Somehow, I don't think Branden will mind being told his dislike of parochial religious fundamentalists is showing. I suspect he'd be proud of it. But you'll see for yourself, soon enough. I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. (Note: your response was measured and even). Please explain to me the relevance of these names without the specific intent of discomforting people. The *intent* is clear. If you can explain for, historical, literary, philosophical reasons, I will enthusiastically support those names. If it's just because let's piss off the Christians, then I say, pick something else. Actually I think you *should* pick those names. I'd love to see the resulting carnage :-)
Need a m68k root access to close this bug [was: Re: Debian Bugs information: logs for Bug#70144]
Javier [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:31:24 +0100): To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Patch for this (stupid) bug Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tags 70144 patch thanks This is a bug that has been open for over 3 and a half years, easy to fix (patch attached) and deserves a 0-NMU. I don't have root access to any m68k machine though, and both are required to compile this. Anyone? Here is the attachment: diff -Nru atari-bootstrap-3.3.old/debian/changelog atari-bootstrap-3.3/debian/changelog --- atari-bootstrap-3.3.old/debian/changelog2003-12-14 00:24:45.0 +0100 +++ atari-bootstrap-3.3/debian/changelog2003-12-14 00:41:58.0 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +atari-bootstrap (3.3-3.1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Deserved 0-day NMU (for a bug which is 3 years old!) + * Added Build-Depends on debhelper, sharutils and dosfstools (Closes: #70144) + + -- Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:12:14 +0100 + atari-bootstrap (3.3-3) unstable; urgency=low * FHS transition (Standards-Version: 3.0.1). diff -Nru atari-bootstrap-3.3.old/debian/control atari-bootstrap-3.3/debian/control --- atari-bootstrap-3.3.old/debian/control 2003-12-14 00:24:45.0 +0100 +++ atari-bootstrap-3.3/debian/control 2003-12-14 00:42:13.0 +0100 @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ Section: base Priority: required Maintainer: Roman Hodek [EMAIL PROTECTED] +Build-Depends: debhelper, dosfstools, sharutils Standards-Version: 3.0.1 Package: atari-bootstrap -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `-
Bug#224286: ITP: dday -- D-Day Normandy, the original Quake2 WWII modification of First Person Shooters.
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: dday Version : 4.1.0 Upstream Author : ViperSoft Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.planetquake.com/dday/ * License : (GPL) Description : D-Day Normandy, the original Quake2 WWII modification of First Person Shooters. In an attempt to recreate one of the most pivotal operations in World War II, D-Day: Normandy pits Axis versus Allied forces against each other during the Normandy Campaign. Starting with Operation Overlord,soldiers must storm the scarred sands of Omaha Beach in order to gain a foothold into future land invasions.D-Day: Normandy's campaign system allows teams to actually gain or lose territory by advancing the players back and forth between maps (depending on which team wins the battle). In this way, players are able to relivethe battles from history while learning the importance of territorial control and strategy. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux salchicha 2.6.0-test9-hp2 #1 Mon Nov 17 07:53:05 CLST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: Branden's second proposal of using something from Pratchett did have a nice ring to it, [...] That wasn't my proposal; it was made by Roland Mas in Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. -- G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds Debian GNU/Linux |combative and excessively personal, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |but that's my general style. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Ian Jackson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:33:48PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:24:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: | Demons are evil, | | Demons don't exist. Consequently, their moral value is undefinable. I claim that their moral value /is/ definable in the context of a particular mythology even if they don't exist. In the case of the Christian religion, demons are generally believed to be evil. The Christian religion also has plenty of fundamentalists willing to bash a project merely on the force of the connotations of its name, as this thread has demonstrated. I'm not convinced that this is a valid reason to shun demons as codenames for Debian operating systems, though. Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. I don't think i am a religious fanatic or whatever, i don't even go regularly to church, and would consider myself more atheist than religious, but it would make me, and maybe others, unconfortable. Also, the proposed names were taken out of the christian mythology (or whatever you name it), so the names are indeed related to the evil they represent in the christian mythology. On a side note, i also prefer the Pratchet names over the Tolkien ones, but either would be fine. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:08:44AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: No, it's probably antipathy for the Free Software Foundation driving this more than anything else. Maybe they'd prefer Debian GNU/KLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGHIJNetBSD most of all. One can't get too far away from those pinkos in Boston! Actualy it was the pinkos in Boston who asked me to use the K prefix. So I think it's nice to see the pinkos in Boston and the NetBSD foundation agree on something, after all. Hmm, maybe that Christian Apolocalypse really IS nigh. I'd better get my disbelieving ass to church! :) -- G. Branden Robinson| What influenced me to atheism was Debian GNU/Linux | reading the Bible cover to cover. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Twice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:58:21PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, namely mips, mipsel and powerpc. I really feel discriminated by this situation. And it's clearly an evil plot against you/m68k as can be seen in the graph above. Oh, great... I wouldn´t have expected that getting polemic is a necessary to become DPL... :-// Yeah; thankfully we don't have to put up with that sort of thing since Branden Robinson wasn't elected DPL[1]. [1] If you need this sentence explained to you, please email me privately. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux |Lincoln today -- just a rumor that [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is put about by people who have http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |nowhere to live.-- G. L. Murfin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#223772: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc)
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:15, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: --cut-- i don't understand your comment above. why is the md5sums file useless and space wasting especially in terms of security? until now, I was of the opinion, that the md5sum gives me the guarantee that a debian package is not penetrated before installation and further - after having the packages installed on a machine - the md5sum files give me the confidence that the debian binaries are correct and consistent. Any attacker would surely change the md5sums file along with changing the actual files. Nothing guards againt the md5sums file getting changed intentionally or accidentally. That's true because everyone could use md5sum to generate the sum of arbitrary file, but just one person has access to his/her private key to sing with. Only the global md5sum in the Packages file says the file got not changed since, well, since the Packages file was generated. Since nothing checks the Release.gpg signature (wihtout apt-secure installed) thats not much more secure either. But you can make sure its not changed since ftp-master.debian.org generated the file. So what is the plan from now on: 1. integrate only apt-secute patch into main apt - to complete the chain of trust via vendors.list. 2. accept dpkg-sig package recently introduced - to create and verify signatures on .deb-files 3. do both Note that implementing just 1. would not suffice since instalations via dpkg -i will not check the signatures. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 keyserver.bu.edu 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
