Re: Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:24:23PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:44:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 02:04:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > ports - NetBSD gives us the potential to bring Debian to _many_ new > > > platforms. > > > > It's not that many actually. The only CPU that NetBSD claims to support > > but Linux doesn't is the pc532. Also the (umerged) Linux VAX and arm26 > > aren't really useable unlike their NetBSD counterparts. > > However, NetBSD doesn't run on IA64 or S/390 as far as I know, while Debian > does. Of course, FreeBSD (5.0) does run on IA64, so I suspect it won't be that long before NetBSD has a port to it. I also recall seeing that people are in the process of porting both FreeBSD and NetBSD to S/390. ---Nathan
Re: debian pxe dhcp netinstall (debconf enterprise fai etc.)
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:21:29AM -0800, Paul Telford wrote: > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Chad Walstrom wrote: > > > I was intrigued by Progeny's autoinstall Python script, but never had a > > chance to look into it further. > > Progeny no longer maintains autoinstall, but I have picked it up and > continue to use, maintain, and enhance it. If you haven't looked at it in > a while it might be worth revisiting. I uploaded a new version a month or > two ago which fixes some of the deficiencies of previous versions. I was sorry to hear that Progeny had abandoned autoinstall. It had apparently neglected for a while, though, so I wasn't very surprised. It really is quite good, and could have been even better, I think. > I also received a comment from a user last week stating that they are > using autoinstall with PXE and it is working great. I'm using autoinstall > via a single 1.44M floppy every day to deploy various machines and it all > works as expected -- my machines are up and running in just a few minutes, > completely hands-free. Last year I used autoinstall to turn about a 100 old PC's into X terminals. With autoinstall and discover, I was able to get completely non-interactive installs. I used grub, though instead of PXE. (Most of the hardware was old, and very few, if any, of the the NIC's supported PXE.) grub can be built with network support, and it supported all the NIC's we had. It also loads the kernel and filesystem from the network faster than from floppy. :) ---Nathan
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:24:29PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:39:47PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > [snip] > > I explained that "Debian GNU/KNetBSD" was actually a separate effort, > > primarily by Robert Millan, to port Debian to a system consisting of > > NetBSD's kernel (thus, 'KNetBSD') and a ported GNU libc, while the other > > effort was aimed at a NetBSD kernel and native NetBSD libc. I did, however, > > say that I (at least) would be happy to try to find a name they found > > equally suitable, for the same reasons, rather than continue to use the > > current one. > > Are you saying that we're going to have both a Debian GNU/KNetBSD > distribution, which, since it uses glibc presumably would be able to > use the same binaries as the GNU/Linux architecture for _most_ packages > (please correct me if I'm wrong) _and_ a distribution based on NetBSD's > libc, which would required close to every damn binary to have separate > packages. Thus, given NetBSD's multiplatform support, almost doubling > the size of the Debian archives?! Probably not exactly. It is the case at the moment, but hopefully it won't stay that way. You are incorrect about glibc allowing the use of the same binaries. It doesn't work that way, because kernel struct's and constants differ. (Among other things. Actually, the BSD's can run regular Debian binaries in Linux emulation mode, so that's really not necessary. The problem is that dpkg doesn't understand that, so you have to use a chroot.) The use of glibc gains some source compatiblity at the expense of an unstable libc that will require a lot more work to fully support the BSD kernels. I don't believe that this work will ever really get done, giving the native libc port an advantage. Also, I would be really surprised if the glibc port gets past i386, since there's a lot more effort involved in doing that. > Madness lies that way. > > Yes, choice is good, but sometimes, just sometimes too much choice will > make you choke... True. ---Nathan
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Well, no offense, but that's ugly as hell, and is going to square the > > > amount of confusion people experience when trying to decode our OS > > > names. > > > > Agreed, unfortunately - it is, and I suspect it may well. Suggestions for > > better naming welcome, of course (or even a direction to go in). > > We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot > is the cute and devilish "daemon"), with the first letter shared by the > demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. > > Thus: > > Debian FreeBSD -> Debian Forneus (BSD) > Debian NetBSD -> Debian Naberius (BSD) > Debian OpenBSD -> Debian Orobos (BSD) > > I got these names from the Wikipedia http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specific_demons_and_types_of_demons>. > > Moreover, none of these names are currently registered with the USPTO, > so we'd be set in that department. I'm not opposed to anything else you've said. I do believe these particular names are a bad idea, however. One of the reasons the BSD mascot is considered "cute" is that it has no real connection with demons, in name, or otherwise. Which to people of several religions are _not_ cute. Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just the same if you wanted to call them Loki, Kali or Hitler. (To pick a few at random.) Using names of evil, real or imagined, is not something that would be helpful to Debian. That kind of publicity we don't need. ---Nathan
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Debian FreeBSD -> Debian Forneus (BSD) > > > Debian NetBSD -> Debian Naberius (BSD) > > > Debian OpenBSD -> Debian Orobos (BSD) > > > > > > I got these names from the Wikipedia > > http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specific_demons_and_types_of_demons>. > > > > > > Moreover, none of these names are currently registered with the USPTO, > > > so we'd be set in that department. > > > > I'm not opposed to anything else you've said. I do believe these > > particular names are a bad idea, however. One of the reasons the BSD > > mascot is considered "cute" is that it has no real connection with > > demons, in name, or otherwise. Which to people of several religions are > > _not_ cute. > > > > Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just > > the same if you wanted to call them Loki, Kali or Hitler. (To pick a few > > at random.) Using names of evil, real or imagined, is not something > > that would be helpful to Debian. That kind of publicity we don't need. > > I doubt you'd have known they were names from Christian demonology if I > hadn't told you. I didn't propse that we use better known names like > "Lucifer" or "Satan". Even names like "Belial", "Asmodeus", and > "Mephistopheles" are unfamiliar to uneducated Christians (which is most > of them, at least in the U.S.). Sorry, I had a somewhat unique education. Anyway most people in the U.S. are appallingly uneducated, regardless of their religion. I fail to see the point. > I have little patience for superstitious beliefs, and less still for > people who claim to be defending the tender feelings of the ignorant. > > I doubt knowledgeable and thoughtful adherents to the Christian > religion -- the kind who can actually attend a seminary and not flunk > out -- find the names I proposed particularly offensive. > > If any such people are reading these lists, we can always ask them. For myself it's not a matter of offense. I simply don't want my work named after evil, whether real or imaginary. > In any event, for any name that doesn't raise trademark issues (and > thus potentially jeopardize the entire project), I'd say > the choice remains up to those who are actually doing the work -- and > that would be the Debian *BSD porters. As one of the Debian BSD porters, I'm objecting. ---Nathan
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:19:10PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > > Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek, I rather > > like the notion of using the Valar - they're fictional, and Tolkien's work > > isn't yet out from under copyright, but they *are* reasonably well-known > > (Okay, not as well as Pratchett, but better than Christian demonology), > > and if we're liable to get in trouble over using just the names, we should > > probably strongly reconsider our use of Toy Story character names for > > tagging distributions... > > > > Suppose it's time to dig out my reference books and see if I can come up > > with a suitable set of names out of that mythos. > > > > Besides, using Tolkien names is a long geek tradition. > > Having cheated and grabbed an online resource for it from Google, the > following possibilities show up (my apologies for the lack of accents; > I can't easily input UTF-8 on this terminal): You mean you had to look this up? ;-) > FreeBSD: > No primary Vala names begin with 'F', but many alternate names do, as do > a great many other names of honor in the Tolkien mythos There's no particular reason to stay with 'F'. We're already changing the name beyond recognition. 