Re: Description of tasks
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:47:17PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:58:10PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
[snip]
> It will surprise you, but I'm neither a DD nor is buildd.net an official
> part of Debian. So, what make you believe, you can extend the SC to outside
> resources or people?
well, you sure seem to want to be treated as a DD in every other way,
you surely flame like a regular DD, you demand to be able to run an
official buildd for Debian, you scream loudly when you have problems
communicating with the Debian FTP-master team.
(And at least I am not surprised to see you not being a DD. With your
attitude, I doubt you'll ever become one, either...)
> > Really, you should be willing to share your work freely with others
> > with no strings attached. If you aren't willing to do this, then
> > perhaps you should reconsider whether you are really suited to
> > participating with the development of free software in general and the
> > Debian Project in particular. We are working together, not against
> > each other.
>
> Really? Can you prove this? I'm really not convinced of that after this
> thread.
You're using the distribution Debian, isn't that proof enough that
people are working together? A distribution of this size doesn't just
spontaneously form out of nothing. It requires a huge effort of team
work. Just consider the new debian-installer as a grand example of
team work, or maybe the glibc-maintainance...
> > Please, please, carefully re-read the whole of this tiresome thread
> > and notice that you have not presented either yourself or your
> > arguments in a good light; likewise for several other people. While
> > I'm sure we would all like amd64 to be in sid and eventually stable,
> > how we get there is also as important as the goal itself. I am
> > extremely unhappy about the unpleasantness of many people in this
> > thread towards each other, and also to many of the most hardworking
>
> Me too... but ask for the reasons why people get upset and not just the
> symptom that they are upset.
Look, it's been established long ago that you and some others cannot
communicate with some persons in the project. Communication is a
two-way street, so there's probably problems on both sides. It has,
however, also been established that you have been successful in getting
answers to at least some questions using our DPL as a proxy.
So let's use some simple logic, shall we?
A <=/=> C
A <===> B <===> C
Now, if you want to reach C, and a firewall (just to put it in terms
of computer communication) blocks direct access to C, you have to find
another way to reach C. Conveniently, there is a proxy that you've
used before, and that you know works. The proxy B passes information on
to (and from) C. So, your options are:
a.) No communication (not desirable)
b.) Complain about the situation to the network administrator until he
either removes the firewall, shuts down the service C altogether,
or removes your access to the proxy
c.) Use the proxy (proven to work), and maybe, just maybe, in time
gain enough respect from the network administrator to be able to
get direct access to C
The choice is yours. I know what I would have chosen.
Of course, in real life, there is no network administrator, but rather
the service C that decides the transmission policy, but from your
position, that doesn't really matter.
Yes, it's a pity that you don't have direct access, that slows things
down. But slow access is almost always preferable to no access.
[snip]
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Reply to: