Re: Expelling David Cinege from the list
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:19:59 -0800 (AKDT), Britton wrote:
>> to *purchase* software. Do you *really* want an operating system developed by
>> people like *this* to control your mission-critical computing needs, Mr.
>> Computer User?"
>
>My guess is Englesh (heh) is this guys second language.
I had been up 20+ hours when I got involved in this. I think you will find my more
recent posts much more legable (though I still can't spell worth a damn) now that I
am awake...
The compiler certainly doesn't complain much about my code : >
> Do you even know
>ten words from any other than yours? Anyway, picking on spelling and poor
>typing is pretty pathetic.
Yes it is.
>Who cares if he mispells some of our more
>screwy words? Not me, I do it too and I've got lots of other stuff to do
>with my time than worry about spelling. If you want to take MS on with
>perfect spelling, grammer, and pretty boxes, better think about hiring a
>team of editors and graphic artists. I'm sure they have.
>
>His points, for those who impatiently deleted the first two dozen
>messages in this thread before becoming curious, were:
>
>1. Incorporating Debian is bad.
>
>I bet 99% of readers disagree with him, and his own opinion may by this
>time have undergone mortification. There are several good reasons for
>doing this. The two major reasons stem from our particular tax system and
>legal trend, and he may not have been familliar with them.
I have studied a very good deal of 'law' quite extensively, and is one of the reasons
I hate it so much. The creation of Debian Inc, has CREATED a liability where there
was none. It offers protection to few if not only one person in the Debian project.
I've gone over this point in more detail in other posts, and would dare someone to
prove me wrong.
The tax issue is a farce. The points I've made about the problems created by
Debian Inc. far out weigh any tax deducatable income potential.
>2. Changing the version numbering is bad.
>
>He's right about this. There was no reason to do it, and it looks like a
>pacification move toward vendors that functions by decieving (or at least
>misleading) end users. This is in direct conflict with Debian's official
>policy of 'not hiding problems'. At least one CD vendor has already
>agreed with him on this in this thread.
It's not just that. I really do like the x.x.x way of numbering. It's linux-centric and
IMHO the right way to do it. But I can live with something else. What I can not deal
with is making modifications to a frozen revision, and not changing the rev number.
(especially just to make some CD maker happy)
This has been my (violent) argument over the last few days. I think most people
have been missing it, and think I'm just going crazy because it's going to be called
1.3 R2 instead of 1.3.2. This is not the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214
http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: