200 000+ stupid useless apps, maybe not. But more than 30 000 Debian packages (and counting), yes, OVERNIGHT!
If I can install Debian on a tablet and run real useful software on it, then I may think about buying one.
If there's a phone that runs directly a plain Debian, then I'll buy one immediately (note: I already have a n900, with Maemo, but it's not really a plain Debian... just a derivative).
But so far, has Ubuntu contributed to the freesmartphone.org project?
As much as I support stopping wars, and as much as I would like this to be right, it unfortunately isn't totally. Soldiers paid abroad send their salary home, and military equipment purchase are also going back to the local economy (explosives and tanks, but not the fuel for the said tanks).
My personal order of preference is Stable, Unstable and Testing.
You could also have decided to cut/past, from the same page, just before the sentence you quoted:
This is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer but only a "wise guess" could be made while deciding between unstable and testing.
Of course, you read it as well, so I wonder why you decided to post the only one sided part of the paragraph. In Debian, we try to promote the use of testing and unstable, because this helps testing the next release if you do bug reports!
The non-free repos weren't turned on with the install. You had to edit the relevant line in/etc/apt/sources.list. For a newb just feeling his way around, this is not an option. Which is really the whole point.
Yet another example of: the "right default" (tm) (r) can't fit the preferences of everyone. People like the FSF or Richard Stalman would argue that even having a non-free available, and the fact that it's one click away (during the installation) makes Debian a non-free distribution. I stand in the middle, so the fact that non-free isn't activated by default is for me the perfect choice. If newbies have to deal with understanding some software are non-free, then it's a pain, then GREAT! Goal reached. Feel free to complain to the original author of said software and convince them to release them in a nicer license. But please do not blame Debian for it.
That is not even remotely close to what you are arguing which is that the "right default setting wasn't to their liking". It's two completely different things.
You are right, this is stronger than just the "right default setting wasn't to their liking". It also has to deal with bad licenses so it can't go in main and be distributed in the *ORIGINAL* CDs, which is why some people build continuously alternative CDs (which seemingly, you didn't use).
Critical hardware not working and me not having a clue how to fix it is not equal to not liking "the default setting".
You not having a clue is just equal to you not having a clue, yet it's not the only argument to say Ubuntu is best. It is just that Ubuntu is better for you until you agree that in some case, you'll need to search on the internet. I perfectly understand why one would think this way, I just happen to not agree and prefer my distribution to remain 100% free, with no polluting source-less binary blobs mixed with the totally free stuff. So at the end, it's a question of likes and dislikes.
Slandering me by saying I am a "lost cause" and won't ever understand choice is completely false and unjustified.
There's nothing condescending, aggressive or anything by calling this a "lost cause". You are a "lost cause" because asking for non-free things to be in the main repository and CDs by default can be justify by:
- the convenience it gives when installing
- people don't understand why, know, or search how to fix issues it creates.
- people don't know about alternative install CDs for Debian
So I do 100% understand your opinion, which is why it is completely truth and justified to say that you are a "lost cause" to the open source spirit. With opinions like yours, we wouldn't be able to offer the choice not to use non-free software. Yet, I do like sending non-free blobs and drivers to the non-free repo of Debian and keeping them separately. Thus, I am continuing to say you don't understand the word "choice", since you are arguing against mine (my will for a choice of not using non-free software if I want to).
Finally, I'm happy Ubuntu exists for people like you, it is a nice Debian alternative, and has the non-free blobs you want included.
Nawww...Really? You should probably educate yourself on the fact that if a binary blob module is compiled for one particular kernel and the OEM doesn't support it on any other ones, you are stuck on that kernel unless you reverse engineer a new driver.
Please stop your condescending tone with things like You should probably educate yourself on the fact that...". I think every DD knows about ABI issues. You are only talking about drivers here. Things have changed. Absolutely all OEM buyers impose that drivers are in main line kernel, and they even expect them to be in stable before they buy. So the only thing you need to do, 99% of the time, is just get a newer kernel. That's unless you have some really wacko parts in your PC, which by the way, will be an issue in Ubuntu as well. If you don't trust me, ask Ben from the Debian kernel team (he did a conference about it at latest debconf, and we had a conversation about it). I never heard about any single device supported by Ubuntu that isn't in main line kernel. If you find one, please let me know!
Did you even read what I said? It worked out of the box with Ubuntu. I didn't say it only works with Ubuntu.
And that proves my first point to be right! You want the "right default setting" (tm) (r) for you, and you aren't ready to do the necessary tweaking for your specific usage, or searching in the non-free repositories if you bought some crappy hardware with non-free firmware. Having my distro and kernel full of non-free crap isn't a healthy choice, it's pushing OEM to continue to miss-behave. You just aren't ready to do anything because of the bad hardware choice you made, even searching for a CD with the necessary drivers (which really, aren't that hard to find, plus the wiki is full of advise how to get the non-free firmware in by yourself). That's ok, but please just admit it!
Not too long after that, I discovered the issue was the lack of the zd1211 firmware in the Debian repos that was present in Ubuntu.
Continue with such astonishing argumentation, and I'll soon call for a godwin point!
What about people that want actual up to date supported packages that aren't in backports? What should they do?
Most of the time, it's there (all major software have backports nowadays, including Firefox, LibreOffice, X-Window, etc.). If it's not, make your useful point and argue about it on the backport mailing list, and most likely, the backport will be made.
Use Testing? Barring the fact that most of the packages in testing are months out of date, Debian themselves recommends people not use Testing as bug fixes aren't merged fast enough.
Please, let me know exactly where you have read that we recommend people not to use testing! That's what we release, and of course, we encourage as many people as possible to use testing. As for package supposedly unsuitability because they are too old for you, please give a valid example of what you are talking about. I read/hear often people talking about it, but I've
You are confirming what I just said: it's a lost cause, you've just posted a very good example of it. You are complaining about the default only.
P.S: FYI, Debian and Ubuntu are both using the Linux kernel (well, Debian uses other kernels too), so saying one hardware only works with Ubuntu is just plain wrong (hint: http://kmuto.jp/debian/d-i/).
Frankly, if your ISP:
- Is only providing dynamic IP
- Doesn't allow you to change the rDNS of your fixed IP
- Doesn't provide a free, reliable SMTP relay server
then shouldn't you consider changing to another ISP? If there's absolutely no other choice, you can probably rent a small MX relay.
If you are connected through an ISP providing you an IP which is obviously dynamic, if you can't customize the rDNS, and at the same time, and if you aren't using a relay server to send your emails, then you aren't sending emails properly. If you are under such restrictions, in exactly which situation do you reasonably want my servers to believe you are in the need to send emails directly? 99.999% of the times, you are a botnet sending me spams. If you are a company, then you have enough to pay yourself a hosted relay with a fixed IP address and rDNS. Please... don't tell me you are one of these guys who did the setup of an Exchange server behind a poor ADSL line, for an entire company (what an horrible setup)... Or that you are just a geek setting-up your home-brew $unix server behind your ISP connection, using your mum's electricity (hint: you can get a hosted domain name and a VPS for few bucks a year... a way less considering that your old crappy server consume electricity).
FYI: how to setup a postfix so that it uses a relay for the outside world:
Denying all wrong rDNS is a bit harsh, however, denying what's a DSL and the rDNS declaring as such is a good idea. I've yet found very very few cases where it was an issue. For such case, just white-list the entry your customer is complaining about. Here's how to do with postfix:
And here's the content of my/etc/postfix/maps/relaying_stoplist
/^dsl.*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. -dsl-
#/.*\.dsl\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSL2 We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /[a|x]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_[A|X]DSL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/client.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_CLIENT We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /cable.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_CABLE We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/pool\..*/i 553 AUTO_POOL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /.*dial(\.|-).*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DIAL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /ppp.*\..*/i 553 AUTO_PPP We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /dslam.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSLAM We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /dslb.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSLB We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /dynamicIP.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/dynamic.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/staticIP.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/dip.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /fbx.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_fbx We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /abo.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /socal.res.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_REV We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. /.dhcp.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_dhcp We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
Debian's strict philosophy is offputting to many people, who don't quite understand how they benefit from getting "Iceweasel" instead of Firefox
There's nothing guided by philosophy here, but by trademark laws. That rename was IMPOSED by the Mozilla foundation, imposed thanks to their registered trademark they old for both the Firefox logo and the browser name. Because they didn't like Debian to back-port bugs in stable releases of Debian, and thus running a different code than Mozilla is producing. The source-code being free (libre) and without trademark, Debian has still the rights to ship Firefox if it's avoiding the trademarked logo and name. This renaming isn't something that Debian wants, it's a pain to maintain and an annoyance for the users. So why are you giving this as an example of Debian's miss-behavior, when here the issue is Mozilla refusing to do long-term support, and refusing that we do it under their name as well? Shouldn't you blame Mozilla instead?
You are talking to Ubuntu users, the same guys that left Debian because the "right default setting" (tm) (r) wasn't to their likings. It's a lost cause, they wont ever understand the word "choice"...
I've, in the previous few days, got annoyed by hearing in the mass medias about a so-called "genius" that created and was the head of Apple. That doesn't bother me much. But what bothers me is knowing that these same media will say nothing about the death of Mr. Ritchie.
It's pretty obvious for all of us Slashdot-ers and geeks, that Mr. Richie is one that will be written with gold letters in history books of computer science. The black K&R book is still the bible of choice for millions of students.
If there's no VCS in the company, I'd use one at least for myself and my own code. Then if you use a distributed system like Git or Mercurial, you don't even have to ask anyone, it can become viral, and you don't need any piece of infrastructure that doesn't exist already (there's always a way to send patches, using a USB key, a mail attachment, etc.).
Both Jobs and Gates were instrumental in showing the world what was possible with computing. I sincerely doubt there would even be an Internet without them.
People tend to forget that there wasn't only Microsoft vs Apple at the time, but a hell of a lot better computer products. Atari and Commodore computers were cheaper, and a way better as well: better hardware, and better software too. Up to today, I never found a more convenient way to write GUI programs than at the time I was playing with the AES and the GEM. Today's toolkits like GTK or Qt are crap (and especially compared to it). Mind you, Internet started on the Unix world, not at all on Apple or PC computers.
While to some degree, I can agree that Apple played a role in making complicated things more simple and accessible for the masses, I can't agree with your above words. And really, Microsoft products were only parasites, their product never were leading and showing the way, but always following. And it is still the case.
Truth is, RedHat seems only to be pissed of that OpenStack is an Ubuntu product. Currently, as much as I know, there's only a SUSE RPM repository. Fedora guys might want to try to port, but that wont ever be the upstream distribution of choice. At least 3 core developers in OpenStack are old Canonical employees, and they still have write access to the Ubuntu repositories. OpenStack has a real open source spirit, with even open source governance. There's lots of companies that already do support for it. We'd be glad to see RedHat getting involved in OpenStack, but it's not with repeating bullshits they heard 1 year ago that it's going to happen. Yes, one year ago, OpenStack was only a bunch of press releases. But since Cactus (OpenStack 2011.2), then Diablo (Openstack 2011.3), things have changed quite a lot. So much that it's hard to keep tracks and understand all the new features.
By the way, I feel quite alone working on the Debian port (from Ubuntu) of Openstack. I wouldn't be against some help here. Volunteers would be more than welcome. Please just register the pkg-openstack project on alioth.debian.org if you want to join and contribute. Mainly, the work is testing the rebuild, and making sure that what works in Ubuntu also works in Debian, plus the rewrite of init scripts (since Ubuntu uses upstart and Debian uses insserv) and management/packaging of all dependencies (like python-novaclient, python-webob, python-eventlet, euca2ools, etc.).
