Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On 21-09-18 06:24, Rick Moen wrote: > > For the record, I am not a fan of CoCs including this one, but on > grounds differing from yours (that I'm not sure are of interest here). > CoCs are a fact of life in FOSS now and I'm for sure interested in reasoning about pro and con CoC's. Grtz. Nick signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
Quoting Mark Rousell (mark.rous...@signal100.com): > I wrote a long message in reply to your message but it seems it is too > long for the list's post size limit. I have therefore posted it on a > blog I just set up for this purpose: > https://genericcomment.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/reply-to-rick-moen-on-dng/ Thank you, sir. I appreciate your taking the trouble, and will have a look. (I rarely comment on blogs, though, so please don't take it personally if I don't end up doing so on yours. It's just not my preferred medium, mostly.) [/me takes a while to read the blog post.] I see at a glance that we have an unbridgeable difference of view, where you allege that Ms. Emhke's personal agendas are inherently relevant to the merit of CoC text she authored (a release of which Greg K-H copied, with what you clarify are tiny changes as required to adapt it to the kernel project -- and thanks for that, BTW). Like software licence texts, CoC texts are _tools_. Their uses are whatever the user is able to adapt them to. I'm accustomed, for example, to hearing copyleft critics state that GNU General Public License is evil because of various things Stallman intends to achieve with it. The reasons this is a silly argument are IMO about as obvious as the reasons why IMO your similar stance is -- but, for the record, many years ago, I got so tired of the 'GPL is evil because it it's a key weapon in the evil Stallman agenda to destroy proprietary software companies' that I seriously proposed a LUG talk entitled 'Ways to Use the GPL to Enforce Proprietary Software Business Models'. Because it's a _tool_. Anyone who can't figure out how to use a tool to one's _own_ ends is suffering a tragic failure of creativity. As it happens, before I could give that deliberately provocative talk, MySQL AB and some other firms made it so obvious that I regarded my lecture as redundant. Currently, a bunch of the infamous 'badgeware' firms including SugarCRM (run by my former boss Larry Augustin) are abusing the heck out of GPL v3 via sneaking in 'badgeware' encumbrances as 'Appropriate Legal Notices' through the GPLv3 clause 7 hook, with the obvious intent of dissuading competing commercial use -- flagrantly subverting the intent of free / open source software. I don't regard an embezzler's eyeglasses as merely the instrumentality of a crime, either. It's a tool. Tools are most reasonably judged by what you happen to do with them, not by their creator's intent. But you disagree. Since we cannot agree on this extremely fundamental point, I'm afraid we lack the basis for further discussion. That having been said, I also honestly don't see that you squarely addressed the questions I asked, either, and instead just kind of talked around them. (That is not a complaint. You don't owe me anything, and I appreciate your time and trouble.) For the record, I am not a fan of CoCs including this one, but on grounds differing from yours (that I'm not sure are of interest here). -- Cheers, Founding member of the Hyphenation Society, a grassroots-based, Rick Moen not-for-profit, locally-owned-and-operated, cooperatively-managed, r...@linuxmafia.com modern-American-English-usage-improvement association. McQ! (4x80) ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:42:26 +0100, Mark wrote in message <5ba41442.4080...@signal100.com>: > On 20/09/2018 22:23, Bruce Perens wrote: > > Open Research Institute got our first space communication project > > transferred over from AMSAT for two reasons: we had an ITAR/EAR > > avoidance plan, and the engineering managers at AMSAT (a venerable > > organization that has flown some 90 Amateur satellites since 1963) > > were inexperienced in dealing with female engineers and were (IMO > > unconsciously) egregiously rude on multiple occassions. The woman > > engineer in question is no wilting lily, and in general refuses to > > represent feminist or women's viewpoints because that isn't her > > thing. It may not be a gender issue at all, many men left the > > organization as well. > > By all means, sometimes things go too far. But often not. One example, > as you offer here, is an anecdote, not data. ..social datapoint observations that we can all learn from, are often best passed on as anecdotes. > > Those who are not on the spectrum may still underperform in human > > relations, as we've just heard from Linus. > > There's the thing, Linus did not seem to me to "underperform". As far > as I can see, he performed correctly and in the best interests of > producing high quality technical output. If his reactions were > sometimes over the top, ...then Linus underperforms in his leadership role. He has apologised. Learn, and move on. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On 20/09/2018 22:33, Rick Moen wrote: > IMO, this discussion is of questionable topicality for > Devuan Project, so I'll definitely drop the thread like a hot potato if the > listadmins so wish. I can only agree. I will post no more on the subject after this post. If anyone wishes to continue the discussion with me then they are welcome to contact me directly. I wrote a long message in reply to your message but it seems it is too long for the list's post size limit. I have therefore posted it on a blog I just set up for this purpose: https://genericcomment.