Re: Debian release criteria.
On Thu 05 Jan 2023 at 10:40:59 (-0800), peter@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:46:39 -0600
> > What, you expect someone to obtain an i386 machine just to replicate
> > that it's slow? And make it crash in some unspecified manner?
>
> Definitely not for the problems with Firefox.
>
> Yes, I'd hope that at least one person maintaining network software
> would have a 32 bit machine and perform some tests there. After all,
> communication is fundamental and the title is "Debian; The Universal
> operating system". https://www.debian.org/
Well, my impression is that running i386 software exposed to the
internet is gradually getting less secure as it's becoming harder
for the kernel developers to make the necessary patches.
> > > ... what changes in functionality? The Web site of my credit
> > > union works as it did five years ago.
>
> > What's that got to do with Firefox? OK, it's good that the CU hasn't
> > run with every fad that some web developers seem to want, ...
>
> The subject I intended was Web functionality. The reference to the
> Web site of my credit union was illustrative; not the primary subject.
> I shouldn't have assumed that was obvious.
> > Where's your evidence that Firefox 102.6 is not ready? You haven't
> > posted anything specific, and your criticism seems more like a whine, ...
>
> Yes, a whine against the Web. Not a whine about readiness of Firefox.
> The Web has become a resource abyss. Debian can't fix it. No single
> entity can fix it. At least Debian can acknowledge the problem and
> allocate some attention and resources to mitigation. Debian has
> influence. It can advocate to help developers and users avoid the
> abyss. Might also be ways for software to help.
"Debian helps fix the Web." Not a headline I expect ever to see,
I'm afraid. Nor do I see how this fits in with your:
> Not long ago the release criterion was "release when ready".
> What's become of that?
When the Web is ready??
> > Coo, look at that.
>
> This meaning?
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coo
> Etymology 2
> Adjective
> coo (comparative more coo, superlative most coo)
> (slang) Cool.
Certainly not: I don't know what "Clipping of cool" means.
Sure, some people don't finish their words, but that's their problem.
It's not going to affect what I write.
And cool in this modern sense (and words like awesome, wicked, and so
on) is quite recent.
Rather,
coo² (slang) interjection, expressive of surprise. (Chambers)
and this has been around far longer than my lifetime.
In the context I used it in, it expresses glitz for its own
sake, rather than adding any needed functionality. The gimmicks
attract the unsophisticated eye, but that's all there is, with
no underlying substance.
In particular, it's a derogatory term, unlike cool, which is
generally a term of approval.
> > I ran FF on a 500MB i386 laptop to the end of buster, ...
>
> > I now run my i386 laptop just for its portability. I have eight
> > xterms open in fvwm, and use it to set things going on the four
> > or five other machines scattered through the house (all 64-bit).
>
> Good. One machine not in ewaste.
>
> > I'm not sure why you run Firefox on 32-bits: any particular reason,
> > or just for old times sake?
>
> Aside from a tablet, haven't purchased a new computer. Around
> 1990 purchased a new system board which went into a discarded chassis.
> Purchased three used machines since. Recently given two 64 bit machines
> and haven't them commissioned yet.
Well, there's your answer then. Get them commissioned, and use the
i386 for a more appropriate use.
Rather like you, I've never bought a computer at all. I kept two
desktops from work when I retired (both cast-offs already, and now
deceased), acquired two cast-offs when I moved here (one since
deceased), a tower and an all-in-one at the start of the pandemic
(both cast-offs), and meanwhile a sporadic stream of work laptops
cast off by my wife.
Ironically, disposing of machines here is extremely bureaucratic
when they're on the inventory: they don't seem to understand the
concept of amortising the cost of computers.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: