gmane.linux.debian.devel.project

Re: Problem with ram memory

Arto Jantunen — 2013-05-25T20:04:25


Please contact debian-user-spanish< at >lists.debian.org, that list is meant
for user support in Spanish. This list is for general project discussion
in English.

Your problem is most likely caused by installing a 32-bit version of
Debian, when you should have installed the 64-bit version to get full
use of your hardware.

Problem with ram memory

Adrian Herrera — 2013-05-25T19:23:43

I speak spanish. Debian 7 solo me reconoce 3͵4 gb de memoria ram. Y yo
tengo 6 gb de memoria ram.
Windows7. Si me reconoce los 6 gb de ram. Esto es un problema de debian???

Re: 2nd draft

Wouter Verhelst — 2013-05-24T14:02:24

I've actually removed some comments about not using HTML text and
wrapping lines at 80 characters etc, because it's less related to how we
behave towards one another; this similarly feels less related.

In addition, the point was raised that perhaps we should not limit the
scope of the code of conduct to just our mailinglists; that it should
also encompass other forms of communication within Debian. This holds
some merit, I suppose, and would make it even less related than it is
today.

To do all this, I've been considering splitting it all up into several
pieces:
- One bit which would be the actual "code of conduct" and which would be
  as independent as possible of the medium used. This would only be
  about "conduct", not about form.
- Perhaps some bits to go into "further reading" and/or a "technical
  section", which would (amongst other things) contain instructions on
  form (as opposed to actual content). This could contain the comments
  about not using HTML and attachments, and presumably also coul

Re: 2nd draft (was: Re: Revising the Code of Conduct)

Jonathan Dowland — 2013-05-24T12:57:57

Thanks, Wouter.

First: would it be appropriate for there to be a point about context-quoting,
or inline quoting, or more precicely not either top-posting nor bottom posting
with no trimming? (my phrasing is bad.)

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:52:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

Should PGP/MIME signatures be explicitly mentioned as an exception? For that
matter should we specifically note that inline PGP is discouraged? (is it?)

(I realise that neither of these points are as important as the points about
 behaviour towards one another, but I don't have much to add to those points)

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Jonathan Dowland — 2013-05-24T13:10:19

I think this is quite a challenging suggestion for the Debian community,
which is so used to pushing for the opposite, but one worth considering. 

I've started to realise that for newer (younger?) people trying to find
out or get involved in Debian, mailing lists are more of a barrier to
entry than I would have imagined - they are much less common than they
were 10 years ago and people converse using other things (forums, etc.)
Enforcing M-F-T means enforcing a mailer that supports it and that makes
interaction even more awkward for newcomers.

The folks who are irritated by CCs are usually people who are technically
sophisticated enough to be able to prevent them by other means (such as
per-list mail addresses with filters to drop mail not received from
*.debian.org servers or whatever. Note that this includes me)

Re: 2nd draft (was: Re: Revising the Code of Conduct)

Stefano Zacchiroli — 2013-05-23T08:30:08

This is my main comment as well. What we currently have is precisely a
*mailing list* CoC. And while that specific document might need
improvements, which Wouter is addressing, I think we should enlarge the
scope. I don't think we would gain much by addressing only interaction
problems on mailing lists. We definitely need to do the same on the BTS,
IRC, and other discussion fora.

As a second comment, I'd love if we could separate more clearly
technical aspects (e.g. the Reply/M-F-T discussion) from more general
community interaction guidelines. In the general part we should distill
what are our expectations of good interactions in Debian, e.g.: "show me
the code", as well as politeness/professionalism requirements. In the
media-specific parts we can then put stuff like Reply/M-F-T and whatnot.


To help with the general effort of publishing a Debian CoC, a while ago
I started collecting some related work at

https://openhatch.org/wiki/Project_codes_of_conduct

with the help of friends from other FOSS proje

Re: 2nd draft (was: Re: Revising the Code of Conduct)

Chris Knadle — 2013-05-23T07:17:48

Greetings.

Wouter (and all other contributors): thank you very much for working on a Code 
of Conduct.  This really matters.

