On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Joerg Reisenweber reisenwe...@web.de wrote:
The linux trademark is owned and protected, I think they can't do with
linux whatever they want.
I believe it's onwn by Mr Torvalds to prevent someone else from
clobbering it (like SCO). I don't think he plans to
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:07:41PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 30/03/2015 13:53, John Morris a écrit :
Both
the FSF and Debian claim to be the most 'Free.'
This is not my understanding. Debian does not claim to be more free
than
GNU. They just admit the reality that some non-free
On Mon 30 March 2015 14:30:44 Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 30/03/2015 13:49, John Morris a écrit :
Simple. Systemd is only the tip of the spear in what appears planned as
a total reinvention of the OS. They aren't done yet. What happens when
the next major component of that plan appears
Le 30/03/2015 15:10, Adam Borowski a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:07:41PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 30/03/2015 13:53, John Morris a écrit :
Both
the FSF and Debian claim to be the most 'Free.'
This is not my understanding. Debian does not claim to be more free
than
GNU. They
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:07:41PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 30/03/2015 13:53, John Morris a écrit :
Both
the FSF and Debian claim to be the most 'Free.'
This is not my understanding. Debian does not claim to be more
free than GNU. They just admit the reality that some non-free
I use F-Droid with cyanogen and I am quite happy, the number and quality of
apps is steadily increasing too.
On Mar 30, 2015 2:49 PM, John Morris jmor...@beau.org wrote:
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 12:33 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
BTW, I, like many others, find convenient to use e.g. Skype, and
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 12:33 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
BTW, I, like many others, find convenient to use e.g. Skype, and I
would prefer to run it inside a container.
Over there, Linux installers are
Shareware. All of them. I'm not a priest of St. Ignucius but the idea
of the
Le 28/03/2015 05:53, John Morris a écrit :
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:37 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
Hi John,
When I wrote anti-freedom, I considered a stricter definition of
freedom than GPL, beyond free access to the source and gratuitous
redistribution, including e.g. the absence
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:33:34PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 28/03/2015 05:53, John Morris a écrit :
Trying to take the high moral ground and claim to be shooting for a
stricter freedom is what leads to RMS and Debian unable to agree on
which is the more 'Free.' Debian rejecting the
Might add that unix programs are configured by editing text files, often in
/etc or $HOME, and have a certain tendency towards conceptual simplicity.
If something can't be reasonably described in a man page, then that thing
does not have the tao of unix.
The original schism was multics/unix.
Hi Jude.
Your 4 points are expliciting very clearly, I think, what mean
DOTADIW, or simply Unix principles. I think that these principles, plus
the decision method you give - always favor a Unix-wise solution when
there is - make a good and simple policy. I think what people on this
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:58:45 +
KatolaZ kato...@freaknet.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Jude Nelson wrote:
[cut]
I took a stab at stating what Unix software design philosophy
means earlier up the thread, but I'll reproduce it here for your
convenience:
On 03/26/2015 06:53 PM, Jude Nelson wrote:
Hi John,
[...]
I took a stab at stating what Unix software design philosophy means
earlier up the thread, but I'll reproduce it here for your convenience:
Do one thing and do it well.
It looks to me like you're trying to work backwards for a
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 04:12:46PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Point 2 has problems as well, because sometimes a package contains
several programs (the first example that comes to my mind is postfix,
but you have thousands of other examples out there) which are
orthogonal yet highly
Hi John, KatolaZ,
(addressing both of these points, since they're related)
It looks to me like you're trying to work backwards for a definition of
Unix that excludes systemd while retaining all the software that does not
adhere to that design philosophy. I think that's a bad idea-- it doesn't
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:29:53PM +0100, marc wrote:
snip
And maybe even:
- minimising the size and dependency graph of the essential
system. I have had friends worry that the base Debian seems
to have been growing each year so that it doesn't fit onto
small/embedded systems anymore.
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:37 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
Hi John,
When I wrote anti-freedom, I considered a stricter definition of
freedom than GPL, beyond free access to the source and gratuitous
redistribution, including e.g. the absence of technical lock-in. I won't
argue
Hi John,
I think the general consensus right now is that Devuan prioritizes the
inclusion of Free Software that adheres to the Unix software design
philosophy. Like Debian, Devuan strives to be a Universal Operating System
by giving users as much freedom as possible in the choice of what
Le 21/03/2015 17:52, Go Linux a écrit :
On Sat, 3/21/15, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2015, 11:25 AM
Didier Kryn wrote:
We all agree
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:04:17PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
True. This description of the project contains already a lot of
the ideas we are shaking on the list.