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/reply-to-rick-moen-on-dng/ -- Mark Rousell ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On 20/09/2018 22:23, Bruce Perens wrote: > Open Research Institute got our first space communication project > transferred over from AMSAT for two reasons: we had an ITAR/EAR > avoidance plan, and the engineering managers at AMSAT (a venerable > organization that has flown some 90 Amateur satellites since 1963) > were inexperienced in dealing with female engineers and were (IMO > unconsciously) egregiously rude on multiple occassions. The woman > engineer in question is no wilting lily, and in general refuses to > represent feminist or women's viewpoints because that isn't her thing. > It may not be a gender issue at all, many men left the organization as > well. By all means, sometimes things go too far. But often not. One example, as you offer here, is an anecdote, not data. > Those who are not on the spectrum may still underperform in human > relations, as we've just heard from Linus. There's the thing, Linus did not seem to me to "underperform". As far as I can see, he performed correctly and in the best interests of producing high quality technical output. If his reactions were sometimes over the top, then the old Code of Conflict surely contained entirely adequate means to deal with it. The new Code of Conduct instead creates an open-ended pit of anti-merit political correctness (i.e. a mindset that is explicitly opposed to merit-based technological progress) that can be (and thus will be) used to advantage the less-capable at the cost of the disfavoured more-capable. > We used to tolerate this stuff, and it cost us in many ways. What "stuff"? Reasonable, honest and blunt feedback? That is surely not something that needs to be "tolerated". It is a specific goal, one which (a) Code of Conduct such as the new Linux Kernel one seek to 'criminalise' in effect, and (b) which all primarily technological projects should surely aspire to. > I am 60 and I /can/ deal with this. I have many things to get done, > and can't afford to have the stick-in-the-mud guys on a project any > longer. If you want to paint yourself into a corner, that is your > right, but IMO it's a poor choice. Have you actually read the idiotic claptrap in the new Code of Conduct for the Linux Kernel? If you are saying that you support such rubbish then it also means that you are reducing the significance of technical merit in favour of happy-huggy feel good factors (which is exactly what the new Linux Code of Conduct explicitly intends), and it seems to me to therefore follow that you are putting your projects at risk. I find it difficult to believe that you really mean this. -- Mark Rousell ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
Hullo, Mark. IMO, this discussion is of questionable topicality for Devuan Project, so I'll definitely drop the thread like a hot potato if the listadmins so wish. I'm not disputing what you say, but am curious if you can support some bits from the text Greg Kroah-Hartman checked in as the new Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst text on Sept. 15th. As to the rest, vague abstract discussions just aren't my cuppa, which is probably why I try to gravitate to specifics. Kroah-Hartman's patch for your reference is here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8a104f8b5867c682d994ffa7a74093c54469c11f Quoting Mark Rousell (mark.rous...@signal100.com): > You see, the problem is that someone somewhere will take offence at > almost anything. It Is NOT necessarily reasonable to censor one's > normal speech to pander to some idiot or liar who has chosen to claim > that he or she finds something you said "offensive" or "insulting". The recent check-in states that the judgement about what is to be deemed 'offensive' (or inappropriate, threatening, or harmful) would be made by kernel maintainers -- not just by 'someone somewhere'. This is in the paragraph 'Our Responsibilities'. Subsequent paragraph 'Enforcement' is less vague, stating that the matter would be decided by the kernel's Technical Advisory Board. For reference, that's currently these folks: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/technical-advisory-board/ (Disclosure: Several of those are acquaintances and former co-workers, and I'm pretty sure I've corresponded with most of them.) To be fair, you may have been speaking only generically about CoCs without specific reference to the Kroah-Hartman check-in that triggered this discussion. If so, I would appreciate your speaking to the specific example at hand, too. > We cannot and MUST NOT pander to the lowest common denominator of > claimed personal offence, and yet codes of conduct often seem to be > intended to do exactly that. Is there anything you can cite from the Kroah-Hartman example suggesting that the standards applied will be decided by the most hypersensitive? > CoCs don't help since they > tend only to entrench politically correct notions of what is > "respectful" rather than allowing common sense to prevail in terms of > what is "reasonable"). Similar question about this in the context of K-H's checkin. I note that it doesn't even mention that term or any similar one, let alone mandate any particular construing of the concept of 'respect'. > Furthermore, just because a person says that "I find 'fwibblefut'" > offensive/insulting is not necessarily a good enough reason for another > reasonable person to avoid it. Similar question about this in the context of K-H's checkin, which I notice nowhere requires cessation of a term merely on account of some individual objecting to it. Thank you for your time and consideration. One final note: Part of the reason I referred to the CoC text currently under discussion as 'the Kroah-Hartman check-in' is that I find the recent upthread viewing-with-alarm of Ms. Ehmke and her various agendas a rather insultingly obvious attempt to change the subject while pretending not to. Kroah-Hartman's text is a _derivative_ of one of Ms. Ehmke's successive 'Contributor Covenant' texts (some changes, I hear, but I haven't diffed them), but in any event the merits of a work are distinct from the merits of its creator. I happen to think, for example, that dnscache is a very nice and useful piece of software (although over 17 years of being unmaintained software, it's accumulated a whole lot of needed patches), and it'd be downright irrational of me to dislike or badmouth it just because I think its author is a colossal jerk -- so I don't. So, I would appreciate if remarks about the Kroah-Hartman check-in text address relevant concerns such as _the text_ and its likely interpretation by the people shown on https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/technical-advisory-board/ and their eventual successors. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
Open Research Institute got our first space communication project transferred over from AMSAT for two reasons: we had an ITAR/EAR avoidance plan, and the engineering managers at AMSAT (a venerable organization that has flown some 90 Amateur satellites since 1963) were inexperienced in dealing with female engineers and were (IMO unconsciously) egregiously rude on multiple occassions. The woman engineer in question is no wilting lily, and in general refuses to represent feminist or women's viewpoints because that isn't her thing. It may not be a gender issue at all, many men left the organization as well. Let's face it, guys. A *lot* of us are on the spectrum. I have motor neural pathology and might be too. Those who are not on the spectrum may still underperform in human relations, as we've just heard from Linus. We used to tolerate this stuff, and it cost us in many ways. We ended up having to put rules in place because so many folks were just plain unconscious, or (worse) aware of their issues and stick-in-the-mud refusers to learn. I am 60 and I *can* deal with this. I have many things to get done, and can't afford to have the stick-in-the-mud guys on a project any longer. If you want to paint yourself into a corner, that is your right, but IMO it's a poor choice. Thanks Bruce On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:39 PM Mark Rousell wrote: > On 20/09/2018 19:46, Steve Litt wrote: > > For most of us, it's trivially easy to live within any of the CoCs > I've seen. > > > Who is this "we" to which you refer? It seems to me to exclude many > reasonable and decent people. > > It seems to me that CoCs and similar politically correctness are commonly > intended to hobble non-harmful freedom of speech. They are, in short, a > cancer on honesty and openness, with the perceived benefit of helping > people who have problems with the real world. > > Some people fear and dislike honesty and openness and are now being > pandered to by political correctness. Note that nothing I am saying here is > a defence of intentional insult or offensiveness. > > If you call a person a "bonduxer" and the person > objects, don't continue using the word, and if he's at all nice about > it, apologize. > > > Well, no. That's not good enough in practice. You see, the problem is that > someone somewhere will take offence at almost anything. It Is NOT > necessarily reasonable to censor one's normal speech to pander to some > idiot or liar who has chosen to claim that he or she finds something you > said "offensive" or "insulting". It might be reasonable to do so, but not > necessarily. > > "Showing respect" cuts both ways, doesn't it. While I agree that one > should not go out of one's way to offend another person, everyone also has > a responsibility to avoid taking offence or perceiving insult unnecessarily > or unreasonably. We cannot and MUST NOT pander to the lowest common > denominator of claimed personal offence, and yet codes of conduct often > seem to be intended to do exactly that. > > Do we really have to adjudicate whether the word is insulting? > > > It's not the word that matters, it is the intent. Codes of conduct are > often in practice an absurd way of trying to police intent. As I have > observed, some manipulator or overly-easily-offended snowflake (yes, I've > used the snowflake word) somewhere can always play the system by claiming > offence where none was intended. > > I agree that the situation is potentially difficult. There is no single > "statutory" way of eliminating perceived offence (real or claimed). Where > people communicate it is inevitable that someone is going to be insulted or > offended sometimes (often unintentionally). This is real life. *They have > to accept it; we all have to accept that what appears to be offence or > insult are sometime part of life*. There needs to be common sense and > reasonableness on all sides and no amount of "legislation" reduces the need > for it (i.e. CoCs don't help since they tend only to entrench politically > correct notions of what is "respectful" rather than allowing common sense > to prevail in terms of what is "reasonable"). > > Someone > objects, why not use a different term or ask "what would you like to > be called in this context?" > > > Hah, are you serious? That would often come over as even worse, as if the > person asking the question was being sarcastic. > > Furthermore, just because a person says that "I find 'fwibblefut'" > offensive/insulting is not necessarily a good enough reason for another > reasonable person to avoid it. A complaint of insult or offensiveness > cannot be sacrosanct *just because it has been made*. Such a complaint must > be reasonable for other reasonable people to have good reason to comply. > > A CoC that said this, i.e. that relied on "reasonable" behaviour and an > impartial jury's view of "reasonable", might actually be useful. > > No sweat. For all of us except those who > think it's their God Given Right to use the
