Re: mozilla that works

[Gjermund Skogstad <gjermund@skolelinux.no>]

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
[Snip]
> |
> |>'cause "we" does mean Debian, right?
> |
> | Nope. "We" means Skolelinux, not debian. (Period.)
>
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
>
> I thought debian-edu@lists.debian.org was for Debian, and
> linuxiskolen@skolelinux.no was for Skolelinux. (Period.)
>
I vas just giving a short answer to a question, not trying to define the theme 
for this list. I must remind you that my original posting was in respect to 
an technical issue brought up through the need for a new build of mozilla, 
and was not meant to be a discussion about this lists role or theme.

This said I still feel a kind of ehm ... betrayed when debian (or so it seem) 
apparently tries to hijack a concrete agreement between Skolelinux and a 
vendor. This agreement was set up for Skolelinux and was never intended for 
debian in the first place. If it is a fact what you refer, that debian shows 
the nerve to denounce the agreement as unfit for the distribution, this act 
goes a long way to show a lack of respect for what's actually written in 
these documents. The agreement is not unfit for debian, the correct term is 
that it's not _available_ for debian!!! 
This is why "We" means Skolelinux, not debian. (I'm not saying that debian 
would have had any logistical problem getting this sort of agreement with 
SUN, just that this particular agreement doesn't cover up for debian.)

If this should imply that the discussion in question is unwanted on this list, 
there seems to be a need for evaluating whether or not Skolelinux can survive 
sharing lists with debian. I must press that Skolelinux is _not_ a localised 
Norwegian version of debian-edu, and that Skolelinux's international 
devel-list 'devel@skolelinux.no' was merged with 'debian-edu@' for the better 
of both.

In kind regard
Gjermund Skogstad