There are still concerns about the fact that some of the
software we use are big hairballs and enforce technical
From: T.J. Duchene [mailto:t.j.duch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 2:25 AM
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: Dng Digest, Vol 6, Issue 75
Hey Steve!
Do you understand what mailing list this is?
Yes. I do. I didn't start the discussion. I actually recommended tabling it
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:33:20AM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
On Fri 20 March 2015 22:09:20 Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
for details on how all this works on apt level with the devuan overlay over
debian, you rather ask nextime.
Rather first look here:
I think what we're after is a way to accept/reject software based on a
well-defined set of acceptance criteria. It sounds like we're trying to
say that the mission statement of Devuan is something like Devuan
prioritizes the inclusion of Free Software that follows the Unix software
design
-Original Message-
From: Didier Kryn [mailto:k...@in2p3.fr]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:04 AM
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this looks like
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:04:00 +0100
Didier Kryn k...@in2p3.fr wrote:
However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be We hate
systemd and Lennart Poetering. Instead Devuan should advertize the
reasons to reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of
rules for acceptability, in a
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:56:01PM -0400, Jude Nelson wrote:
I think what we're after is a way to accept/reject software based on a
well-defined set of acceptance criteria. It sounds like we're trying to
say that the mission statement of Devuan is something like Devuan
prioritizes the
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:31:31PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
That is, prioritizing rather than excluding. So we can still, for
example, keep the linux kernel. :)
The kernel is replaceable. Don't forget about kfreebsd (ok, hurd's state is
a bad joke). Of course, the pro-systemd party has
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:00:40 -0500
T.J. Duchene t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Didier Kryn [mailto:k...@in2p3.fr]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:04 AM
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied
On March 21, 2015 at 12:25 PM Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
Perhaps it's time to add something along the lines of the freedom to
install software without it taking over your machine (obviously this
needs work, or we'd it would eliminate things like the kernel, file
On Fri 20 March 2015 22:09:20 Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
for details on how all this works on apt level with the devuan overlay over
debian, you rather ask nextime.
Rather first look here:
https://git.devuan.org/devuan-infrastructure/amprolla/blob/master/README.md
signature.asc
Description:
-Original Message-
On Fri 20 March 2015 08:56:47 Go Linux wrote:
I support this idea. Put all the systemd stuff in a 'quarantine'
repo with the appropriate 'use at your own risk' caveats.
From: Steve Litt [mailto:sl...@troubleshooters.com]
What would especially float my boat,
On Fri, 3/20/15, Didier Kryn k...@in2p3.fr wrote:
Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Date: Friday, March 20, 2015, 10:48 AM
Le 19/03/2015 21:15, Steve Litt a écrit :
If anyone want's Gnome for Devuan, let that be in a contaminated
Le 19/03/2015 21:15, Steve Litt a écrit :
If anyone want's Gnome for Devuan, let that be in a contaminated
repository (and yes, that's what I believe it should be called),
Hi steve.
As discussed in another thread, there are certainly other packages
affected by the big-brother
On 20/03/15 16:56, Go Linux wrote:
On Fri, 3/20/15, Didier Kryn k...@in2p3.fr wrote:
Le 19/03/2015 21:15, Steve Litt a écrit :
If anyone want's Gnome for Devuan, let that be in a contaminated
repository (and yes, that's what I believe it should be called),
Hi steve.
As
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:13:17 +0100
Joerg Reisenweber reisenwe...@web.de wrote:
On Fri 20 March 2015 08:56:47 Go Linux wrote:
I support this idea. Put all the systemd stuff in a 'quarantine'
repo with the appropriate 'use at your own risk' caveats.
I'd like to suggest a more generic
On Fri 20 March 2015 08:56:47 Go Linux wrote:
I support this idea. Put all the systemd stuff in a 'quarantine' repo with
the appropriate 'use at your own risk' caveats.
