I also have some old hardware around that could have problems with booting
from something other then the CD sets. But seriously...
I should have thrown in away a decade ago. Also I can by more powerful used
hardware that those (with DVD support) for a dozen of Euros.
Therefore I think that such ol
On 29/10/13 at 22:42 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 24/10/13 18:31, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
> >
> > That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
> > rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has
On 31/10/13 09:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op 30-10-13 23:09, Steve McIntyre schreef:
>> So... In that situation, would you care about having more than just a
>> netinst available for initial booting? Beyond that, people can get on
>> the network to a mirror, or to other machines hosting the DVD i
Op 30-10-13 23:09, Steve McIntyre schreef:
>> Having said that, I do think that providing a limited number of CD
>> install images is useful for those cases of retrocomputing where
>> installing off DVD is difficult. Other than that...
>
> So... In that situation, would you care about having more
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:09:30PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Wouter wrote:
> >
> >The last time I used the full stack of CDs where there was no decent
> >alternative option was when I was helping a customer prepare a set of
> >installation instructions for a code escrow situation.
> >
> >Since
Zack wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:57:29PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> > I would not be opposed to changing the default for xfce for now, and
>> > reverting it if gnome's improvements make it a better choice.
>>
>> OK. I suggest that we *try* that for now.
>
>If we try, what will be the c
Wouter wrote:
>
>The last time I used the full stack of CDs where there was no decent
>alternative option was when I was helping a customer prepare a set of
>installation instructions for a code escrow situation.
>
>Since one of the requirements there was the ability to produce a 100%
>bit-for-bit
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:31:23 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> We've had this discussion multiple times over the years. I've been
> told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
> owning/running hardware that can't do DVDs. I'm not 100% convinced
> myself of how large or cri
Olaf Titz writes:
>> Aeh, are you sure? I think you missed my point. I'm not involved with
>> any init system, nor a Debian developer, yet by developing some random
>> app and having it depend on a specific init system, I could (according
>> to you) make that init system unsuitable for Debian?
>
>
On 24/10/13 18:31, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility?
>
> That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard
> rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some
> unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNO
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:37:02AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Olav Vitters vitters.nl> writes:
>
> > Most of systemd is not in pid1. This was explained by a blog references
>
> But (by the time of the jessie freeze, at least) it will need systemd to
> be pid1 to work. Same thing, really, ju
Olav Vitters vitters.nl> writes:
> Most of systemd is not in pid1. This was explained by a blog references
But (by the time of the jessie freeze, at least) it will need systemd to
be pid1 to work. Same thing, really, just picking words.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:29:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op 25-10-13 15:43, Olav Vitters schreef:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >> There is no good reason other than "that's the way GNOME has been
> >> written". So change the code and get GNOME to be
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:41:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That's a (very!) fair argument, but there's nothing in that argument
> which means it absolutely totally *has* to be part of a pid1
Most of systemd is not in pid1. This was explained by a blog references
on debian-devel a while ago
Op 25-10-13 19:32, Sune Vuorela schreef:
> Why not consolidate on shared code rather than having several bits
> providing the similar functionality for fairly simple tasks ?
That's a (very!) fair argument, but there's nothing in that argument
which means it absolutely totally *has* to be part of a
Op 25-10-13 15:43, Olav Vitters schreef:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>> There is no good reason other than "that's the way GNOME has been
>> written". So change the code and get GNOME to behave properly.
>
> Because you raise this again:
> - No maintenance on C
Op 25-10-13 12:10, Thomas Goirand schreef:
> On 10/25/2013 07:52 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>>
>>> Debian is the "Universal OS", isn't it?
>>
>> Part of being a 'Universal OS' is being useful to as many people as
>> possible, including p
> Aeh, are you sure? I think you missed my point. I'm not involved with
> any init system, nor a Debian developer, yet by developing some random
> app and having it depend on a specific init system, I could (according
> to you) make that init system unsuitable for Debian?
You would surely make _yo
> > OK. I suggest that we *try* that for now.
>
> If we try, what will be the criteria for assessing whether the
> experiment has been successful (and hence worth keeping for Jessie) or a
> failure (and hence reverting it)?
I think it should be considered that there has been much improvement
up
Op 25-10-13 14:45, Adam Sampson schreef:
> Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>> We *could* just drop all the CD sets and be done with it, just keeping
>> the netinst CD and the DVDs. Is that what people really want?