Re: [DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s).
also deb.devuan.org must be used for beowulf? Thank you -- Ismael Devuan User: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=devuan - Original Message - From: "KatolaZ" To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s). ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On 20/09/2018 19:46, Steve Litt wrote: > For most of us, it's trivially easy to live within any of the CoCs > I've seen. Who is this "we" to which you refer? It seems to me to exclude many reasonable and decent people. It seems to me that CoCs and similar politically correctness are commonly intended to hobble non-harmful freedom of speech. They are, in short, a cancer on honesty and openness, with the perceived benefit of helping people who have problems with the real world. Some people fear and dislike honesty and openness and are now being pandered to by political correctness. Note that nothing I am saying here is a defence of intentional insult or offensiveness. > If you call a person a "bonduxer" and the person > objects, don't continue using the word, and if he's at all nice about > it, apologize. Well, no. That's not good enough in practice. You see, the problem is that someone somewhere will take offence at almost anything. It Is NOT necessarily reasonable to censor one's normal speech to pander to some idiot or liar who has chosen to claim that he or she finds something you said "offensive" or "insulting". It might be reasonable to do so, but not necessarily. "Showing respect" cuts both ways, doesn't it. While I agree that one should not go out of one's way to offend another person, everyone also has a responsibility to avoid taking offence or perceiving insult unnecessarily or unreasonably. We cannot and MUST NOT pander to the lowest common denominator of claimed personal offence, and yet codes of conduct often seem to be intended to do exactly that. > Do we really have to adjudicate whether the word is insulting? It's not the word that matters, it is the intent. Codes of conduct are often in practice an absurd way of trying to police intent. As I have observed, some manipulator or overly-easily-offended snowflake (yes, I've used the snowflake word) somewhere can always play the system by claiming offence where none was intended. I agree that the situation is potentially difficult. There is no single "statutory" way of eliminating perceived offence (real or claimed). Where people communicate it is inevitable that someone is going to be insulted or offended sometimes (often unintentionally). This is real life. *They have to accept it; we all have to accept that what appears to be offence or insult are sometime part of life*. There needs to be common sense and reasonableness on all sides and no amount of "legislation" reduces the need for it (i.e. CoCs don't help since they tend only to entrench politically correct notions of what is "respectful" rather than allowing common sense to prevail in terms of what is "reasonable"). > Someone > objects, why not use a different term or ask "what would you like to > be called in this context?" Hah, are you serious? That would often come over as even worse, as if the person asking the question was being sarcastic. Furthermore, just because a person says that "I find 'fwibblefut'" offensive/insulting is not necessarily a good enough reason for another reasonable person to avoid it. A complaint of insult or offensiveness cannot be sacrosanct *just because it has been made*. Such a complaint must be reasonable for other reasonable people to have good reason to comply. A CoC that said this, i.e. that relied on "reasonable" behaviour and an impartial jury's view of "reasonable", might actually be useful. > No sweat. For all of us except those who > think it's their God Given Right to use the word "bonduxer", > perhaps on Free Speech grounds. Well, do you have a problem with free speech? I don't have any problem with reasonable free speech. I think that reasonable free of speech is the basis of honesty and of merit-based technological progress. As such, I accept that people will sometimes get offended and insulted (including me!) and I accept that as the (necessary and desirable) price of progress. > Note that it says CONGRESS shall make no law. Not > YOUR PROJECT shall make no law. It's perfectly legal, and consistent > with a Free Speech government, for an organization to limit speech in > the organization. Quite so but that doesn't magically make it morally justified. It's not morally justified. It's cretinously stupid and immoral in an organisation that exists to make reality-based technological progress on things. > SUMMARY: > > Conforming with almost any existing CoC is very easy, requires little > effort, abrogates your freedom very little. It doesn't interfere with > meritocracy, nor does it interfere with the writing of great > software, except during discussions about the CoC. I disagree. Indeed, yours seems like an argument specifically crafted to reduce reasonable freedom of speech. I'd describe your attitude as toxic political correctness. > My observation, > acquired over many years, is that those who keep on attacking CoCs want > to preserve their ability to be either thoughtless or nasty in an > offtopic way. I find this
Re: [DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s).
