Re: Renaming the Debian Project
On 06/01/16 05:19, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Daniel Pocock:
>>
>>
>> On 31/12/15 04:22, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 02:03:40PM -0800, benjamin barber wrote:
>>>> It's unfortunate that Debian is named after Debra and Ian,
>>>> because having the project named after a white supremacist, who
>>>> used his ex-wifes name as an trophy.
>>>
>>> I agree in whole with the responses of my fellow developers Dimitri
>>> and Russ. I also believe, because the Internet never forgets, that
>>> this libelous accusation needs to be addressed directly.
>>>
>>> In the time leading up to Ian's death, he posted on his now-deleted
>>> twitter account about an altercation with police. He described
>>> being the victim of police brutality, and expressed the desire that
>>> his story be widely known - in the hopes that, where stories of
>>> police brutality (up to and including murder) of racial minorities
>>> in the United States have failed to lead to the systemic reforms
>>> that are needed, perhaps a story of a white, affluent, educated,
>>> middle-aged man being a victim of the same systems might tip the
>>> scale.
>>>
>>> In the course of expressing these views on twitter, Ian used a
>>> racial epithet.
>>>
>>
>> In fact, it has not been verified that those Tweets were from Ian
>> himself. It can only be said that there were Tweets and they appear
>> to originate from Ian's Twitter ID.
>>
>> Had somebody hacked his account?
>
> I believe the Tweets that have been posted are really from Ian. The basis
> of my belief is a story at The Register which quotes the facts as stated by
> the San Francisco Police Department in the last few paragraphs:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_founder/
There is a general consensus not to keep picking through the details on
the mailing list. I only posted those questions about the matter to
emphasize the lack of information - none of the material anybody has
provided can answer those questions conclusively with hard evidence so
there is nowhere for this thread to go. Please don't feel I am
encouraging people to seek out answers, I only posted the questions to
highlight the lack of facts in the original troll mail, we just have to
sit back and wait and see if they are answered from a credible source.
The PR statements are not a credible source, only an official report
from an inquiry has any weight. PR statements are not made under oath
like evidence in court or an affidavit.
Reply to: