On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 11:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> My suggestion (which I also brought up further down in this thread) is
> that you *slightly* distinguish your project from Arch Linux by adding a
> small change to the logo. The word "ARM" in small letters in the lower
> right corner of the
> Now, what's the confusion here? People seem to think that you are part
> of the main Arch Linux project and are thus confused as to why you have
> separate forums.
I've only seen one person express confusion on this point... is this
really a problem?
--
John K Pate http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.u
Am 09.07.2012 22:03, schrieb Kevin Mihelich:
> Around March/April 2011, we contacted Aaron Griffin and got
> explicit permission to rename our distribution to Arch Linux ARM since we
> were rapidly expanding our focus from plug computers to a wide variety of
> ARM platforms, and had also brought ou
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 19:54 +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Am 09.07.2012 18:44, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM, David C. Rankin
> > wrote:
> >> On 07/09/2012 11:16 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Because Archlinuxarm is unsupported by Archlinux. it is a seperate
>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2012 4:03 AM, "Kevin Mihelich" wrote:
>> I'd be more than happy to work with more developers from upstream, and I
>> just want to re-emphasize that we're in no way some rogue derivative
> flying
>> your flag. If anyone wants to get i
On Jul 10, 2012 4:03 AM, "Kevin Mihelich" wrote:
> I'd be more than happy to work with more developers from upstream, and I
> just want to re-emphasize that we're in no way some rogue derivative
flying
> your flag. If anyone wants to get involved or learn more about what goes
> on, feel free to c
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM, David C. Rankin <
drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 12:54 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>
>> Judging from a brief read of that paragraph I would even conclude that
>> they cannot really use our name and trademark directly as they changed
>> too muc
On 07/09/2012 12:54 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Judging from a brief read of that paragraph I would even conclude that
they cannot really use our name and trademark directly as they changed
too much. :-)
They chose to be completely independent from us which has up- and
downsides. And as lots of ot
Am 09.07.2012 18:44, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM, David C. Rankin
> wrote:
>> On 07/09/2012 11:16 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
>>>
>>> Because Archlinuxarm is unsupported by Archlinux. it is a seperate
>>> project. The same reason archbang, chakra, bridgelinux, and
>>> ar
Am 09.07.2012 18:23, schrieb Mateusz Loskot:
> p.s. I agree the official logo makes the ArchLinux ARM status confusing.
Maybe we should ask them to use a slightly modified logo (maybe include
a microchip into the logo, or another small device).
I don't remember what the agreement with Arch Linux
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:21:29 -0500
"David C. Rankin" wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 11:16 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> > Because Archlinuxarm is unsupported by Archlinux. it is a seperate
> > project. The same reason archbang, chakra, bridgelinux, and
> > archlinux-ppc are seperate as well.
>
> G. T
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM, David C. Rankin
wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 11:16 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
>>
>> Because Archlinuxarm is unsupported by Archlinux. it is a seperate
>> project. The same reason archbang, chakra, bridgelinux, and
>> archlinux-ppc are seperate as well.
>
>
> G. Thanks
On 9 July 2012 17:16, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:06:55AM -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
>> On 07/09/2012 10:52 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:> Check the ArchLinux ARM forum:
>> >
>> > http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3036&p=18467
>>
>> Why do we have different foru
On 07/09/2012 11:16 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
Because Archlinuxarm is unsupported by Archlinux. it is a seperate
project. The same reason archbang, chakra, bridgelinux, and
archlinux-ppc are seperate as well.
G. Thanks Daniel,
That's what was confusing -- ARM certainly looks official fl
2012/7/9 Daniel Wallace :
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:06:55AM -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
>> On 07/09/2012 10:52 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:> Check the ArchLinux ARM forum:
>> >
>> > http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3036&p=18467
>>
>> Why do we have different forum systems with diff
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:06:55AM -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 10:52 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:> Check the ArchLinux ARM forum:
> >
> > http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3036&p=18467
>
> Why do we have different forum systems with different login
> requirements for d
On 9 July 2012 17:06, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 10:52 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:> Check the ArchLinux ARM forum:
>>
>> http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3036&p=18467
>
> Why do we have different forum systems with different login requirements
> for different Arch issues?
On 07/09/2012 10:52 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:> Check the ArchLinux ARM forum:
>
> http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3036&p=18467
Why do we have different forum systems with different login requirements
for different Arch issues? Seem like KISS would dictate - 1 system and 1 login
18 matches
Mail list logo