Am Donnerstag, 20. September 2018 schrieb KatolaZ: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:58:13PM +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > > I just tried to upgrade a RaspberryPi3+, but I get this error message: > > > > # LANG=C apt-get update > > Get:1 http://packages.devuan.org/merged ascii InRelease [113 kB] > > Hit:2 http://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian stretch InRelease > > > > Hit:3 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-backports InRelease > > > > Hit:4 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-security InRelease > > > > Hit:5 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-updates InRelease > > > > Hit:6 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-proposed-updates InRelease > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > E: Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease > > is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s). Updates for this repository will > > not be applied. > > > > Anything I can do about - despite waiting? > > > > Since you are on ASCII, you should use deb.devuan.org, as widely > advertised and repeated in the last months (and written in the ASCII > release notes, and here, and in the forum, and said on IRC). > > We know that the old amprolla seems to have some glitches, so > packages.devuan.org and *.mirror.devuan.org will be decommissioned. > > Please just use deb.devuan.org. > > HND > > KatolaZ hi! deb.devuan.org gives the same error. nik > -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA, CIA ... ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s).
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:07:01PM +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 20. September 2018 schrieb info at smallinnovations dot nl: > > http://mirror.smallinnovations.nl > > Thank you, that worked. Just for reference: https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20180914.151733.910d656f.en.html full list of current mirrors, plus more information on deb.devuan.org, that is the recommended URL to use since ASCII was released. HTH KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ] signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s).
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:58:13PM +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > I just tried to upgrade a RaspberryPi3+, but I get this error message: > > # LANG=C apt-get update > Get:1 http://packages.devuan.org/merged ascii InRelease [113 kB] > Hit:2 http://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian stretch InRelease > Hit:3 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-backports InRelease > Hit:4 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-security InRelease > > Hit:5 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-updates InRelease > > Hit:6 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-proposed-updates InRelease > > Reading package lists... Done > E: Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease > is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s). Updates for this repository will not > be applied. > > Anything I can do about - despite waiting? > Since you are on ASCII, you should use deb.devuan.org, as widely advertised and repeated in the last months (and written in the ASCII release notes, and here, and in the forum, and said on IRC). We know that the old amprolla seems to have some glitches, so packages.devuan.org and *.mirror.devuan.org will be decommissioned. Please just use deb.devuan.org. HND KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ] signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s).
Am Donnerstag, 20. September 2018 schrieb info at smallinnovations dot nl: > http://mirror.smallinnovations.nl Thank you, that worked. -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA, CIA ... ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s).
