Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.user > #178929 > unrolled thread

Re: Suggested edit

Started byAdrian O'Dell <crimsonmane@gmail.com>
First post2017-03-16 16:30 +0100
Last post2017-03-21 16:00 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 118 — 23 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: Suggested edit Adrian O'Dell <crimsonmane@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:30 +0100
    Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-16 17:10 +0100
      Re: Suggested edit Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-17 15:30 +0100
        Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-17 16:40 +0100
          Re: Suggested edit Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 17:10 +0100
            Re: Suggested edit Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 18:00 +0100
              Re: Suggested edit Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-17 18:40 +0100
              Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-17 18:50 +0100
                Re: Suggested edit Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 19:00 +0100
              Re: Suggested edit Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-20 11:00 +0100
            Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-17 18:10 +0100
          Re: Suggested edit Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-17 18:50 +0100
          installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-20 10:50 +0100
            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 21:10 +0100
              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-20 21:40 +0100
                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-20 22:20 +0100
                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 01:00 +0100
                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 01:40 +0100
                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 03:10 +0100
                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 04:20 +0100
                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 11:40 +0100
                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100
                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 16:20 +0100
                                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 18:40 +0100
                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 19:10 +0100
                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-21 19:50 +0100
                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-03-22 10:20 +0100
                                      Re: cell phone .sigs (was: installer defaults for desktops) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-22 10:50 +0100
                                        Re: cell phone .sigs (was: installer defaults for desktops) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-03-22 11:20 +0100
                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-04-01 18:50 +0200
                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 19:10 +0100
                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 20:00 +0100
                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 21:00 +0100
                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 19:20 +0100
                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 20:10 +0100
                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 20:20 +0100
                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 21:10 +0100
                                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-22 00:30 +0100
                                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-22 02:10 +0100
                                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-03-22 04:10 +0100
                                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-22 13:10 +0100
                                                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-22 13:20 +0100
                                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-03-22 13:30 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-03-24 07:30 +0100
                                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-24 11:20 +0100
                                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-03-24 17:30 +0100
                                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-03-24 18:40 +0100
                                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 11:30 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-23 13:00 +0100
                                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:40 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-03-23 22:00 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
                                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-24 13:10 +0100
                                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:20 +0100
                                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:20 +0100
                                                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-24 19:30 +0100
                                                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 10:20 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
                                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-22 17:10 +0100
                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 20:20 +0100
                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-21 20:10 +0100
                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100
                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-21 17:50 +0100
                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 17:40 +0100
                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-23 18:10 +0100
                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:40 +0100
                                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 19:10 +0100
                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 19:40 +0100
                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-23 19:40 +0100
                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 19:50 +0100
                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-23 23:40 +0100
                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 23:50 +0100
                                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 00:20 +0100
                                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:40 +0100
                                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 01:40 +0100
                                                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 02:30 +0100
                                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 05:30 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 08:50 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-24 19:30 +0100
                                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 20:50 +0100
                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-24 02:30 +0100
                                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 03:40 +0100
                                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 15:50 +0100
                                            Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-24 19:40 +0100
                                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 21:10 +0100
                                                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 23:10 +0100
                                                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-25 00:10 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-25 02:50 +0100
                                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-25 03:50 +0100
                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-24 13:10 +0100
                                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-24 15:00 +0100
                                          Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:00 +0100
                                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-03-24 19:10 +0100
                                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 20:10 +0100
                                        Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-03-24 20:40 +0100
                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 19:00 +0100
                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2017-03-23 19:50 +0100
                                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
                              Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Fred <fred@blakemfg.com> - 2017-03-23 20:10 +0100
                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 17:40 +0100
                Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 00:50 +0100
                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-21 01:40 +0100
                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 03:10 +0100
                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-21 11:40 +0100
                        [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested  edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-22 15:10 +0100
                          Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:30 +0100
                            Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re:  Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-22 16:00 +0100
                              Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 16:40 +0100
                                Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re:  Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-22 18:30 +0100
                                  Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 18:50 +0100
                                    Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 17:50 +0100
                                Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re:  Suggested edit) cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-04-01 20:10 +0200
                                  Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 20:50 +0200
                                  Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re:  Suggested edit) Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 22:30 +0200
                                    Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 23:10 +0200
                      Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:10 +0100
                  Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 13:00 +0100
                    Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →


#179152 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromGreg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>
Date2017-03-22 13:10 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tnNfs-2bK-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179136
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:
> Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there?

