On 30/09/2015 14:53, Chris Bannister wrote:
Please don't top post on the debian-users mailing list
It was unintentional.
My main point stays.
An admin and IT manager needs to evaluate their goals and decide on the
right approach.
Sometimes it can be frustrating to navigate between the drops
Please don't top post on the debian-users mailing list
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:33:52PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Hey Chris,
>
> It doesn't matter if some would like them to just vanish.
> They do commit to the client but the scale of things might not be understood
> by all in the same
On 23/09/15 00:14, Reco wrote:
> $ dpkg -I teamviewer_10.0.46203_amd64.deb | grep Depe
> Depends: bash (>= 3.0), libc6-i386 (>= 2.4), lib32asound2, lib32z1,
> libxext6, ia32-libs
>
> A fine example of non-multiarch package which declared amd64 arch while
> providing i386 binaries only.
It was pr
Hey Chris,
It doesn't matter if some would like them to just vanish.
They do commit to the client but the scale of things might not be
understood by all in the same level\manner.
MS doesn't and cannot commit to software maintenance in certain levels.
I do not know how much money they have and i
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:21:12PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Hey Martin,
>
> I was reading your note and it is not the reality or something that should
> be done but rather another side to consider when working with software
> vendors.
> I do agree that there is a benefit when the sources a
Hi.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:06:37 +0300
Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Hey Reco,
>
> I must admit that this is not the first time I was confused as a
> trolling creature.
For the record - I did not 'confuse' you as a troll and did not call
you one. I could not care less about it, actually.
> And
Hey Martin,
I was reading your note and it is not the reality or something that
should be done but rather another side to consider when working with
software vendors.
I do agree that there is a benefit when the sources are open but
companies like MS(just as an example) do not just vanish.
The
On 27/09/15 08:06, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
Like any other job the programmers need money and software authors are
not obligated to publish their work to be available to all humanity(or
at-least these parts of humanity that are connected to the WWW).
The above is something I think is right and it
Hey Reco,
I must admit that this is not the first time I was confused as a
trolling creature.
And responding to the above mentioned arguments\ideas\thoughts.
I know some might disagree with me about my point of view and I do not
have any obligations to change my mind but I can clarify my thou
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:54:05PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:24:45PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:36:32AM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> > > I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side.
> > > Proprietary s
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:24:45PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:36:32AM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> > I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side.
> > Proprietary software usage is normal in all cases.
>
> No surprise in such position her
Hi.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:36:32AM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side.
> Proprietary software usage is normal in all cases.
No surprise in such position here, since apparently you're using Windows.
And you came to the wron
I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side.
Proprietary software usage is normal in all cases.
It is as dangerous as the usage of open source software.
It might limit but it gives something that not all open source software
can give.
It doesn't limit freedom but just a mere
Hi.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 09:06:47PM +0800, mudongliang wrote:
> Or some of 64bit software will not work if you don't check.
> For example , skype ,teamviewer all need i386 packages.
>
> 1) Users of non-free software (especially users of non-free wine-embedded
> softwar
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:25:20PM +0100, Martin Read wrote:
> On 22/09/15 13:38, Reco wrote:
> >1) Users of non-free software (especially users of non-free wine-embedded
> >software) should suffer anyway.
>
> It speaks ill of you that you cite this as a reason for not offering
> cautionary advice
On 22/09/15 13:38, Reco wrote:
1) Users of non-free software (especially users of non-free wine-embedded
software) should suffer anyway.
It speaks ill of you that you cite this as a reason for not offering
cautionary advice to users of proprietary software.
If such people *do* in fact deserv
On 09/22/2015 08:38 PM, Reco wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:43:48PM +0800, mudongliang wrote:
On 09/22/2015 02:49 PM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large
number of i38
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:43:48PM +0800, mudongliang wrote:
>
>
> On 09/22/2015 02:49 PM, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> >On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> >>For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large
> >>number of i386 packages on them tha
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large
> number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is
> there a good way to simply tell a package manager that I want everything
> involving that ar
On 09/22/2015 02:49 PM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large
number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is
there a good way to simply tell a package ma
Hi.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large
> number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is
> there a good way to simply tell a package manager that I want everything
> invo
You should probably avoid doing so. We are using systems based on amd64 (64
bit) architecture, still there are many applications that yet depend on the
i386 (32 bit) model. 64 bit processors allow 32 apps to run, which lets
them function properly on modern computers too.
i386 packages should not wo
For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large
number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is
there a good way to simply tell a package manager that I want everything
involving that architecture deleted? The best answer I've found on my
own has been to
23 matches
Mail list logo