I'd like to suggest a more generic approach, based on (quick shot suggestion
to get refined) listing the number of direct
On 20/03/15 21:08, Steve Litt wrote:
Anto,
You're absolutely right. So let me modify my idea...
If anybody *chooses* to integrate an app with any direct or indirect
systemd dependencies, that person must put their package in the
contaminated or quarantine repository, and that person is
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:01:28PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:40:43 -1000
Joel Roth jo...@pobox.com wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
What would especially float my boat, once there's a truly
depoetterized Devuan, is to have the package manager warn me at 160
decibles if
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:40:43 -1000
Joel Roth jo...@pobox.com wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
What would especially float my boat, once there's a truly
depoetterized Devuan, is to have the package manager warn me at 160
decibles if I decide to install something that pulls in any systemd
code,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 01:44:55PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Let me give an analogy that's absolutely offtopic here, I use it only
Not as off-topic as you might think.
as an analogy. Three years ago, I made a policy that no KDE library or
software would ever exist on any of
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:07:05 +0100
Anto arya...@chello.at wrote:
On 20/03/15 16:56, Go Linux wrote:
On Fri, 3/20/15, Didier Kryn k...@in2p3.fr wrote:
Le 19/03/2015 21:15, Steve Litt a écrit :
If anyone want's Gnome for Devuan, let that be in a contaminated
repository (and yes,
Steve Litt wrote:
What would especially float my boat, once there's a truly depoetterized
Devuan, is to have the package manager warn me at 160 decibles if I
decide to install something that pulls in any systemd code, because if
there's a way to run without systemd code, that's how I want to
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Joerg Reisenweber reisenwe...@web.de wrote:
My guess would be that all rogue stuff like
systemd simply doesn't show up in devuan's packages.gz, and thus any package
depending on it would run into unmet dependencies when trying to install it.
Makes sense.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:09:20PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
for details on how all this works on apt level with the devuan overlay over
debian, you rather ask nextime. My guess would be that all rogue stuff like
systemd simply doesn't show up in devuan's packages.gz, and thus any
On 18/03/15 15:52, Steve Litt wrote:
From my Manjaro Experiments experience, I would be neither surprised nor
dissapointed if the first beta release of Devuan had some remaining
systemd'isms. It's a step, in the right direction, on the journey
toward complete independence from all things
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:35:43 +0100
Anto arya...@chello.at wrote:
What I am afraid of is that, along the line some powerful people in
Devuan will make a trade-off in using systemd components. For
instance, they decide to integrate a super-dupper package which
requires systemd components, e.g.
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:00:49 +0100
Anto arya...@chello.at wrote:
Will Devuan be really free from systemd and its components? Or will
there be trade-off being applied so that some of systemd components
will be used in Devuan?
Of course, I can't answer authoritatively, because my only role
On 18/03/15 15:47, Jude Nelson wrote:
That's very interesting. Devuan's dbus shouldn't depend on
libsystemd0 at all (it builds and runs without it); if it is pulling
in libsystemd0 as a dependency, then there's a bug in our dbus package.
Can you show me the output of:
$ aptitude show dbus
$
On 18/03/15 00:56, Jude Nelson wrote:
Hi Anto,
I think the plan is to make the installation of all systemd components
optional. The packages in git.devuan.org http://git.devuan.orgthat
are cloned from Debian's sources have build flags set automatically to
compile out systemd dependencies,
On Wed 18 March 2015 19:07:09 Anto wrote:
root@v01:~# apt-cache policy dbus
dbus:
Installed: 1.8.14-1.0nosystemd1
Candidate: 1.8.14-1.0nosystemd1
Package pin: 1.8.14-1.0nosystemd1
Version table:
1.8.16-1 990
110 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ jessie/main i386
On 18/03/15 19:31, Nextime wrote:
Do NOT use apt.devuan.org, the devuan packages are on packages.devuan.org
I don't think all packages are on packages.devuan.org yet as below. But
please don't worry about that, as I perfectly understand that the work
on this is still in progress. I brought
Hi Anto,
I think the plan is to make the installation of all systemd components
optional. The packages in git.devuan.org that are cloned from Debian's
sources have build flags set automatically to compile out systemd
dependencies, for example.
If you're wondering what's pulling in libsystemd0
52 matches
Mail list logo