>
> As a longtime Debian user, that would suit me fine -- I've not done a
> Debian instal
> you need something with big buttons
> that is finger-friendly,
I'm surprised how much accuracy a capacitive multitouch mobile has when
in touchscreen terms it is actually extremely poor (3-4mm) exacerbated
by them not responding to nails (conductive), a trade-off for size and
multitouch. Many
Luca Capello pca.it> writes:
> My X60 (from late 2006) can not either, but IMHO the reason behind it
> that the SD reader it is not connected through the USB bus:
> =
> $ lspci | grep SD
> 15:00.2 SD Host controller: Ricoh Co Ltd R5C822 SD/SDIO/MMC/MS/MSPro Host
Adapter (rev 18)
Right, but t
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:57:29PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > I would not be opposed to changing the default for xfce for now, and
> > reverting it if gnome's improvements make it a better choice.
>
> OK. I suggest that we *try* that for now.
If we try, what will be the criteria for assessi
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Joey Hess wrote:
> I also wonder why unity is not being packaged in Debian..
Based on the logs for #609278 it appears there is a lot of interest
and some people working on packaging it but it sounds like it is hard
to build and requires patches in external compone
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Joey Hess wrote:
> I do wish that some of the .. energy .. seen in these threads could be
> used for something more interesting. For example, find a way to detect
> touch screen systems, on which xfce is *not* pleasant, and don't install
> a desktop task there, but
]] Steve Langasek
> In the short term, this could be a committment from the systemd
> maintainers to hold the package at version 204 until the dust settles
> around cgroup manager interfaces[1].
With some time limit (3 months? 6 months?) I think I'd be ok with this.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:23:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Thanks, I hadn't seen that team mentioned before anywhere. It looks
> like the right place for this work to happen. Unfortunately it seems
> rather dormant, as the packages they do have in place date back to
> Ubuntu 12.04 (i.e., b
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:12:11AM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> Indeed. And given the train wreck of contemporary Gnome, I fully welcome the
> discussion on alternative default desktops. Some people are keen to rule out
> the stakeholder issues, but a fact on the so-called agenda remains.
I sugg
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 22:14 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 26, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > This really pinpoints the whole problem: What happened to the Unix
> > philosophy, with freedom of choice?
> We killed it for good in 2008:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/
Neil Williams writes:
>> Please reconsider this. If I wrote a little GUI calculator and made it
>> depend on e.g. upstart, would that also make upstart unsuitable as a
>> default init system because of the resulting insane top-down
>> dependency?
>
> Yes.
Aeh, are you sure? I think you missed my
On Oct 26, Luca Capello wrote:
> A small note: does anyone consider that there are still people on
> not-so-fast Internet connections?
Yes: unless they need to install multiple computers (unusual, I think)
and do not know how to share the downloaded packages among them, then
netinstall is the m
Hi there!
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:08:53 -0700, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:44:48PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Yes, it can. It should contain enough of the packages needed to be
>> able to support all 4 of the recognised DEs. However, at current rates
>> it won't take
On Oct 26, Svante Signell wrote:
> This really pinpoints the whole problem: What happened to the Unix
> philosophy, with freedom of choice?
We killed it for good in 2008:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 00:00 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > Pros:
> >
> > * CD#1 will work again without size worries
> >
> > * Smaller, simpler desktop
> >
> > * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)
> >
> > * Does not depend on replacing init
>
> * Users can pick and choose com
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 04:41:00PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
>
> > On 26 Oct 2013, at 16:08, "Andrew M.A. Cater"
> > wrote:
> >
> > That wouldbe my preference - a tasksel change for "no desktop" "KDE" "GNOME"
> > "LXDE" XFCE" etc. for the netinst - default being no desktop - ideal for a
> Of course, the gnome default makes adding gnome to the plot not
> currently useful. One nice side benefit of at least temporarily
> switching the default desktop to xfce would be that if a lot of people
> wanted gnome, rather than just picking it as the default, we'd see that
> reflected in the p
> On 26 Oct 2013, at 16:08, "Andrew M.A. Cater"
> wrote:
>
> That wouldbe my preference - a tasksel change for "no desktop" "KDE" "GNOME"
> "LXDE" XFCE" etc. for the netinst - default being no desktop - ideal for a
> minimum
> install.