Further comments below.

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 04:52:42, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
...

I'd like this to be more global in coverage, and not just focus on the mailing 
lists.  In this draft of the Code of Conduct, 8 out of the 9 rules are about 
email, so it feels more like a "mailing list CoC" right now than a "CoC".  ;-)


To me this sounds a bit too soft.

Everyone /deserves/ respect as a baseline, and so I don't see any reason why 
we couldn't push hard for this.  I've seen disrespectful communications from 
Debian Developers on the mailing lists, IRC, BTS reports, external blogs with 
Debian derivatives, and so forth.  There are lots of rules for Debian 
Develoeprs concerning how to do Debian packaging, but virtually none 
concerning respectful communication, and it's important.

Every large project or mailing list ends up needing such rules of conduct, and 
I'd like to see De

Re: 2nd draft (was: Re: Revising the Code of Conduct)

Charles Plessy — 2013-05-22T23:02:32

 
Le Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:52:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :

Hi Wouter,

it is all a question of trade-off.  On my side, if I stay as busy at work as in
the past months, I will soon drop off lists like debian-devel.  For the moment
I do my best because I expect the volume to decrease once the the post-release
enthousiasm flattens.  But the "+1", "do not CC me", "you do not behave", "stop
shouting", etc. messages are making it harder for me to keep up.  I wish they
were private.  By the way, thank you for answering to many people in a single
message.

Cheers,

Re: 2nd draft (was: Re: Revising the Code of Conduct)

Brian Gupta — 2013-05-22T21:34:18

Looks good! Thanks for working on this. I've added minor comments
inline the draft below.

<snip>

"as much as you can" seems unnecessary? IE: "Avoid flaming, cursing
and other abusive or disrespectful behaviour." seems a complete
thought.


This is a pretty technical distinction. We should consider providing a
link to instructions on how to do so, or simplifying it, as I suspect
this is likely to be inadvertently violated by many. (For example, I
personally don't know how to go about following this instruction.)

Re: 2nd draft (was: Re: Revising the Code of Conduct)

Ben Hutchings — 2013-05-22T14:01:27

[...]

Of course the title will say that, but most of it *is* also applicable
to interaction with the BTS (and bug reports can be subscribed to like
mailing lists).  So I think it is worth being explicit about that.

[...]
[...]

You're quite right.

Ben.

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Cyril Brulebois — 2013-05-22T09:01:55

Russ Allbery <rra< at >debian.org> (21/05/2013):

I concur with Steve and Russ.

As someone who routinely gets frustrated, unamused, or otherwise
amazingly annoyed by things I encounter, I tend to just write a
reply, stash it in the postponed folder, and only revisit after a
while (this may mean minutes, hours, or days). Rewriting things after
the fact, eventually dropping the mail altogether if someone gave a
satisfactory or better reply in the meanwhile (that's often Russ),
probably leads to better results than satisfying the need for a reply
*right now*, when one might not be in the best mood or state of mind
to reply. At least I like to think it works for me…

Mraw,
KiBi.

2nd draft (was: Re: Revising the Code of Conduct)

Wouter Verhelst — 2013-05-22T08:52:42

So, some updates:

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:59:06AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:

I'm slightly reluctant to add too much non-normative content to any CoC.
It's supposed a "Code", not "Guide" of conduct; as such, it should only
contain the things that we really really think are necessary.

However, I do note that the version of the draft that I sent was
slightly older than what I'd been writing; I had a bit more language in
the penultimate paragraph about "assume good faith" and similar things.
The draft at the end of this mail contains it.

Does that alleviate your concerns?

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:08:17PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:

I disagree with that. First, in our social contract, we encourage
openness, not privacy. In addition to that, sending a reply in private
has several issues:
- People don't see the replies, which tends to result in having the same
  argument be repeated. Several times, if all of them reply in private.
  This is an issue not only for technical arguments, but also for
  "pleas

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Russ Allbery — 2013-05-22T05:11:46






This isn't really helping either.  There's really no way that anyone can
respond positively to this sort of message, which means that even if you
feel it's warranted, it's not productive.  The original point gets lost in
the back and forth of which of you can snark at the other most
effectively.