On 20-09-18 20:58, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > I just tried to upgrade a RaspberryPi3+, but I get this error message: > > # LANG=C apt-get update > Get:1 http://packages.devuan.org/merged ascii InRelease [113 kB] > Hit:2 http://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian stretch InRelease > Hit:3 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-backports InRelease > Hit:4 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-security InRelease > > Hit:5 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-updates InRelease > > Hit:6 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-proposed-updates InRelease > > Reading package lists... Done > E: Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease > is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s). Updates for this repository will not > be applied. > > Anything I can do about - despite waiting? > > Nik > http://mirror.smallinnovations.nl/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease has already been updated to 27/9 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On 20/09/2018 10:13, Ribdro wrote: On 2018-09-20 03:02, m712 wrote: On September 20, 2018 12:32:07 AM GMT+03:00, KatolaZ wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:55:38PM +0300, m712 wrote: On September 19, 2018 8:09:52 PM GMT+03:00, Steve Litt wrote: Long observation of people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people, those groups having nothing to do with the list's core foundation (Linux sans systemd, in our case). Sorry, Steve, that's intellectually dishonest. You're painting a black-and-white picture of "if people oppose CoCs then they must want to do things not allowed by the CoCs", however in all instances I have encountered where the need for a CoC was disputed I have seen the exact opposite. You do not need a CoC to protect people from bad words, and people who are contributing nothing but insults are quickly killfiled. CoCs do nothing but introduce filibustering in between contributors. The previous "Code of Conflict" was entirely adequate. The creator of the Contributor Covenant has written a "Post-Meritocracy Manifesto"[1] which describes meritocracies as "benefit[ing] those with privilege", aka social justice bullshit. The Linux kernel community /depends/ on a meritocracy, and this is absurd. The Linux kernel community, as any coding community, is based on people that do things together, share common goals and principles, trust each other, and produce actual code. Social science is very good for discussing about the plus and minus of a community, which behaviours are good or bad, which things could be done in order for the community to become more like this or more like that. But social science alone does not deliver code. And code is what your computer needs to run. You can argue as much as you want with your wifi card, or even yell at it in rage, but that won't convince it to work without a proper device driver for your OS. That driver needs a hacker to be written. I know that what I say is harsh, and that many people might feel offended by that, but honestly most of the people I have heard talking about CoCs and post-meritocracy so far are those who have no clue of how a large (or even a small) piece of software is put together. There are obviously exceptions, but are not many, unfortunately. The Linux kernel is available to billions of people only thanks to a bunch of damn good hackers, who have collectively produced code worth millions of man-months without the need of a silly CoC or of a post-meritocracy manifesto. IMHO, the only "privilege" they have enjoyed is to have produced something useful for a lot of people. Sadly, most of us can only dream about that. My2Cents KatolaZ Thank you. This is what I was trying to convey, perhaps my lack of proficiency in the English language prevented me from doing so (plus some leftover outrage perhaps). m712 Steve, It seems you are being less than inclusive to those who have a differing opinion on the merits and potential issues of the CoC. You are in potential violation of the "insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks" line in the CoC. You have stated "Long observation of people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people" By implication you are saying those people are cruel or at least undesirables based only on their opinions or resistance to the CoC not any actual action taken or words said by those individuals. This certainly seems personal and insulting to those who have, what I would consider, legitimate concerns. I would recommend you focus on one of the examples of good behavior mentioned in the CoC: "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" However, I would say you are 100% correct that this is off-topic and irrelevant. -Regards ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng Hmmm. Grumpy old man what writes software for a living is glad he is old and will be dead soon. Anybody wanting me to sign up to a Code Of Conduct can go ...well... whatever pleases them. In my paid job I abide by the rules - and bend them mercilessly because the eejits what employ me are too stupid to notice. I test software mods properly before making them live. Frowned upon for reducing 'productivity'. I believe the modern term is 'snowflakes'. The modern world is full of snowflakes, and what will they do when reality hits? I'll spare you 'In my day young person'! DaveT ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[DNG] Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s).