I don't understand how that would work: I presume you do
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:44:48PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andy Cater wrote:
> >
> >I think it would be a good idea to have the netinst have an
> >additional option to select desktop easily including the option for
> >"command line only, no graphical desktop" as default.
>
> We already have
On 26/10/13 16:38, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2013-10-26 13:03:13)
>> On 26/10/13 12:02, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:19:53AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I have Gnucash installed and it depends on udisks, trust me I have
absolutel
Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2013-10-26 13:03:13)
> On 26/10/13 12:02, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:19:53AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>>> I have Gnucash installed and it depends on udisks, trust me I have
>>> absolutely no need for udisks or polkit, so don't be so su
> On 26 Oct 2013, at 13:00, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Desktop
> components cannot dictate how the rest of the system operates.
The gnome folks are free to do what they please. They don't answer to us and
your repeated assertions that they're crossing a line just shine a light on
your own hubr
Le samedi 26 octobre 2013 à 13:03 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a
écrit :
> On 26/10/13 12:02, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:19:53AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> >> I have Gnucash installed and it depends on udisks, trust me I have
> >> absolutely no need for udisks or po
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:58:34 -0700
Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
> > If someone comes up with good reasons to consider systemd on it's
> > own merit, I'm willing to consider it. With the current approach of
> > a fait-accompli "systemd is part of the GNOME dependency chain, so
> >
[Please don't top post on this mailing list!]
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:45:02PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> And just bashing GNOME DE for systemd and GNOME Classic
> is not good enough point because probably the largest user base
> of Debian user use GNOME.
That is because it is installed by
On 26/10/13 12:02, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:19:53AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> I have Gnucash installed and it depends on udisks, trust me I have
>> absolutely no need for udisks or polkit, so don't be so sure (I am not
>> saying that I am sure that he is not).
>
>
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:19:53AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I have Gnucash installed and it depends on udisks, trust me I have
> absolutely no need for udisks or polkit, so don't be so sure (I am not
> saying that I am sure that he is not).
gnucash → libgnome2-0 → gvfs → gvfs-daemons → libgd
Hi there!
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:17:03 -0700, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> And neither my IBM X40 nor my employer's X61 can boot from SD card,
> despite having the drive built in. Sucks.
Off-topic, but still.
My X60 (from late 2006) can not either, but IMHO the reason behind it
that the SD reader it
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:42:55AM +1100, Jackson Doak wrote:
> +1 to xfce, but it might be worth using a nicer theme than the current xfce
> one.
It might be good to default to what's used on XFCE's own homepage. That
icon theme, faenza, is stuck in ITP (#595106), despite at least two people
ha
Andrew Kane dixit:
>A lot of these boxes are ones that one would reasonably expect to
>support booting from USB, but in some cases the option isn't there in
>the BIOS setup or boot menu and in others the option is there but is
>ignored on boot some or all of the time. The inability to boot from a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 07:51 -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
>
>> As someone who deals with a lot of random donated hardware, I can
>> attest that we run into these cases frequently.
>
> Interesting data point, thanks. hat sort of vintage of random h
> Pros:
>
> * CD#1 will work again without size worries
>
> * Smaller, simpler desktop
>
> * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)
>
> * Does not depend on replacing init
* Users can pick and choose components and drop down the size
significantly such as for debian embedded or s
> > Why should I have installed packages I'm not using and I don't want to
> > use? I know it's rhetorical question but not all systems are having
> > enough disk space besides I don't like have packages I'm not using on
> > my systems. So it's not a solution to anything just kind a nasty
> > wor
> For people who just don't care, are you doing them a favour by installing
> xfce rather than GNOME?
>
> I don't think so. Most of the things people hate about GNOME are things that
> GNOME is doing to specifically target people who just don't care.
