* Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-01 23:34]:
> > and we are doing a sociological survey on Debian in order to
> > better understand the Debian community.
>
> didn't tbm do some research into this?
Yes and no. There is currently a lot of interest in free software and
various researchers st
Hi,
>
> If someone has some info on this, do respond...
If you do show what kind of source you are referring to, it
might help.
regards,
junichi
--
Junichi Uekawa, Debian Developer http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/
183A 70FC 4732 1B87 57A5 CE82 D837 7D4E E81E 55C1
--
To UNSU
What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
I find it very annoying, and from a brief discussion on #debian-devel I
see that I'm not alone.
(BTW, would you mind fixing #284874? It's six months old and should be
trivial...)
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
On 7/2/05, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
> I find it very annoying, and from a brief discussion on #debian-devel I
> see that I'm not alone.
I guess it went from off to on?
Wasn't there an issue with worms using the known hosts fi
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though?
>
> These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
> new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the
> security
Hello *,
in closing #311604 I'm adding an init script to the package along with
its /etc/default entry to set a default governor on boot.
Anyway while reasoning on the script start order number I realized that
it might be good to have it into rcS.d instead of the default choice.
cpufreq-set only n
* Marco d'Itri:
> What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
Reducing wormability. I think it's a pretty clever change.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
gimp-print (renamed to gutenprint) is near its 5.0 release. I've
uploaded a prerelease to experimental, which is also available here:
http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/gutenprint/experimental/4.3.99+cvs20050702-1/
It integrates with a numb
On Jul 02, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
> Reducing wormability. I think it's a pretty clever change.
This is not what I asked, I know what this option is for.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 7/2/05, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
> I find it very annoying, and from a brief discussion on #debian-devel I
> see that I'm not alone.
What causes this annoyance?
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 03:05:47PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Marco d'Itri:
>
> > What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
>
> Reducing wormability. I think it's a pretty clever change.
Some of us actually do care what is listed in that file, and edit it
from time to time.
On Jul 02, Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/2/05, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
> > I find it very annoying, and from a brief discussion on #debian-devel I
> > see that I'm not alone.
> What causes this annoya
On 7/2/05, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 02, Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 7/2/05, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
> > > I find it very annoying, and from a brief discussion on #debian-
* Marco d'Itri:
> On Jul 02, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
>> Reducing wormability. I think it's a pretty clever change.
> This is not what I asked, I know what this option is for.
Given it's purpose, this option doesn't
* Wouter Verhelst:
> Some of us actually do care what is listed in that file, and edit it
> from time to time. Hashing those names makes that much harder
There should be tools supporting this, I agree.
> -- and relying on other people's security to increase your own isn't
> pretty clever, actual
Hi everyone,
We're in preparation to upload X.Org packages to unstable, and one of
the things which will happen in this transition is a change in the way
xlibs-static-* packages are handled. If your package build-depends on
xlibs-static, you'll have to update your build-depends to deal with the
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:04:18PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst:
>
> > Some of us actually do care what is listed in that file, and edit it
> > from time to time. Hashing those names makes that much harder
>
> There should be tools supporting this, I agree.
There are tools su
On 7/2/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -- and relying on other people's security to increase your own isn't
> > > pretty clever, actually.
> >
> > Currently, it's the foundation of Internet security, I'm afraid.
>
> Well, then the 'foundation of Internet security' is very weak
On Jul 02, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, then the 'foundation of Internet security' is very weak, I'm
> afraid. It's plain stupid to rely on someone else to get _your_ security
> working correctly. Think about it.
There is also the quite important point that even the most stup
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Because we can't do it using a copyright licence? ;-P
Perhaps I shouldn't have made that flippant comment.
What do you mean you can't? You most certainly can, "just" rewrite the
license to say that red
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
It's very likely to become the upstream default soon enough; they are
merely waiting on more testing. Since this is unstable, I decided it was
as good a time as any to provide so
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:04:18PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst:
> > Some of us actually do care what is listed in that file, and edit it
> > from time to time. Hashing those names makes that much harder
>
> There should be tools supporting this, I agree.
There is such a tool,
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 11:42:40PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 02, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, then the 'foundation of Internet security' is very weak, I'm
> > afraid. It's plain stupid to rely on someone else to get _your_ security
> > working correctly. Think abou
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 11:42:40PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 02, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, then the 'foundation of Internet security' is very weak, I'm
> > afraid. It's plain stupid to rely on someone else to get _your_ security
> > working correctly. Think abou
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:17:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 02, Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/2/05, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
> > > I find it very annoying, and from a brief discussion on
On Jul 03, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The need to edit the file to add/update/remove IP addresses, hostnames
> > and whole keys.
> Then I'm afraid you simply haven't read the documentation ...
I did. But I cannot remove entries if I do not know the hostname.
--
ciao,
Marco
sig
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
> > new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the
> > security of those users, a
27 matches
Mail list logo
