On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twice,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i want to pollute main with
non-free stuff.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest of
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twice,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
1. i told you not to contact me again.
This isn't evidence that John lied about anything. At best, it's evidence
that he's not following your instructions.
for
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
1. i told you not to contact me again.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This isn't evidence that John lied about anything. At best, it's evidence
that he's not following your instructions.
On
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
1. i told you not to contact me again.
This isn't evidence that John lied about anything. At best,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:02:43PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Thank you for your efforts to lead by example.
You're welcome.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Goerzen:
: You yourself said that is what you would like to do. There is no need
^^^
: for me to make the accusation.
This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i want to pollute main with
non-free stuff.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest of
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
1. i told you not to contact me again.
This isn't evidence that John lied about anything. At best, it's evidence
that he's not following your instructions.
for
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
1. i told you not to contact me again.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This isn't evidence that John lied about anything. At best, it's evidence
that he's not following your instructions.
On
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
1. i told you not to contact me again.
This isn't evidence that John lied about anything. At best,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:02:43PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Thank you for your efforts to lead by example.
You're welcome.
--
Raul
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Goerzen:
: You yourself said that is what you would like to do. There is no need
^^^
: for me to make the accusation.
This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i
I believe disagree rather significantly with some of John's philosophy,
however...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:26:01PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, you ARE a liar with an extremely short memory.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:33:20 +1100
(in reply to:
I believe disagree rather significantly with some of John's philosophy,
however...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:26:01PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, you ARE a liar with an extremely short memory.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:33:20 +1100
(in reply to:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:08:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this was
obvious from what i wrote.
No, the reason I chose to round off was because my terminal is 80
characters wide.
-- John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 04:03:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say the least,
as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
I had no idea what the results would be before running the program, and
did not alter it to adjust
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:09:04AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
in any case, you have shown yourself to be dishonest on numerous occasions
in this long and tortuous argument. you have no care for truth, or honour
- you will utter any lie in the name of your cause.
Which is
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:59AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
dishonest. After all, you are the one that said your package has 0
entries in popcon[1], then tried to change it to used[2] once I had
shown you to be incorrect
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:08:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this was
obvious from what i wrote.
No, the reason I chose to round off was because my terminal is 80
characters wide.
-- John
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 04:03:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say the
least,
as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
I had no idea what the results would be before running the program, and
did not alter it to adjust
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:11:40PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:09:04AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
in any case, you have shown yourself to be dishonest on numerous
occasions
in this long and tortuous argument. you have no care for truth, or
honour
On 2004-01-12 01:08:09 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this
was
obvious from what i wrote.
Has he given that dishonest reason and I missed it, or are you
claiming telepathic ability?
please learn basic rules of
On 2004-01-12 01:08:09 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this
was
obvious from what i wrote.
Has he given that dishonest reason and I missed it, or are you
claiming telepathic ability?
please learn basic rules of
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
provide anything else
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:24:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
get anything else in the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
provide
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:29AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon/ was meant to replace
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/
Avery Pennarun's page (apenwarr) has been reportedly broken in the past.
I'm unsure as to it's current accuracy, as
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:24:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
get anything else in the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
provide
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:08:07AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those
http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon/ was meant to replace
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/
Avery Pennarun's page (apenwarr) has been reportedly broken in the past.
I'm unsure as to it's current accuracy, as it's linked to from
http://popcon.alioth.debian.org/ I would guess that
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
provide anything else
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:29AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon/ was meant to replace
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/
Avery Pennarun's page (apenwarr) has been reportedly broken in the past.
I'm unsure as to it's current accuracy, as
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is simply not possible to discuss people who are not honest and try
every trick in the book to come out right, even if they are wrong, as
you evidently are.
Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say
the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is dishonest, you must be really fun
when buying things that have
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:52:48AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ? What about monitoring BTS traffic for those packages
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say
the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is dishonest, you must be really fun
when buying things that have
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is simply not possible to discuss people who are not honest and try
every trick in the book to come out right, even if they are wrong, as
you evidently are.
Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
repositories at work for some time and have not noticed it being any
lower quality that non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
repositories at work for some time
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
From the data, we can see that:
* The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00000
xpdf-chinese-traditionalnon-free/text 0
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ?
We'd
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00
On Jan 8, 2004, at 15:51, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR
files used anywhere.
As one of the many people with rar/unrar on my system,
alt.binaries.multimedia.* uses it a lot. e.g. a.b.m.anime.
And you have to have rar as well as
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
Yep, but the package i
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
know this is not the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What package is that?
ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
i missed some, but at least some of those where in this category.
From the raw popcon output:
PackageVote
On 2004-01-09 14:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
know this is not the real case. This means infinite error ratio, no ?
I'm not sure what you mean by error ratio. Can you explain?
The error rate is the proportion
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:57:27AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What package is that?
ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
i missed some, but at least some of those where in this category.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-09 14:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
know this is not the real case. This means infinite error ratio, no ?
I'm not sure what you mean by
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:35:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Taken from the data you quoted :
PackageVote Old Rcnt Unknown
ocaml-book-en 0 0 019
ocaml-book-en
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
classified examples divided by the wrong ones or soemthing such.
I know my packages are used, let's say by 5
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:25:21PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, we have a situation where the #1 and #3 packages installed from
non-free on people's systems are not actually present in Debian's
non-free (any more). Also,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:17:01AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
classified examples divided by the wrong ones or
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
have to hand fix in the postinst. Also, there is no 1.4 .deb for powerpc
for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:10:42 -0600,
John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package Name
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
repositories at work for some time and have not noticed it being any
lower quality that non-free
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
have to hand fix in
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
repositories at work for some time
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
From the data, we can see that:
* The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00000
xpdf-chinese-traditionalnon-free/text 0
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ?
We'd
On Jan 8, 2004, at 15:51, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR
files used anywhere.
As one of the many people with rar/unrar on my system,
alt.binaries.multimedia.* uses it a lot. e.g. a.b.m.anime.
And you have to have rar as well
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
Yep, but the package i
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00
On 2004-01-09 14:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
know this is not the real case. This means infinite error ratio, no ?
I'm not sure what you mean by error ratio. Can you explain?
The error rate is the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
know this is not the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-09 14:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
know this is not the real case. This means infinite error ratio, no ?
I'm not sure what you mean by
On 2004-01-09 16:44:34 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The error rate is the proportion misclassified, which cannot be
infinite
under any circumstances where there are some subjects. I'm also not
sure
how it applies here.
Ah, yes, that is the stuff taken in the other direction,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What package is that?
ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
i missed some, but at least some of those where in this category.
From the raw popcon output:
PackageVote
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:35:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Taken from the data you quoted :
PackageVote Old Rcnt Unknown
ocaml-book-en 0 0 019
ocaml-book-en
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:25:21PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, we have a situation where the #1 and #3 packages installed from
non-free on people's systems are not actually present in Debian's
non-free (any more). Also,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, we have a situation where the #1 and #3 packages installed from
non-free on people's systems are not actually present in Debian's
non-free (any more). Also, no version of Java later than 1.1 is
present.
yep, but these are
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:17:01AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
classified examples divided by the wrong ones or
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:57:27AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What package is that?
ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
i missed some, but at least some of those where in this category.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
classified examples divided by the wrong ones or soemthing such.
I know my packages are used, let's say by 5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:10:42 -0600,
John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package Name
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
have to hand fix in the postinst. Also, there is no 1.4 .deb for powerpc
for
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I thought it interesting to find out just how much non-free is used. I
wrote up a quick Python script that analyzes the latest
popularity-contest results. Any cavets that apply to popcon results
will, of course, apply this this
Hello John,
Fo a special Project I need to create new Debian-CD's but
'Console Only'. For this I need to know, in which sequenz
I must put the packages onto the CD's...
Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ?
If yes, where can I get it ?
In general I need only 'main', 'contrib'
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:51:36PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ?
If yes, where can I get it ?
In general I need only 'main', 'contrib' and 'non-US'
Yes, the full raw data is available
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr//popcon/
-- John
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
From the data, we can see that:
* The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
acroread is no longer distributable (or distributed), so should
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR files used anywhere.
I believe they still in wide use as transport for games with, uhm,
removed copy protection. At least one of my former flatmates had loads
Le Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen écrivait:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see RAR
files used anywhere.
It's commonly used to distribute DivX or other big multimediua files
through NTTP (alt.binaries.*).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+-
* Steve Langasek
Of course, tar and unzip are no substitute for unrar.
* John Goerzen
It, of course, depends on what you're doing, but yes, I realize that. I
just tried to show a smattering of similar programs so people can
compare.
I was actually surprised at the popularity of
Also, are any of the java packages actually distributed by Debian? I
thought there were legal issues that prevented even non-free
distribution (though j2re/sdk packages are available elsewhere).
Excellent points. No, acroread is not in non-free. j2re1.4 also is
not, nor is j2dsk1.4
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
