On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 08:18:30 +0200
Henry Jensen wrote:
> Writing file names of proprietary software in log files is not ideal but it
> is far more preferable than failing to load the firmware file. There was a
> suggestion on this list, to print a warning in the log files:
>
> http://lists.no
On Aug 6, 2017, Henry Jensen wrote:
> RMS mentions a change "to obfuscate the names of the firmware files"
> instead of failing.
Yeah, he was referring to the "Request for Comments" section at
http://www.fsfla.org/anuncio/2010-03-Linux-2.6.33-libre
> Last time I checked, the situation hasn't c
Am 7. August 2017 02:45:35 MESZ schrieb bill-auger
>regarding the debianized kernel itself - other users on this list are
>far more knowledgeable on it's inner workings than i, so i wont add
>much
>about that - except to say that if the only problem is some log files
>that very few people will
Am 7. August 2017 03:40:08 MESZ schrieb Jason Self :
>Henry Jensen wrote ..
>> This was an error by me, I did not update the symlink to the source,
>> which is located at
>> https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/slack-n-free-14.2/d/. This is
>> fixed now.
>
>Thank you, although even with this c
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> This was an error by me, I did not update the symlink to the source,
> which is located at
> https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/slack-n-free-14.2/d/. This is
> fixed now.
Thank you, although even with this change I still cannot account for
all of the source code for al
regarding the suggestion on the website of using another distro - the
exact wording id this:
> "If you are looking for a libre Slackware x86_64 variant you are
welcome to use the x86_64 slack-n-free repo and have a look at the
FreeSlack project."
to be clear, this is not explicitly recommending
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> Yes, thank you for linking to the messages. RMS mentions a change
> "to obfuscate the names of the firmware files" instead of failing.
That was not the primary reason for linking to that message. Pay
attention to his very first statement:
> It sounds like the new Debi
On Monday, August 07, 2017 00:10:39 Henry Jensen wrote:
> Am Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > But if your decision is to continue to push back on this and leave the
> > request_firmware calls in place and unmodified, then I think my review
> > of ConnochaetOS is over.
>
> That is, of cour
Am Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :
> > the usage of Linux-Libre is not mentioned as a requirement in
> > the FSDG
>
> But that it must take care not to recommend nonfree software is and,
> if you were to examine the previous messages I've linked to, the
> consensus
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> The section "Debian GNU/Linux" mentions 3 problems with Debian
The common distros page is not intended to be an exhaustive list of
all problems that exist with a given distro. It even says so on the
page: "We do not aim for completeness; once we know some reasons we
can't
On 08/06/2017 10:37 AM, Jason Self wrote:
> Henry Jensen wrote ..
>
>> The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
>> the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
>> to the very same project.
>
> There is no reference to FreeSlack on that page, only Slack
Am Sun, 06 Aug 2017 09:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :
> Henry Jensen wrote ..
>
> > The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
> > the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
> > to the very same project.
>
> There is no reference to FreeSl
The FSF can, of course, set whatever criteria/conditions they want in
order to put their name behind something.
While I don't pretend to speak for the FSF the things I point out are
things that, based on past experience, are problematic points to
address if the end goal is indeed to get the FSF to
On Sunday, August 06, 2017 09:37:16 Jason Self wrote:
> Henry Jensen wrote ..
>
> > The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
> > the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
> > to the very same project.
>
> There is no reference to FreeSlack on that p
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 09:37:16AM -0700, Jason Self wrote:
> In one case, the statement (on gnu.org) is about why Slackware is not
> acceptable. The other is a statement to go use it if they want 64-bit.
> These are not the same. An FSF-endorsed distro shouldn't steer people
> to using ones that a
Ah, I managed to find the ones I was thinking of:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00033.html
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00032.html
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
> the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
> to the very same project.
There is no reference to FreeSlack on that page, only Slackware.
But even if we consider Slackware, what is bei
Hi Jason,
Am Sat, 05 Aug 2017 22:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :
> J.B. Nicholson wrote:
>
> > I see on https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is
> > available for x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an
> > x86_64 libre Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere.
>
J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> I see on https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is
> available for x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an
> x86_64 libre Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere.
That is probably a valid point. I imagine that FSF-endorsed distros
should probably not
19 matches
Mail list logo