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Steve Langasek — 2013-05-22T04:52:25




Thanks for continuing to be a walking case study of why we need an
enforceable code of conduct on Debian mailing lists.

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Russ Allbery — 2013-05-22T04:54:07





I've noticed the same pattern as Steve, and it bothers me too, which means
I probably should say something rather than letting this look like
something between you and him.  Your interactions on debian-devel when you
do post there, which indeed isn't too frequently, usually come across as
quite angry and confrontational and, yes, abusive.

I *think* this is largely because you mostly post to debian-devel when
something is getting in your way or interfering with something you're
trying to get done (at least, that's my impression of most of the cases I
remember).  If I'm right, that means you mostly post in a frustrated mood.
But, that being said, it makes me cringe, and I really wish you would
rephrase the way that you post there.  I've gotten to the point where I
dread reading a debian-devel thread when your name shows up in the list of
senders, and I don't want to feel that way!  You do lots of great work on
TeX packaging, something that I care quite a bit about, and I want to look
forward to reading y

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Norbert Preining — 2013-05-22T04:42:04

Wow, I am impressed, 5 emails out of 15150 (current search result
on lists.debian.org) makes me:

                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is your definition of "routinely": 0.033% ?

Assuming that you missed 100 other emails that would still remain < 1%

Thanks for this enlightment on what "routinely" means in English, for you.

Norbert

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Steve Langasek — 2013-05-22T04:08:34



Abuse does not become acceptable by being embedded in a mass of politeness.
Abuse is abuse and is always unacceptable.  The ratios do not matter.

Likewise, debian-tex-maint has no relevance to my comment.  Even if you're
perfectly polite there, all that establishes is that you're nice to people
when you're in charge.  It doesn't excuse your abusive posts on other lists
(like debian-devel).

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:44:31AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:






You don't think it's a bit excessive to escalate to the DPL after 9 hours
with no response?  I do have other things to do with my day besides digging
up references to mailing list posts.

However, I do agree with you that, having accused you of being abusive to
your peers on mailing lists and being asked for evidence, I have a
responsibility to back up my statements.

So, here we go:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/06/msg00441.html

  "And I am pissed that the alioth people are soo crazy ..."

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/

Re: Dealing with ITS abuse

Filipus Klutiero — 2013-05-22T03:39:48

Hi Don,

Don Armstrong wrote:
No, if someone behaved abusively, you should in this case first be 
concerned about the abusive contributor justifying his actions, then 
about him recognizing his error(s) and apologizing (or in other words, 
promising to change his behavior). It's only at this point where respect 
is restored, cooperation can resume, and where you can simply watch out 
for new abusive behavior, indeed.
Unless you're *aware* that the consequence to the contributor was a 
restriction.
[...]

My own experience unfortunately infirms that.


[Highly unlikely]

If the reporter isn't aware that owner< at >bugs.debian.org reacted 
appropriately to the first report, I have to disagree, the reporter 
should escalate.

Re: Dealing with ITS abuse

Filipus Klutiero — 2013-05-22T03:07:32

It's really too bad that this experience is private, then. Had it been 
public, its interest here wouldn't be nullified by a certain barely 
intelligible Danish's untrustworthiness.
Oh well - just another example of transparency's relevance, I suppose.

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Norbert Preining — 2013-05-22T00:44:31

Steve,

I openly request an apology from you. That is unbearable:

You publicly defamed me by stating:

On Di, 21 Mai 2013, Steve Langasek wrote:

Onto which I asked for evidence:

On Mi, 22 Mai 2013, Norbert Preining wrote:

If you cannot come up with support for the insult you posted here
(which was btw the first personal insult in these threads!) I will
take further steps necessary.

I consider it not acceptable do spread lies and not stand to them
or retract them.

Norbert

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Revising the Code of Conduct

Don Armstrong — 2013-05-21T23:48:49

And in both cases, I'd really like to be able to support
RFC2017+RFC1521 style mime external-body attachments. Unfortunately,
I'm not sure if anything else actually supports them.