Hi Bill,
All your life is associated (at least for the public) to space. I'm guessing that you never actually went into space. Do you find this frustrating? Would you like to go in space if you had the opportunity to do it "in real life"?
Divide 15k by 2 persons, and divide again by 3 months, that makes it 2.5k EUR per month, which really, isn't much, for someone with the skills of Raphael, living in France. On the IT work market, I believe he would earn a way more. Sure, you can try comparing this to a salary let's say in Shanghai, where you're more than happy with 1k EUR (yes, it's that much now in China...), but that's not the point.
You do realize that there are millions upon millions of qualified individuals available to assist with such an effort, right?
And you do realize that this is the version 2 of the book, written for Squeeze, and that Raphael had the experience of the Lenny version (where he didn't find volunteers)?
No, we are asking to give a bit of your spare money so that the maintainer of dpkg can survive, since he dedicates all his time to Debian, and has no other income but donations. We aren't just asking to give money for any book written by an unknown person...
Are you, too, thinking that Raphael doesn't need money to survive? Did you realize that he decided to exclusively work on Debian, and maintaining dpkg, and that he isn't getting much from donation, plus this book represents only a very small bit of his annual incomes? Oh, but maybe you are volunteering for taking over the development of dpkg, doing it full time, and without accepting any source of income? How generous you are!!!
Slashdot Mirror
200 000+ stupid useless apps, maybe not. But more than 30 000 Debian packages (and counting), yes, OVERNIGHT!
If I can install Debian on a tablet and run real useful software on it, then I may think about buying one.
If there's a phone that runs directly a plain Debian, then I'll buy one immediately (note: I already have a n900, with Maemo, but it's not really a plain Debian... just a derivative).
But so far, has Ubuntu contributed to the freesmartphone.org project?
As much as I support stopping wars, and as much as I would like this to be right, it unfortunately isn't totally. Soldiers paid abroad send their salary home, and military equipment purchase are also going back to the local economy (explosives and tanks, but not the fuel for the said tanks).
Instead of making an announcement about something you're preparing, just restore this f*** videotape and post it on youtube...
Please, let me know exactly where you have read that we recommend people not to use testing!
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-choosing.en.html [debian.org]
Go down to 3.1.5. The relevant quote is:
My personal order of preference is Stable, Unstable and Testing.
You could also have decided to cut/past, from the same page, just before the sentence you quoted:
This is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer but only a "wise guess" could be made while deciding between unstable and testing.
Of course, you read it as well, so I wonder why you decided to post the only one sided part of the paragraph. In Debian, we try to promote the use of testing and unstable, because this helps testing the next release if you do bug reports!
The non-free repos weren't turned on with the install. You had to edit the relevant line in /etc/apt/sources.list. For a newb just feeling his way around, this is not an option. Which is really the whole point.
Yet another example of: the "right default" (tm) (r) can't fit the preferences of everyone. People like the FSF or Richard Stalman would argue that even having a non-free available, and the fact that it's one click away (during the installation) makes Debian a non-free distribution. I stand in the middle, so the fact that non-free isn't activated by default is for me the perfect choice. If newbies have to deal with understanding some software are non-free, then it's a pain, then GREAT! Goal reached. Feel free to complain to the original author of said software and convince them to release them in a nicer license. But please do not blame Debian for it.
That is not even remotely close to what you are arguing which is that the "right default setting wasn't to their liking". It's two completely different things.
You are right, this is stronger than just the "right default setting wasn't to their liking". It also has to deal with bad licenses so it can't go in main and be distributed in the *ORIGINAL* CDs, which is why some people build continuously alternative CDs (which seemingly, you didn't use).
Critical hardware not working and me not having a clue how to fix it is not equal to not liking "the default setting".
You not having a clue is just equal to you not having a clue, yet it's not the only argument to say Ubuntu is best. It is just that Ubuntu is better for you until you agree that in some case, you'll need to search on the internet. I perfectly understand why one would think this way, I just happen to not agree and prefer my distribution to remain 100% free, with no polluting source-less binary blobs mixed with the totally free stuff. So at the end, it's a question of likes and dislikes.