Personally I wouldn't put Gnome 3 in front of
> XFCE is short of maintainers, both upstream and debian, but 4.12 is
> expected to be released sometime in the next 6 months. That said,
> everything both debian and upstream is stable, and a number of 4.11
> "development release" packages are able to be uploaded to experimental
> if more people c
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Also, I was not in a position to try gnome 3.4 myself at all, hardware,
> and bandwidth wise, until rather too late in the release cycle. I didn't
> see conclusive proof that gnome 3.4 was really the wrong default for
> wheezy until I sta
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 07:51 -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 13:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > ...I've been
> > > told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
> > > owning/running hardware
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:56:20PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> I do see quite an amount of ignorance and pushing regarding adoption of
> systemd and GNOME. I fully accept that it may be difficult to agree on a way
> forward? but currently I get the impression that any neither GNOME nor
>
Joey Hess wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
>> discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
>> day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
>> feel. Let's change the default desktop fo
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:51:48AM -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
> > As someone who deals with a lot of random donated hardware, I can
> > attest that we run into these cases frequently. It may be rare that
> > new systems lack these capa
Andy Cater wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:42AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> I guess not everybody understands the reasons for Debian choosing a
>> default desktop, so I'll explain/expand them here.
>>
>> 1. We have several types of installation media (netboot, netinst, DVD,
>>BD)
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 13:36 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> I firmly
> believe that GNOME threw away that justification with GNOME Shell and
> if GNOME persists in the eye-candy approach and then adds an entirely
> unjustifiable dependency from a *desktop* to an *init* system then I
> hav
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 18:15 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> The option existed to make the desired features optional and that
> option was deliberately written out in an effort to extend GNOME beyond
> a desktop.
Oh, but of course these features are optional. You can still run GNOME
wit
Neil Williams writes:
> If someone comes up with good reasons to consider systemd on it's own
> merit, I'm willing to consider it. With the current approach of a
> fait-accompli "systemd is part of the GNOME dependency chain, so tough"
> then I am quite happy to dismiss systemd as an option simply
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 14:21 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> > I humbly disagree. I'm mainly interested in the perspectives of systemd on
> > servers.
>
> Systemd on servers is offtopic for this thread.
Not when one of the nonsensical arguments used for systemd-bashing is
that it would be in
On Oct 25, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In the long term, we certainly need a decision for the default init system
> in Debian.
No: we need one in the short term to be able to support it in jessie, or
we will be stuck with an antiquated init system for many more years.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.as
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On 25 Oct 2013, at 21:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If someone is interested in maintaining Unity in Debian, I would be happy to
> > help figure out how Debian could leverage the existing CI infrastructure
> > that's in place f
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 à 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > > > This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a
> > > > little discussi
> On 25 Oct 2013, at 21:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> If someone is interested in maintaining Unity in Debian, I would be happy to
> help figure out how Debian could leverage the existing CI infrastructure
> that's in place for these packages in Ubuntu.
Aren't these folks working on it?
https:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:19:30PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > Is there one in Debian?
> > Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> > problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> > approaching usable GUI support, even disco
On 2013-10-25, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, I just gave KDE a try with my laptop fliped to tablet mode,
> and did not see anything that works better than xfce. I was still stuck
> fatfingered with a tiny panel, and once I started konqueror, could
> not drag to scroll the page, or make any other gesture
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> > problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> > approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
>
> Plasma Active is quite mature and
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:42AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> I guess not everybody understands the reasons for Debian choosing a
> default desktop, so I'll explain/expand them here.
>
> 1. We have several types of installation media (netboot, netinst, DVD,
>BD) where we can happily ins
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
Plasma Active is quite mature and I'm sure the debian KDE team wo
Neil Williams wrote:
> Is there one in Debian?
>
> Equally, is there genuine support for tablets within Debian beyond the
> problems with GUIs and touchscreens? I'm not aware of anything
> approaching usable GUI support, even discounting touch.
I know that multiple desktop projects are interested
Hi,
On Fr 25 Okt 2013 13:52:05 CEST, Olav Vitters wrote:
Note that also various MATE developers have git.gnome.org accounts (I
set that up for them). IIRC they took over one of the deprecated
components.
just for the record: The MATE Packaging Team is preparing the MATE
desktop for Debian.
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I've said that for years, but we still haven't changed to KDE Plasma
> Desktop as the default.
http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=task-xfce-desktop+task-lxde-desktop+task-kde-desktop&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&da
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:15:02 -0400
Joey Hess wrote:
> I do wish that some of the .. energy .. seen in these threads could be
> used for something more interesting. For example, find a way to detect
> touch screen systems, on which xfce is *not* pleasant, and don't
> install a desktop task there,
> I humbly disagree. I'm mainly interested in the perspectives of systemd on
> servers.