I just tried to upgrade a RaspberryPi3+, but I get this error message: # LANG=C apt-get update Get:1 http://packages.devuan.org/merged ascii InRelease [113 kB] Hit:2 http://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian stretch InRelease Hit:3 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-backports InRelease Hit:4 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-security InRelease Hit:5 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-updates InRelease Hit:6 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged ascii-proposed-updates InRelease Reading package lists... Done E: Release file for http://packages.devuan.org/merged/dists/ascii/InRelease is expired (invalid since 2h 24min 54s). Updates for this repository will not be applied. Anything I can do about - despite waiting? Nik -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA, CIA ... ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:32:07 +0200 KatolaZ wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:55:38PM +0300, m712 wrote: > > > > > > On September 19, 2018 8:09:52 PM GMT+03:00, Steve Litt > > wrote: > > >Long observation of > > >people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to > > >individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people, those groups > > >having nothing to do with the list's core foundation (Linux sans > > >systemd, in our case). > > Sorry, Steve, that's intellectually dishonest. You're painting a > > black-and-white picture of "if people oppose CoCs then they must > > want to do things not allowed by the CoCs", however in all > > instances I have encountered where the need for a CoC was disputed > > I have seen the exact opposite. You do not need a CoC to protect > > people from bad words, and people who are contributing nothing but > > insults are quickly killfiled. CoCs do nothing but introduce > > filibustering in between contributors. The previous "Code of > > Conflict" was entirely adequate. The creator of the Contributor > > Covenant has written a "Post-Meritocracy Manifesto"[1] which > > describes meritocracies as "benefit[ing] those with privilege", aka > > social justice bullshit. The Linux kernel community /depends/ on a > > meritocracy, and this is absurd. > > The Linux kernel community, as any coding community, is based on > people that do things together, share common goals and principles, > trust each other, and produce actual code. > > Social science is very good for discussing about the plus and minus of > a community, which behaviours are good or bad, which things could be > done in order for the community to become more like this or more like > that. But social science alone does not deliver code. And code is what > your computer needs to run. You can argue as much as you want with > your wifi card, or even yell at it in rage, but that won't convince it > to work without a proper device driver for your OS. That driver needs > a hacker to be written. > > I know that what I say is harsh, and that many people might feel > offended by that, but honestly most of the people I have heard talking > about CoCs and post-meritocracy so far are those who have no clue of > how a large (or even a small) piece of software is put together. There > are obviously exceptions, but are not many, unfortunately. > > The Linux kernel is available to billions of people only thanks to a > bunch of damn good hackers, who have collectively produced code worth > millions of man-months without the need of a silly CoC or of a > post-meritocracy manifesto. IMHO, the only "privilege" they have > enjoyed is to have produced something useful for a lot of > people. Sadly, most of us can only dream about that. > > My2Cents > > KatolaZ > Hi KatolaZ, Please be aware you're not responding to my observation about people opposing CoCs (which I stand behind and don't see as "intellectually dishonest"), but instead responding to m712's Red Herring fallacy. m712 changed the subject by discussing the specific author of the specific CoC, in response to my observation of the most verbose anti CoC people, an observation stated to a verbose anti CoC troll. Then he REALLY changed the subject by bringing in the post-meritocracy manifesto, using the tenuous thread justification that (he says and I have no reason to disbelieve) that the author of the manifesto and new Linux CoC are the same person. Ctrl+F search the manifesto page for my name: You'll find I'm not a signatory to it. For most of us, it's trivially easy to live within any of the CoCs I've seen. If you call a person a "bonduxer" and the person objects, don't continue using the word, and if he's at all nice about it, apologize. Same if you use the word "bonduxer" for a group. Do we really have to adjudicate whether the word is insulting? Someone objects, why not use a different term or ask "what would you like to be called in this context?". No sweat. For all of us except those who think it's their God Given Right to use the word "bonduxer", perhaps on Free Speech grounds. Concerning Free Speech, consider the Free Speech clause of America's First Amendment: == Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... == I'd assume that in free societies, most constitutional language on speech is similar. Note that it says CONGRESS shall make no law. Not YOUR PROJECT shall make no law. It's perfectly legal, and consistent with a Free Speech government, for an organization to limit speech in the organization. Concerning Meritocracy: I made no statement whatsoever about Meritocracy: m712 brought that into the conversation, not I. I'll say this about practical meritocracies, however: Every meritocracy has limits, written
