On 02/12/14 00:52, lee wrote:
snipped WoW
Whatever ... You should have snipped your own posts to begin with.
Anyway, you didn't contribute anthing to what the OP said, and I don't
find this part of the discussion worthwhile at all.
Then why are you persisting with it?
--
Tony van der
Le 28.11.2014 15:32, Rusi Mody a écrit :
However there are some issues: if the software-versions in these
dont match up then its precisely these XDG files that tread on
each others'
toes across OSes.
Well... if configuration files are not both upward and downward
compatible between
Le 27.11.2014 03:04, Serge a écrit :
Later some people started to abuse those directories and put there
files,
that never supposed to be there. Those people don't really think
about
standards or unification. Usually they just enable displaying hidden
files
in their file manager, see a lot of
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes:
On 29 November 2014 at 07:05, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes:
snipped
On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote:
Didier,
you have *totally* missed the OPs point.
BTW, since you
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:00:05 AM UTC+5:30, Serge wrote:
2014/11/16 Peter Nieman wrote:
Has anyone ever wondered where all these funny directories like ~/.cache,
~/.config, ~/.local or even ~/Desktop (with a capital D) came from that
appeared in Debian after upgrading to - was it
I do this on my own machine. The visible stuff I used to keep in my home
directory is now in a separate partition mounted on ~/Desktop.
I've noticed just one downside: cd no longer takes me to a useful place.
So I have an alias called cdd that takes me to Desktop and I'm trying to
remember to use
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes:
Please don't top post.
On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote:
Didier,
you have *totally* missed the OPs point.
BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover
Hyperbole much?
?
what has been the outcome of the GR to support
On 29 November 2014 at 07:05, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes:
snipped
On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote:
Didier,
you have *totally* missed the OPs point.
BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover
Hyperbole much?
?
the use of
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2014 at 07:05, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time
something
On 11/28/2014 6:32 AM, Rusi Mody wrote:
I have a question along these lines:
Years ago when we used computers, many people used one machine --
centrally administered.
Nowadays one person uses many machines
1. Simply multiple hardware
2. Multiple OSes on the same h/w
3. Other more fancy
Buntunub mckis...@gmail.com writes:
Wow, its Lawyer time! Or so one would think reading through this thread.
Is this what the Debian community has devolved to? Quibbling over
technicalities of the Debian Constitution? Sure gives a lot of weight to Mr.
Hess's departing words. That document
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 02:55:49PM -0700, Buntunub wrote:
Is this what the Debian community has devolved to?
Sadly, debian-user has long failed to represent the Debian community at-large,
and things are only getting worse.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 02:55:49PM -0700, Buntunub wrote:
Is this what the Debian community has devolved to?
Sadly, debian-user has long failed to represent the Debian community at-large,
and things are only getting
Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit :
On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit :
Did I miss something?
Yes.
Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1]
Option 2: change init policy *LOST*
On 11/26/2014 at 08:50 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit :
On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow
modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision
Le mercredi, 26 novembre 2014, 09.21:00 The Wanderer a écrit :
On 11/26/2014 at 08:50 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit :
On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow
for this
Distro.
If we want to talk about Systemd, then talk about Systemd - its technical
merits vs. it's cons, etc.. Leave the Lawyering to the Lawyers.
--
View this message in context:
http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Why-focus-on-systemd-tp3427339p3438428.html
Sent from the Debian User mailing list
2014/11/16 Peter Nieman wrote:
Has anyone ever wondered where all these funny directories like ~/.cache,
~/.config, ~/.local or even ~/Desktop (with a capital D) came from that
appeared in Debian after upgrading to - was it Lenny? Here's an answer:
On 11/26/2014 10:02 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I'm saying that §9.11 was not designed for anything else than ensuring
that the Debian archive would keep working with the default init system
of the time, nothing more.
Except for its actual purpose, ensuring a choice of Alternate init
On 11/26/2014 6:04 PM, Serge wrote:
Those XDG standards were created by X Desktop Group only to define
unified directories for COMMON files of multiple X desktop
environments, not for some rogue applications to hide their own
private files. Each of files placed in those directories is
On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit :
Did I miss something?
Yes.
Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1]
Option 2: change init policy *LOST*
Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost*
Option 4: policy
On Lu, 24 nov 14, 08:02:44, Marty wrote:
It was a policy vote. The only results that matter are their effect
on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic.
The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or
overturning the policy set by the TC init decision, in
On 11/24/2014 04:16 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 24 nov 14, 08:02:44, Marty wrote:
It was a policy vote. The only results that matter are their effect
on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic.
The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or
overturning the
On 2014-11-22, Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
What next?
Shall we debate gravity or other pointless exercises[*1] (unless the
Debian User list has become a school for aspiring sophists)?
I've always been against gravity and am amazed it ever got off
the ground.
On 23/11/14 22:13, Curt wrote:
On 2014-11-22, Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
What next?
Shall we debate gravity or other pointless exercises[*1] (unless the
Debian User list has become a school for aspiring sophists)?
I've always been against gravity and am
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:47:51PM +0100, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
Scott Ferguson
On 2014-11-23, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
weasel words ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 11/22/2014 06:43 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want.
