On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:34:17 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
So far, the proposals have gotten as far as Deals with a problem.
[In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
think non-free is a
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
I'm not really interested
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:45:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're
not willing to solve their problems.
Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to support
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
http://www.apt-get.org/
What about BTS?
Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla
now.
Gnome is in main.
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that point, it's probably worth pointing out
that gnome is an effort
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people
to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not
On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote:
As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of
resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with
the resolution but disagree with the rationale.
Ah. Understood. Will do so in the future.
I encourage anyone who
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
Debian, not as a pedantically pure toy, but as a useful tool in a
world that is not yet all
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:46:08AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
stop putting any further effort into non-free?
No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software
That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
stop putting any further effort into non-free?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software
on its servers.
Anyone, Developer or not,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:03:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free in the
document called
A few moments ago, I wrote:
Debian is not the FSF. We support our users who develop and run non-free
software. Your proposal did change the social contract in that fashion.
How embarassing, I left out the word not.
I had meant to say:
Your proposal did not change the social contract in
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of
whatever actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll --
and even build upon the possible directions the project could go
while we are asking for
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do than keep non-free].
That's probably because you've ignored all of the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do than
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-04 08:46]:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that point,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
As a matter of fact, both acroread and netscape-* had free replacements
(although not identical) for years. One of them perhaps a bit less
functional than the non-free one (xpdf), the other ones quite more so
(mozilla,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do than
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:59:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote:
As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of
resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with
the resolution but disagree with the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated
packages you have mut.
On the other
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do
Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time
to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org.
It's nonfree.org, without the hyphen.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist whether we
support
Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You haven't made any proposals. You asked for other people to make
some. Nobody did.
I have not made
Clint Adams wrote:
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
prompted to enable the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You haven't made any proposals. You
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Isn't months slow enough already?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
You won't find an example which fits perfectly
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands
The question isn't _what_ it's about, but what the point of it is --
what the goal is, what the achievement will be, what the aim is, _why_
this is worth doing.
[snip]
Note that many of the packages in non-free include their source
code. Indeed, many of the packages in non-free are
Andrew Suffield wrote:
One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
anything appreciably more meaningful than I want to keep non-free or
I want to drop non-free.
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish.
Those people may want to take a look at my
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
Debian, not as a pedantically
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:10:59 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of whatever
actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll -- and even
build upon the
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:12 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not
[can't] recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote:
and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a
mozilla based browser.
... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)?
and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:50 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still
vote it below the default option if it were on a ballot.
How is this information useful
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:53:09 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:27:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Could you tell me about the plan for dealing with contrib and
non-free?
The plan is for somebody else (ie, not Debian) to deal with them, if
they
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:09:44 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:29:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
That is somewhat uncomfortable; and besides, non-free is there
for convenience until we
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
infrastructures behind Debian non-free can be currently
duplicated somewhere else.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free in the
document called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will
support people who create
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:34:17 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
So far, the proposals have gotten as far as Deals with a problem.
[In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
think non-free is a
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:45:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're
not willing to solve their problems.
Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to support
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
I'm not really interested
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
http://www.apt-get.org/
What about BTS?
Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla
now.
Gnome is in main.
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that point, it's probably worth pointing out
that gnome is an effort
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people
to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:46:08AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:03:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free in the
document called
That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
stop putting any further effort into non-free?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software
on its servers.
Anyone, Developer or not,
A few moments ago, I wrote:
Debian is not the FSF. We support our users who develop and run non-free
software. Your proposal did change the social contract in that fashion.
How embarassing, I left out the word not.
I had meant to say:
Your proposal did not change the social contract in
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do than keep non-free].
That's probably because you've ignored all of the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do than
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-04 08:46]:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that point,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist whether we
support
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do than
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of There may be
people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
anything I'd rather do
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated
packages you have mut.
On the other
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
As a matter of fact, both acroread and netscape-* had free replacements
(although not identical) for years. One of them perhaps a bit less
functional than the non-free one (xpdf), the other ones quite more so
(mozilla,
Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time
to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org.
It's nonfree.org, without the hyphen.
Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You haven't made any proposals. You asked for other people to make
some. Nobody did.
I have not made
Clint Adams wrote:
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
prompted to enable the
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You haven't made any proposals. You
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:52:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Exactly what I said. Anything that doesn't need to be voted on is a
proposal to maintain the status quo, no matter how many words you use
to say it.
Um... not really.
But, ok, since you seem to want to talk purely about the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
You won't find an example which fits perfectly
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Isn't months slow enough already?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands
FUD
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Andrew Suffield wrote:
One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish.
Those people may want to take a look at my
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
anything appreciably more meaningful than I want to keep non-free or
I want to drop non-free.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
anything appreciably more meaningful than I want to keep non-free or
I want to drop non-free.
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:19:23PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
Debian, not as a pedantically
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to
spin non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over
dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly
vanish.
There's nothing in these proposals that would
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
The question isn't _what_ it's about, but what the point of it is --
what the goal is, what the achievement will be, what the aim is, _why_
this is worth doing.
To me, it's worth doing because of your last sentence. We (the
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:48:34 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:03:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:10:59 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of whatever
actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll -- and even
build upon the
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:12 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not
[can't] recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at
We made a promise to users; and even called it a
``contract''. Now we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we
going to just leave the users in the lurch, with no transition plan,
no support going forward? For people whoi seem to think that
distributing non-DFSG free software
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:19:23 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have
said anything appreciably
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote:
and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a
mozilla based browser.
... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)?
and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror?
89 matches
Mail list logo