Slandering me by saying I am a "lost cause" and won't ever understand choice is completely false and unjustified.
There's nothing condescending, aggressive or anything by calling this a "lost cause". You are a "lost cause" because asking for non-free things to be in the main repository and CDs by default can be justify by:
- the convenience it gives when installing
- people don't understand why, know, or search how to fix issues it creates.
- people don't know about alternative install CDs for Debian
So I do 100% understand your opinion, which is why it is completely truth and justified to say that you are a "lost cause" to the open source spirit. With opinions like yours, we wouldn't be able to offer the choice not to use non-free software. Yet, I do like sending non-free blobs and drivers to the non-free repo of Debian and keeping them separately. Thus, I am continuing to say you don't understand the word "choice", since you are arguing against mine (my will for a choice of not using non-free software if I want to).
Finally, I'm happy Ubuntu exists for people like you, it is a nice Debian alternative, and has the non-free blobs you want included.
I'm not only evaluating a distribution for its default settings only.
I did no such thing.
Yes you did! You simply can't see it...
Nawww...Really? You should probably educate yourself on the fact that if a binary blob module is compiled for one particular kernel and the OEM doesn't support it on any other ones, you are stuck on that kernel unless you reverse engineer a new driver.
Please stop your condescending tone with things like You should probably educate yourself on the fact that...". I think every DD knows about ABI issues. You are only talking about drivers here. Things have changed. Absolutely all OEM buyers impose that drivers are in main line kernel, and they even expect them to be in stable before they buy. So the only thing you need to do, 99% of the time, is just get a newer kernel. That's unless you have some really wacko parts in your PC, which by the way, will be an issue in Ubuntu as well. If you don't trust me, ask Ben from the Debian kernel team (he did a conference about it at latest debconf, and we had a conversation about it). I never heard about any single device supported by Ubuntu that isn't in main line kernel. If you find one, please let me know!
Did you even read what I said? It worked out of the box with Ubuntu. I didn't say it only works with Ubuntu.
And that proves my first point to be right! You want the "right default setting" (tm) (r) for you, and you aren't ready to do the necessary tweaking for your specific usage, or searching in the non-free repositories if you bought some crappy hardware with non-free firmware. Having my distro and kernel full of non-free crap isn't a healthy choice, it's pushing OEM to continue to miss-behave. You just aren't ready to do anything because of the bad hardware choice you made, even searching for a CD with the necessary drivers (which really, aren't that hard to find, plus the wiki is full of advise how to get the non-free firmware in by yourself). That's ok, but please just admit it!
Not too long after that, I discovered the issue was the lack of the zd1211 firmware in the Debian repos that was present in Ubuntu.
Oh, you're talking about that: http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=zd1211&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all
Took me few seconds to find out it's there since Etch, which is now quite a long time ago, first uploaded on the 2005-09-13, migrated to testing on the 2006-03-15. Etch was released in April 2007. So I went ahead and downloaded http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/etch/non-free/source/Sources.gz. And guess what? THE FIRMWARE WAS THERE! So please find a better example, that one doesn't work.
What a pathetic loser you must be.
Continue with such astonishing argumentation, and I'll soon call for a godwin point!
What about people that want actual up to date supported packages that aren't in backports? What should they do?
Most of the time, it's there (all major software have backports nowadays, including Firefox, LibreOffice, X-Window, etc.). If it's not, make your useful point and argue about it on the backport mailing list, and most likely, the backport will be made.
Use Testing? Barring the fact that most of the packages in testing are months out of date, Debian themselves recommends people not use Testing as bug fixes aren't merged fast enough.
Please, let me know exactly where you have read that we recommend people not to use testing! That's what we release, and of course, we encourage as many people as possible to use testing. As for package supposedly unsuitability because they are too old for you, please give a valid example of what you are talking about. I read/hear often people talking about it, but I've
You are confirming what I just said: it's a lost cause, you've just posted a very good example of it. You are complaining about the default only.