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On 2018-09-20 03:02, m712 wrote: On September 20, 2018 12:32:07 AM GMT+03:00, KatolaZ wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:55:38PM +0300, m712 wrote: On September 19, 2018 8:09:52 PM GMT+03:00, Steve Litt wrote: Long observation of people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people, those groups having nothing to do with the list's core foundation (Linux sans systemd, in our case). Sorry, Steve, that's intellectually dishonest. You're painting a black-and-white picture of "if people oppose CoCs then they must want to do things not allowed by the CoCs", however in all instances I have encountered where the need for a CoC was disputed I have seen the exact opposite. You do not need a CoC to protect people from bad words, and people who are contributing nothing but insults are quickly killfiled. CoCs do nothing but introduce filibustering in between contributors. The previous "Code of Conflict" was entirely adequate. The creator of the Contributor Covenant has written a "Post-Meritocracy Manifesto"[1] which describes meritocracies as "benefit[ing] those with privilege", aka social justice bullshit. The Linux kernel community /depends/ on a meritocracy, and this is absurd. The Linux kernel community, as any coding community, is based on people that do things together, share common goals and principles, trust each other, and produce actual code. Social science is very good for discussing about the plus and minus of a community, which behaviours are good or bad, which things could be done in order for the community to become more like this or more like that. But social science alone does not deliver code. And code is what your computer needs to run. You can argue as much as you want with your wifi card, or even yell at it in rage, but that won't convince it to work without a proper device driver for your OS. That driver needs a hacker to be written. I know that what I say is harsh, and that many people might feel offended by that, but honestly most of the people I have heard talking about CoCs and post-meritocracy so far are those who have no clue of how a large (or even a small) piece of software is put together. There are obviously exceptions, but are not many, unfortunately. The Linux kernel is available to billions of people only thanks to a bunch of damn good hackers, who have collectively produced code worth millions of man-months without the need of a silly CoC or of a post-meritocracy manifesto. IMHO, the only "privilege" they have enjoyed is to have produced something useful for a lot of people. Sadly, most of us can only dream about that. My2Cents KatolaZ Thank you. This is what I was trying to convey, perhaps my lack of proficiency in the English language prevented me from doing so (plus some leftover outrage perhaps). m712 Steve, It seems you are being less than inclusive to those who have a differing opinion on the merits and potential issues of the CoC. You are in potential violation of the "insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks" line in the CoC. You have stated "Long observation of people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people" By implication you are saying those people are cruel or at least undesirables based only on their opinions or resistance to the CoC not any actual action taken or words said by those individuals. This certainly seems personal and insulting to those who have, what I would consider, legitimate concerns. I would recommend you focus on one of the examples of good behavior mentioned in the CoC: "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" However, I would say you are 100% correct that this is off-topic and irrelevant. -Regards ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
On September 20, 2018 12:32:07 AM GMT+03:00, KatolaZ wrote: >On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:55:38PM +0300, m712 wrote: >> >> >> On September 19, 2018 8:09:52 PM GMT+03:00, Steve Litt > wrote: >> >Long observation of >> >people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to >> >individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people, those groups >> >having nothing to do with the list's core foundation (Linux sans >> >systemd, in our case). >> Sorry, Steve, that's intellectually dishonest. You're painting a >black-and-white picture of "if people oppose CoCs then they must want >to do things not allowed by the CoCs", however in all instances I have >encountered where the need for a CoC was disputed I have seen the exact >opposite. You do not need a CoC to protect people from bad words, and >people who are contributing nothing but insults are quickly killfiled. >CoCs do nothing but introduce filibustering in between contributors. >The previous "Code of Conflict" was entirely adequate. The creator of >the Contributor Covenant has written a "Post-Meritocracy Manifesto"[1] >which describes meritocracies as "benefit[ing] those with privilege", >aka social justice bullshit. The Linux kernel community /depends/ on a >meritocracy, and this is absurd. > >The Linux kernel community, as any coding community, is based on >people that do things together, share common goals and principles, >trust each other, and produce actual code. > >Social science is very good for discussing about the plus and minus of >a community, which behaviours are good or bad, which things could be >done in order for the community to become more like this or more like >that. But social science alone does not deliver code. And code is what >your computer needs to run. You can argue as much as you want with >your wifi card, or even yell at it in rage, but that won't convince it >to work without a proper device driver for your OS. That driver needs >a hacker to be written. > >I know that what I say is harsh, and that many people might feel >offended by that, but honestly most of the people I have heard talking >about CoCs and post-meritocracy so far are those who have no clue of >how a large (or even a small) piece of software is put together. There >are obviously exceptions, but are not many, unfortunately. > >The Linux kernel is available to billions of people only thanks to a >bunch of damn good hackers, who have collectively produced code worth >millions of man-months without the need of a silly CoC or of a >post-meritocracy manifesto. IMHO, the only "privilege" they have >enjoyed is to have produced something useful for a lot of >people. Sadly, most of us can only dream about that. > >My2Cents > >KatolaZ Thank you. This is what I was trying to convey, perhaps my lack of proficiency in the English language prevented me from doing so (plus some leftover outrage perhaps). m712 -- https://nextchan.org -- https://gitgud.io/blazechan/blazechan I am awake between 3AM-8PM UTC, HMU if the site's broken ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
