On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 13:29 +0200, Dirk wrote:
> I wonder why people who need "nanny-features" like HAL refuse to
> just use windows instead.
With this statement you drove me away from your proposal that I
otherwise was in favor of.
'nugh said
Siggy
--
Please don't Cc: me when replying, I m
Siggy Brentrup:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 13:59 +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
>>
>> I really don't want to upset you even more, but allow me the question:
>> where's the problem in running ancient software on even more ancient
>> hardware? Is there anything you really need from squeeze on this
>> ma
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
[snip] I mostly agree with you on your discourse on HAL, please note
that I din't argue against HAL per se but only against being
forced to use it on every hardware I want to use current X on.
> What surprises me is how long
In <20090804111458.ga4...@keuner.winnegan.fake>, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:13 +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
>> > To me, the freedom is still there. I now have the freedom of either
>> > removing it or leaving it. The choice
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 13:59 +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Siggy Brentrup:
> >
> > Where's my freedom, I'm stuck with ancient X if I don't want to
> > run otherwise unused SW?
>
> I really don't want to upset you even more, but allow me the question:
> where's the problem in running ancient soft
On 2009-08-04_16:05:49, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 07:12 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 2009-08-04 06:14, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > >On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:13 +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > >>On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
> > >
> > >>I am concerned a
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 07:12 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-08-04 06:14, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> >On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:13 +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> >>On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
> >
> >>I am concerned about X's dependency on HAL. Years ago I was using my
> >>
On 2009-08-04 06:14, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:13 +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
I am concerned about X's dependency on HAL. Years ago I was using my
SGI Indy with a superb SGI Monitor and US keyboard (brackets and
braces
Siggy Brentrup:
>
> Where's my freedom, I'm stuck with ancient X if I don't want to
> run otherwise unused SW?
I really don't want to upset you even more, but allow me the question:
where's the problem in running ancient software on even more ancient
hardware? Is there anything you really need fr
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:13 +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
> I am concerned about X's dependency on HAL. Years ago I was using my
> SGI Indy with a superb SGI Monitor and US keyboard (brackets and
> braces at the right places) to have up to 6 xt
* Siggy Brentrup [2009 Aug 03 01:45 -0500]:
Thanks for your explanation.
> IMHO it was a fault to make bash essential in the early days of Debian
> which nobody saw - with dash not yet available and shell functionality
> required.
Indeed, however, had a choice been made to keep scripts POSIX
co
Hi list,
I'm reluctant of following up to start yet another fruitless discussion
on bash vs. dash on this list, if you are really interested cf at least
3 recent threads on that subject in debian-devel.
Please don't let us hijack this thread only because someone jumped
on an aside I'm already re
* Siggy Brentrup [2009 Aug 02 11:54 -0500]:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:30 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> > Sven Joachim wrote:
> > > This will take at least one more release cycle, more likely two, if it
> > > is ever accomplished. It is very hard to remove functionality from the
> > > set
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 16:46 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > Luxury, punch cards and line printers :)
> >
>
> Kids and their toys. In my day, we had rocks, both ways uphill, and we
> liked it that way:
> http://xkcd.com/505/
*lol* Thanks for this one, Dotan, it made my day :)
Siggy
--
Please don
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:30 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Sven Joachim wrote:
> > This will take at least one more release cycle, more likely two, if it
> > is ever accomplished. It is very hard to remove functionality from the
> > set of essential packages.
>
> So probably still better t
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 16:55 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > Yes, even if it means to back out X's dependency on the almost dead
> > HAL. I'm not yet fully decided, but I might even be inclined to help
> > him forking a more back to the roots Debian (without bash ess
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-08-02 16:55 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> FWIW, removing bash from the list of essential packages (replacing it by
>> dash) is one of the release goals for squeeze [1].
>
> Not really, the goal for squeeze is to install dash as /bin/sh by
> default. Making bas
* Siggy Brentrup [2009 Aug 02 11:15 -0500]:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:08:10 +0200
> > Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> >
> > *** Snip*
> >
> > > > Perhaps a BSD would be more to his liking.
> > >
> > > Were we talking about Linux or about unixoid OSe
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:08:10 +0200
> Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>
> *** Snip*
>
> > > Perhaps a BSD would be more to his liking.
> >
> > Were we talking about Linux or about unixoid OSes?
>
> The point he's making is simply that the BSD's might be
On 2009-08-02 16:55 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>> Yes, even if it means to back out X's dependency on the almost dead
>> HAL. I'm not yet fully decided, but I might even be inclined to help
>> him forking a more back to the roots Debian (without bash essential).
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> Yes, even if it means to back out X's dependency on the almost dead
> HAL. I'm not yet fully decided, but I might even be inclined to help
> him forking a more back to the roots Debian (without bash essential).
FWIW, removing
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:08:10 +0200
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
*** Snip*
> > Perhaps a BSD would be more to his liking.
>
> Were we talking about Linux or about unixoid OSes?
The point he's making is simply that the BSD's might be a better way to
go.
having been a BSD'er I can relate to the comment
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 07:24 -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Osamu Aoki [2009 Aug 02 01:46 -0500]:
> > If you push such thought, ... Why even have X ... we can edit
> > everything by ed command. No vi(m), no emacs, and few essential
> > packages only will get to use Debian.
Did this, I ev
> Luxury, punch cards and line printers :)
>
Kids and their toys. In my day, we had rocks, both ways uphill, and we
liked it that way:
http://xkcd.com/505/
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
* Osamu Aoki [2009 Aug 02 01:46 -0500]:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:29:56PM +0200, Dirk wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > i would like to start a thread where everyone posts his solution for
> > removing HAL or says why "nanny-features" like HAL shouldn't be enforced
> > in Linux.
> >
> >
> > Disable
On 2009-08-02 02:25, Alex Samad wrote:
[snip]
Luxury, punch cards and line printers :)
All joking aside, I do still pine for green bar and line printers.
It made my programming much more efficient...
--
Scooty Puff, Sr
The Doom-Bringer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@list
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:56:33AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-08-02 01:29, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:29:56PM +0200, Dirk wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> i would like to start a thread where everyone posts his solution for
>>> removing HAL or says why "nanny-features" like
On 2009-08-02 01:29, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:29:56PM +0200, Dirk wrote:
Hello,
i would like to start a thread where everyone posts his solution for
removing HAL or says why "nanny-features" like HAL shouldn't be enforced
in Linux.
Disable HAL in Xorg on Debian / Ubun
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:29:56PM +0200, Dirk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i would like to start a thread where everyone posts his solution for
> removing HAL or says why "nanny-features" like HAL shouldn't be enforced
> in Linux.
>
>
> Disable HAL in Xorg on Debian / Ubuntu
>
> http://www.larsen-b.com
* Dirk [2009 Aug 01 06:06 -0500]:
> Hello,
>
> i would like to start a thread where everyone posts his solution for
> removing HAL or says why "nanny-features" like HAL shouldn't be enforced
> in Linux.
>
>
> Disable HAL in Xorg on Debian / Ubuntu
>
> http://www.larsen-b.com/Article/341.html
30 matches
Mail list logo