P.S: FYI, Debian and Ubuntu are both using the Linux kernel (well, Debian uses other kernels too), so saying one hardware only works with Ubuntu is just plain wrong (hint: http://kmuto.jp/debian/d-i/).
Frankly, if your ISP:
- Is only providing dynamic IP
- Doesn't allow you to change the rDNS of your fixed IP
- Doesn't provide a free, reliable SMTP relay server
then shouldn't you consider changing to another ISP? If there's absolutely no other choice, you can probably rent a small MX relay.
If you are connected through an ISP providing you an IP which is obviously dynamic, if you can't customize the rDNS, and at the same time, and if you aren't using a relay server to send your emails, then you aren't sending emails properly. If you are under such restrictions, in exactly which situation do you reasonably want my servers to believe you are in the need to send emails directly? 99.999% of the times, you are a botnet sending me spams. If you are a company, then you have enough to pay yourself a hosted relay with a fixed IP address and rDNS. Please... don't tell me you are one of these guys who did the setup of an Exchange server behind a poor ADSL line, for an entire company (what an horrible setup)... Or that you are just a geek setting-up your home-brew $unix server behind your ISP connection, using your mum's electricity (hint: you can get a hosted domain name and a VPS for few bucks a year... a way less considering that your old crappy server consume electricity). FYI: how to setup a postfix so that it uses a relay for the outside world:
# Relay through example.com
relayhost = mx.example.com
smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes
smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/saslpw
Then saslpw just contains:
mx.example.com exampleusername@example.com:password
Denying all wrong rDNS is a bit harsh, however, denying what's a DSL and the rDNS declaring as such is a good idea. I've yet found very very few cases where it was an issue. For such case, just white-list the entry your customer is complaining about. Here's how to do with postfix:
/etc/postfix/maps/relaying_stoplist
/^dsl.*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server. -dsl-
/[a|x]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_[A|X]DSL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/cable.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_CABLE We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/.*dial(\.|-).*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DIAL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/ppp.*\..*/i 553 AUTO_PPP We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/dslam.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSLAM We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/dslb.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSLB We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/dynamicIP.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/fbx.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_fbx We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/abo.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/socal.res.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_REV We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
/.dhcp.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_dhcp We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
check_client_access regexp:/etc/postfix/maps/relaying_stoplist,
permit
And here's the content of my
#/.*\.dsl\..*/i 553 AUTO_DSL2 We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/client.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_CLIENT We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/pool\..*/i 553 AUTO_POOL We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/dynamic.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/staticIP.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
#/dip.*\..*\..*/i 553 AUTO_ABO We aren't accept direct connection not from dedicated SMTP servers. Please use your internet provider SMTP Server.
Debian's strict philosophy is offputting to many people, who don't quite understand how they benefit from getting "Iceweasel" instead of Firefox
There's nothing guided by philosophy here, but by trademark laws. That rename was IMPOSED by the Mozilla foundation, imposed thanks to their registered trademark they old for both the Firefox logo and the browser name. Because they didn't like Debian to back-port bugs in stable releases of Debian, and thus running a different code than Mozilla is producing. The source-code being free (libre) and without trademark, Debian has still the rights to ship Firefox if it's avoiding the trademarked logo and name. This renaming isn't something that Debian wants, it's a pain to maintain and an annoyance for the users. So why are you giving this as an example of Debian's miss-behavior, when here the issue is Mozilla refusing to do long-term support, and refusing that we do it under their name as well? Shouldn't you blame Mozilla instead?
You are talking to Ubuntu users, the same guys that left Debian because the "right default setting" (tm) (r) wasn't to their likings. It's a lost cause, they wont ever understand the word "choice"...
Quite right! In fact, most Canonical folks are doing Debian work... :P
I've, in the previous few days, got annoyed by hearing in the mass medias about a so-called "genius" that created and was the head of Apple. That doesn't bother me much. But what bothers me is knowing that these same media will say nothing about the death of Mr. Ritchie.
