Great reading. I knew RMS would answer something like that to that
question, if it's licensed under GPL, it's free software, period.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Nextime next...@nexlab.it wrote:
On March 21, 2015 3:34:28 PM WET, Jaromil jaro...@dyne.org wrote:
re all,
perhaps
On 21.03.2015 18:51, Linuxito wrote:
Great reading. I knew RMS would answer something like that to that
question, if it's licensed under GPL, it's free software, period.
( Actually it's LGPL [1] but ... )
I expect that he is thinking about it and will be thinking about it a
while longer before
re all,
perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended and please
consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect and the
right to have different opinions than the majority.
At Libreplanet (the GNU/FSF conference) today someone (who?? thanks for
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
a
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
RMS stance is understandable, because he is also responsible for the
current situation. He failed to predict it, and his dream is now
turning into another Animal Farm, where some developers are becoming
more equal than others (it's an open question if there was a better
strategy possible when GPL
[...all...] Sounds familiar? It's because developing and earning money
on support only will always lead to such pathologies. [...]
Full ACK
Internet and downloading complete distros (for free) kills the Linux FOSS
ecosystem now, like downloading mp3 music did kill the music ecosystem.
Suse
On Sun 22 March 2015 00:40:45 Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
kills the Linux FOSS ecosystem now,
This time read ecosystem as economic system. The ecologic system aka
community is probably still fine.
RH just establishes the new better economic system:
Hi Jörg,
I am going to get beaten for this, but that proposal is actually
brilliant! Well, brilliant if you are not bothered by btrfs that is:-)
But that is what I got backups for.
While I do not care about all the sandboxing that got mixed into this,
the rest got me really thinking about my
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
Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real.
Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long ago
when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved Hurd
project into the trash can. If he really called someone a troll for
asking his opinion of systemd,
On Sun 22 March 2015 01:15:18 devuan...@spamgourmet.net wrote:
Hi Jörg,
I am going to get beaten for this, but that proposal is actually
brilliant! Well, brilliant if you are not bothered by btrfs that is:-)
But that is what I got backups for.
Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get*
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 Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
reisenwe...@web.de
devuan.kn.d76efe93d7.reisenweber#web...@ob.0sg.net wrote:
Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for /,
The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least
common denominator for
On Sun 22 March 2015 01:42:33 devuan...@spamgourmet.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
reisenwe...@web.de
devuan.kn.d76efe93d7.reisenweber#web...@ob.0sg.net wrote:
Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for
/,
The only way not
On March 21, 2015 at 11:34 AM Jaromil jaro...@dyne.org wrote:
re all,
perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended and
please
consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect and
the
right to have different opinions than the majority.
At
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 March 21, 2015 at 6:36 PM Robert Storey robert.sto...@gmail.com wrote:
Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real.
Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long ago
when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved Hurd
project into the
21 matches
Mail list logo