The winner was developers will work
Marty wrote:
On 11/22/2014 06:43 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want.
The winner was
On 11/23/2014 11:16 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:47:51PM +0100, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
On 11/23/2014 06:48 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Marty wrote:
On 11/22/2014 06:43 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to
Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit :
Did I miss something?
Yes.
Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1]
Option 2: change init policy *LOST*
Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost*
Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON*
Option 5: null
Didier,
you have *totally* missed the OPs point.
BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover will happen (despite it
already has), what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple
init systems?
Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time
something is related
Please don't top post.
On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote:
Didier,
you have *totally* missed the OPs point.
BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover
Hyperbole much?
will happen (despite it
already has),
what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple
init systems?
It
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want.
The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won.
Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost...
flame resistant underwear on
Scott Ferguson wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want.
The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won.
This whole bit about developers are not being forced to do what they
don't want and developers will
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want.
The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won.
Another
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want.
The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won.
Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian
Dear sockpuppet - I'm surprised you're still around, I heard your bridge
fell on you. [saddened]
On 22/11/14 23:22, Gregory Smith wrote:
Social progressives won.
And that's a bad thing? I'm guessing you'd prefer social regressives
(the anti-social) won.
snipped
On 11/22/14, Scott Ferguson
On 22/11/14 09:50, lee wrote:
Nobody understands udev rules,
Challenge accepted.
*looks at /etc/udev/rules.d* *looks at /lib/udev/rules.d*
I'm honestly baffled that someone who is capable of comfortably using
emacs thinks these files are incomprehensible. They appear to be written
in a
Martin Read wrote:
On 22/11/14 09:50, lee wrote:
Nobody understands udev rules,
Challenge accepted.
*looks at /etc/udev/rules.d* *looks at /lib/udev/rules.d*
I'm honestly baffled that someone who is capable of comfortably using
emacs thinks these files are incomprehensible. They appear to
Systemd in the next stable release, and I actually
encourage it, so that people will have time to play with it and come to know
and possibly even fall in love with it. I seriously do not understand why
this needs to be rushed.
--
View this message in context:
http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Why-focus
On Saturday 22 November 2014 16:03:54 Buntunub wrote:
I
certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable
release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have time to play
with it and come to know and possibly even fall in love with it. I
seriously do not
2014/11/23 2:57 Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com:
On Saturday 22 November 2014 16:03:54 Buntunub wrote:
I
certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable
release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have time to
play
with it and come to know and possibly
a look at
it for Jessie+1.
--
View this message in context:
http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Why-focus-on-systemd-tp3427339p3434034.html
Sent from the Debian User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what
Joel Rees wrote:
2014/11/23 2:57 Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com
mailto:lisi.re...@gmail.com:
On Saturday 22 November 2014 16:03:54 Buntunub wrote:
I
certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable
release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have
In an effort to keep a ration discussion from sliding into a pointless
flame-war.
On 23/11/14 02:07, Martin Read wrote:
On 22/11/14 09:50, lee wrote:
Nobody understands udev rules,
Challenge accepted.
*looks at /etc/udev/rules.d* *looks at /lib/udev/rules.d*
I'm honestly baffled that
On 23/11/14 03:03, Buntunub wrote:
I understand your reasons for thinking Systemd is bad for Debian. I do, and I
also agree with some of them. However, Debian is composed of a diverse group
of people who have every viewpoint under the sun from Systemd is the bane of
Linux, to Systemd is the
On 23/11/14 08:47, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100 Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
It
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:29:45PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
OdyX writes:
...please stop. Seriously.
Please stop ranting about the ranting. Seriously. It's just as
distracting and irritating as the rants themselves. Just filter the
rant threads and those who post them. I'd filter all
Frankly, I don't understand why so many people are focussing on systemd
so much. In my opinion, systemd ist just a *symptom* (although perhaps a
very prominent one). It is not the *cause* of the disease or the disease
itself.
Has anyone ever wondered where all these funny directories like
Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 16.36:42 Peter Nieman a écrit :
Preventing the systemd takeover is certainly important, but it won't
be enough to reverse the trend, I fear.
None of the talking on debian-user about meta, conceptual or
generic systemd issues will allow a systemd takeover in
OdyX writes:
...please stop. Seriously.
Please stop ranting about the ranting. Seriously. It's just as
distracting and irritating as the rants themselves. Just filter the
rant threads and those who post them. I'd filter all subjects
containing the string [Ss]ystemd but there may be things
On 11/16/2014 12:33 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about
Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these
discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously.
OdyX
Your continued rants
On 16/11/2014, Peter Nieman gmane-a...@t-online.de wrote:
[snip]
It's the domination of the desktop environment ideology that's the
problem. Many users came to Linux and Debian years ago because they were
fed up with Microsoft. And now the same ideology infiltrates their
Linux, whether they
On 16/11/14 18:33, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision
was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no
conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's
totally fine. Please just be aware
On 16/11/14 21:42, Keith Peter wrote:
On 16/11/2014, Peter Nieman gmane-a...@t-online.de wrote:
[snip]
It's the domination of the desktop environment ideology that's the
problem. Many users came to Linux and Debian years ago because they were
fed up with Microsoft. And now the same ideology
58 matches
Mail list logo