It's pretty obvious for all of us Slashdot-ers and geeks, that Mr. Richie is one that will be written with gold letters in history books of computer science. The black K&R book is still the bible of choice for millions of students.
I think you mistyped. I think you meant:
both Git and Mercurial are far more useful and easy for anything that even the tiniest project should be using it.
If there's no VCS in the company, I'd use one at least for myself and my own code. Then if you use a distributed system like Git or Mercurial, you don't even have to ask anyone, it can become viral, and you don't need any piece of infrastructure that doesn't exist already (there's always a way to send patches, using a USB key, a mail attachment, etc.).
Both Jobs and Gates were instrumental in showing the world what was possible with computing. I sincerely doubt there would even be an Internet without them.
People tend to forget that there wasn't only Microsoft vs Apple at the time, but a hell of a lot better computer products. Atari and Commodore computers were cheaper, and a way better as well: better hardware, and better software too. Up to today, I never found a more convenient way to write GUI programs than at the time I was playing with the AES and the GEM. Today's toolkits like GTK or Qt are crap (and especially compared to it). Mind you, Internet started on the Unix world, not at all on Apple or PC computers.
While to some degree, I can agree that Apple played a role in making complicated things more simple and accessible for the masses, I can't agree with your above words. And really, Microsoft products were only parasites, their product never were leading and showing the way, but always following. And it is still the case.
Truth is, RedHat seems only to be pissed of that OpenStack is an Ubuntu product. Currently, as much as I know, there's only a SUSE RPM repository. Fedora guys might want to try to port, but that wont ever be the upstream distribution of choice. At least 3 core developers in OpenStack are old Canonical employees, and they still have write access to the Ubuntu repositories. OpenStack has a real open source spirit, with even open source governance. There's lots of companies that already do support for it. We'd be glad to see RedHat getting involved in OpenStack, but it's not with repeating bullshits they heard 1 year ago that it's going to happen. Yes, one year ago, OpenStack was only a bunch of press releases. But since Cactus (OpenStack 2011.2), then Diablo (Openstack 2011.3), things have changed quite a lot. So much that it's hard to keep tracks and understand all the new features.
By the way, I feel quite alone working on the Debian port (from Ubuntu) of Openstack. I wouldn't be against some help here. Volunteers would be more than welcome. Please just register the pkg-openstack project on alioth.debian.org if you want to join and contribute. Mainly, the work is testing the rebuild, and making sure that what works in Ubuntu also works in Debian, plus the rewrite of init scripts (since Ubuntu uses upstart and Debian uses insserv) and management/packaging of all dependencies (like python-novaclient, python-webob, python-eventlet, euca2ools, etc.).
Hi Bill,
All your life is associated (at least for the public) to space. I'm guessing that you never actually went into space. Do you find this frustrating? Would you like to go in space if you had the opportunity to do it "in real life"?
Divide 15k by 2 persons, and divide again by 3 months, that makes it 2.5k EUR per month, which really, isn't much, for someone with the skills of Raphael, living in France. On the IT work market, I believe he would earn a way more. Sure, you can try comparing this to a salary let's say in Shanghai, where you're more than happy with 1k EUR (yes, it's that much now in China...), but that's not the point.
is an indication of lack of interest
No, it's an indication that the book is big, and the translation to be done being a huge work.
You do realize that there are millions upon millions of qualified individuals available to assist with such an effort, right?
And you do realize that this is the version 2 of the book, written for Squeeze, and that Raphael had the experience of the Lenny version (where he didn't find volunteers)?
No, we are asking to give a bit of your spare money so that the maintainer of dpkg can survive, since he dedicates all his time to Debian, and has no other income but donations. We aren't just asking to give money for any book written by an unknown person...
Are you, too, thinking that Raphael doesn't need money to survive? Did you realize that he decided to exclusively work on Debian, and maintaining dpkg, and that he isn't getting much from donation, plus this book represents only a very small bit of his annual incomes? Oh, but maybe you are volunteering for taking over the development of dpkg, doing it full time, and without accepting any source of income? How generous you are!!!