'V' would be close enough, the phonetic difference is small. > NetBSD: > Namo (Vala of destiny, prophecy, and the Halls of the Dead) > Nessa (Valie of the woods) > Nieliqui (daughter of Orome; see OpenBSD) > Nienna (Valie of pity and lament; Gandalf/Mithrandir was one of her > students) > > OpenBSD: > Omar (Vala of music) > Orome (Vala of the hunt, teacher of elves) Last I heard there was no longer an OpenBSD port. > This is by no means a complete list; it includes none of the Maiar, nor any > of the names of characters elevated from less powerful races. Personally, > while I can't speak for the FreeBSD or OpenBSD folks, I'd cast a vote for > Nienna, for the NetBSD port using kernel+libc; the name is one of the > better known ones, and is a far cry from anything remotely 'evil'. > > It also leaves at least 3 other 'N' names available for the port currently > known as Debian GNU/KNetBSD. This is a solution I can live with. Just to clarify something, am I correct in understanding that we're only being asked to change the official name of the system, not what uname says or config.guess says? Would TNF be ok with describing the system as "Debian GNU/Nienna, based on the NetBSD(tm) kernel?" People will still need to know that the system is based on NetBSD. If we use different names for the libc vs glibc ports, we should probably set the names for dpkg and apt to match. (i.e. netbsd-i386 -> nienna-i386.) ---Nathan
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:09:37AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > > > Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less > > > loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible; of course, most of the > > > sources on daemons say that they are, as a rule, without names in the > > > origional Greek usage. > > > > So? The Greeks were heretical pagans and some of them were even > > (gasp!) atheists. > > *snicker* My sister is a neo-Classisist (with, oddly enough, a degree in > Classics - one of the few things less useful when job hunting than an > English degree). I'm quite familiar with the variety of religious beliefs > in the culture. I was mostly pointing out (after having looked) that it > may not be possible to find *daemon* names, which would be slightly more > apropos (to the geek in me, anyway) than demon names. Very slightly. But > slightly. :) If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs, centaurs, etc. to choose from. Since the Greeks classified them as neither evil spirits nor deities, many of them would qualify as daemons in the classical sense. If Homer isn't copyright and trademark free, nothing is safe. > In my perception, there is a difference between "placation" and "tact"; > one of the primary points being the amount of effort that goes into it. > Placating requires one to make changes that cost you something appreciable; > tact is simply choice one of a number of otherwise equal options such that > it has a reasonable chance of being less offensive to the target audience. > > We have DDs who are, clearly, offended - even if I consider that to be a > rather silly thing, given my own beliefs. And if we didn't have another > option, I'd probably say "tough noogies". But since we *have* had a couple > of other options come up, which have yet to generate any statements of > offense from anyone who's bothered to put it where I could read it, and > those options work just as well in both a practical and a geeky sense, I > have no problem with choosing one of them out of tact. Tact is downright vital on debian-bsd. Otherwise, we'd have never got anything done. Unfortunately, it seems to be largely unknown on debian-devel, which is part of why I seldom read it. > As may have become clear, my favorite bid so far is for Tolkien names, > since the only opinions on d-l that have been cogently argued, or backed up > with citations, indicate that using the *names* isn't going to get us in > trouble - and because they're already in quite widespread use in the same > basic context we intend to use them for. And Tolkien's estate appears to > have had many opportunities to raise objections, and hasn't ever done so, > to the best of my knowlege. [snip] > True. I think Tolkien's work is still covered under the ever-expanding > Disney extensions, but then, as I pointed out and d-l backed up, we're > using Disney character names for an even more significant naming scheme - > releases. If we're really worried about being sued over such, I'd be far > more worried about Disney doing it... I think Tolkien's estate has specific interests, and people using the names for hostnames or OS release names aren't the sort of thing they're worried about. In fact, I strongly suspect they'll be occupied for the next few years trying to squelch the commercial opportunism surrounding the movies. I read that they're blocking making a movie of the Hobbit, and haven't been at all happy about the movies that have been made. If we're really worried about this, we can always use the names of the Dwarves in the Hobbit. Most (all?) of those names are from Icelandic sags, IIRC. So is Gandalf. ---Nathan