Systemd on servers is offtopic for this thread.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
> discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
> day for the change to make sense. Now we have rather more time, I
> feel. Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce
Am Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, 17:32:30 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
> On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Other desktop environments have similar features without requiring a
> > change of init system. It was a choice by GNOME upstream and a choice
>
> Other desktop environments either are reimpleme
As a matter of personal preference I would like to see something other than
gnome as default. I've had much better luck converting users from windows,
specifically older and middle aged users, with xfce or lxde.
But this conversation really goes back to the init conversation. On which I
suggest we
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 11:07:09 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> • On a VM, I might want to run very low-consuming software only, to lower
> the cost of separating things into VMs of their own. (I’ll be writing a
> syslog dæmon some day because sysklogd (three processes, c’mon!) is now
> remove
On 2013-10-25, Neil Williams wrote:
> Other desktop environments have similar features without requiring a
> change of init system. It was a choice by GNOME upstream and a choice
Other desktop environments either are reimplementing bits of systemd or
is having some more or less weird bugs related
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:48:29 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 à 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > > This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a
> > > little discussion around a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 à 16:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > This goes back to during the wheezy release cycle. There was a little
> > discussion around a change in tasksel [1], but rather too late in the
> > day for the c
Le vendredi 25 octobre 2013 à 13:41 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> There is no good reason other than "that's the way GNOME has been
> written". So change the code and get GNOME to behave properly.
I’m not the one who wants to run GNOME on a random, obsolete and
non-working init system.
--
.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:49:59 +0200
Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:51:48AM -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
> > > > ...I've been
> > > > told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of
> > > > users owning/running hardware that can't do DVDs.
> > >
> > > The set of hardw
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:51:48AM -0700, Andrew Kane wrote:
> > > ...I've been
> > > told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
> > > owning/running hardware that can't do DVDs.
> >
> > The set of hardware which can't boot from DVDs *or* boot from a USB
> > stick must sur
From: Andrew Kane
Date: Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 13:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > ...I've been
> > told multiple times t
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:14:41AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> maintenance. I seriously doubt that us switching away from Gnome will
> have a detectable negative impact on Gnome's rate of development, so the
> average quality of our offerings on the desktop, and the quality of that
> choice for a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> There is no good reason other than "that's the way GNOME has been
> written". So change the code and get GNOME to behave properly.
Because you raise this again:
- No maintenance on ConsoleKit since 1.5 years, despite me/GNOME raising
Ole Laursen hardworking.dk> writes:
> For instance: I have in the past had downtime on servers I maintain
because
> Debian out of the box doesn't babysit processes. Apache or MySQL hit by a
> random once-in-a-year irreproducible crash? Boom.
Hm, fun. I don’t usually run into those, but then I re
Steve McIntyre writes:
> We *could* just drop all the CD sets and be done with it, just keeping
> the netinst CD and the DVDs. Is that what people really want?
As a longtime Debian user, that would suit me fine -- I've not done a
Debian installation using anything other than netinst (or debootst
That looked unintentionally *great* in my mutt, half of it got
interpreted and coloured as quotes, giving a "chrome" feel.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian
Hi Steve, thanks for starting this discussion.
I was quite intrigued by the responses which challenged whether we need
a default at all, but if we accept that a default is required (as you
outline and as others have said), I have two separate thoughts to
ponder about proceeding:
• we define some
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 13:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> We've had this discussion multiple times over the years. I've been
> told multiple times that we still have a non-negligible set of users
> owning/running hardware that can't do DVDs.
The set of hardware which can't boot from DVDs *or* boo
]] Thorsten Glaser
> Jonathan Dowland debian.org> writes:
>
> > Installing systemd does not magically switch your init system.
>
> Not *yet*. But it will, shortly.
No, it won't.
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general/187556
I'm not saying that in that article. Please d
On Oct 25, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Why? “Multiple init systems” is not a feature that any of our users
> > should care of. It is not a functional goal.
> Well I guess users *do* care... just look at the posts from the last few
> days.
Just because some people have different personal p
On Oct 25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> • Your primary use case appears to be “the desktop”, whereas Debian, as
> opposed to some of its downstreams and Pure Blends, is a Universal OS,
> which means it’s got much more servers in use, which don’t benefit from
> systemd either at all or at least
On Oct 25, Neil Williams wrote:
> If someone comes up with good reasons to consider systemd on it's own
> merit, I'm willing to consider it. With the current approach of a
The arguments for a modern init system have been discussed over and
over.
I do not mind replacing gnome with something else
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