If they're like you, yes.  Good riddance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179153 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromJonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
Date2017-03-22 13:20 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tnNp7-2fJ-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179152

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:
> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only
> > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there?
> 
> If they're like you, yes.  Good riddance.

This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes.
There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This
list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and
constructively or not at all.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179156 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

From<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date2017-03-22 13:30 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tnNyO-2kr-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179153
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:16:54PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:
> > > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only
> > > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there?
> > 
> > If they're like you, yes.  Good riddance.
> 
> This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes.
> There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This
> list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and
> constructively or not at all.

A pity indeed. Sometimes threads become "rotten": this seems to be an example
of that. I try to just ignore those.

Regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAljSbTAACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZccQCdHp5FSYvIaPZ2MiITPmAnJv6x
hxoAn1Yc8LN1IoVdXFC2sKKvAtUHN3D0
=vfkS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179233 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromAndy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
Date2017-03-24 07:30 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<toqTw-5Py-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179156
Hello,

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:25:20PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:16:54PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes.
> > There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This
> > list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and
> > constructively or not at all.
> 
> A pity indeed. Sometimes threads become "rotten": this seems to be an example
> of that. I try to just ignore those.

It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to
prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively
off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but
vocal list.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179238 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromJonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
Date2017-03-24 11:20 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<touu5-8u8-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179233

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:29:35AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to
> prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively
> off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but
> vocal list.

Yes... but,

 a) the whole list is small and vocal, unfortunately
 b) killfiling on an individual basis (which I do) does not improve the quality
    of the list for others (nor Debian's reputation)

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179260 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromAndy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
Date2017-03-24 17:30 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<toAga-4c4-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179238
Hi Jonathan,

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:16:16AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:29:35AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> > It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to
> > prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively
> > off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but
> > vocal list.
> 
> Yes... but,
> 
>  a) the whole list is small and vocal, unfortunately
>  b) killfiling on an individual basis (which I do) does not improve the quality
>     of the list for others (nor Debian's reputation)

I completely agree. This small group of people are ruining it for
everyone and it's not something that can be fixed on a mailing list
that doesn't commit to ruthless banning of off-topic postings. :(

It's a pity that the Debian Shapado instance at
https://ask.debian.net didn't take off more than it did (and now
seems to be completely broken). That does at least allow Stack
Overflow-style scoring of answers to keep things mostly on-topic.

There is also the Debian tag on Stack Overflow, though that is of
course hosted on non-free software.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/debian

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179263 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromCurt <curty@free.fr>
Date2017-03-24 18:40 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<toBlU-4TS-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179233
On 2017-03-24, Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:
>
> It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to
> prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively
> off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but
> vocal list.

Right. Let's write the names down and communicate them to the
proper authorities.

I just hope I'm offered a final cigarette and a blindfold.

> Cheers,
> Andy
>


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179186 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromMart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-23 11:30 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<to8ad-TC-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179153
Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:
>> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only
>> > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there?
>> 
>> If they're like you, yes.  Good riddance.
>
> This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes.
> There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This
> list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and
> constructively or not at all.

I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain
wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis,
and has been contradicting herself.

Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance *does*
*not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if they insist
on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you must simply wash
your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive.

"Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore"
          - Cicero

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179189 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromJoe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date2017-03-23 13:00 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<to9zk-1HJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179186
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:07:22 +0100
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:  
> >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:  
> >> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base
> >> > system only installation because the Debian installer let them
> >> > inadvertently get there?  
> >> 
> >> If they're like you, yes.  Good riddance.  
> >
> > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user
> > sometimes. There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree
> > with each other. This list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please
> > either post friendly and constructively or not at all.  
> 
> I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain
> wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her
> thesis, and has been contradicting herself.
> 
> Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance
> *does* *not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if
> they insist on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you
> must simply wash your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is*
> constructive.
> 
> "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore"
>           - Cicero

But it can be done politely, and with dignity, and sometimes is. 'Good
riddance' is not, by any possible standard, polite.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179193 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromLisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-23 13:40 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<toac2-2e7-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179189
On Thursday 23 March 2017 11:50:33 Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:07:22 +0100
>
> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> writes:
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:
> > >> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base
> > >> > system only installation because the Debian installer let them
> > >> > inadvertently get there?
> > >>
> > >> If they're like you, yes.  Good riddance.
> > >
> > > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user
> > > sometimes. There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree
> > > with each other. This list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please
> > > either post friendly and constructively or not at all.
> >
> > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain
> > wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her
> > thesis, and has been contradicting herself.
> >
> > Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance
> > *does* *not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if
> > they insist on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you
> > must simply wash your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is*
> > constructive.
> >
> > "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore"
> >           - Cicero
>
> But it can be done politely, and with dignity, and sometimes is. 'Good
> riddance' is not, by any possible standard, polite.

Cuiusvis hominis est errare.  Greg is human too, and had been becoming more 
and more exasperated.  I can think of one or two of the highest value (IMHO) 
people on this list who are sometimes very impolite.  As I said to the victim 
of one of them (and I too have been the "victim"), if you can't stand the 
heat, get out of the kitchen.

Catherine *had* been told politely, repeatedly, but had not been willing 
to "hear".  

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179220 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromBrian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>
Date2017-03-23 22:00 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tohZU-7Mb-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179186
On Thu 23 Mar 2017 at 11:07:22 +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote:

> Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:
> >> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only
> >> > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there?
> >> 
> >> If they're like you, yes.  Good riddance.
> >
> > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes.
> > There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This
> > list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and
> > constructively or not at all.
> 
> I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain
> wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis,
> and has been contradicting herself.
> 
> Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance *does*
> *not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if they insist
> on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you must simply wash
> your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive.

"Wrong" is wrong. Sometimes a rubust reply is required. This is not in
itself being hostile. The seeds of hostilty have probably been sown
earlier with the publishing of ill thought out ideas and information.

> "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore"
>           - Cicero

This man has been banned from debian.roman.equestris for having a malign
and toxic influence. Do you really think you should be puffing him?

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179239 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromLisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<touDM-64-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179186
On Friday 24 March 2017 10:20:46 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain
> > wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis,
> > and has been contradicting herself.
>
> Catherine's *suggestion* has been shot down for causing problems for some
> use-cases; but the problem she wants to address still exists and is still
> in need of a solution. I see very little interest here in people actually
> addressing the problem (except Catherine); just a lot of "Get off my
> lawn"-style posts, and a propensity of people to misprepresent *their*
> opinion with that of the project as a whole.
>
> > if they insist on not wanting to be educated
>
> Interestingly that's exactly how I'd characterize most of the responses
> *to* Catherine; deaf ears to the problem, due to dissatisafaction with a
> proposed solution.
>
> > at a certain point you must simply wash
> > your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive.
>
> "Washing your hands" is deleting the thread and moving on; it's not posting
> aggressive, toxic messages.

What we have *all* been losing sight of in this thread is that none of us can 
do anything about it anyway.  An installer proposal needs making to the 
installer developers.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179244 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromJoe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date2017-03-24 13:10 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<towcx-1kb-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179239
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:29:09 +0000
Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday 24 March 2017 10:20:46 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote:  
> > > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just
> > > plain wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove
> > > her thesis, and has been contradicting herself.  
> >
> > Catherine's *suggestion* has been shot down for causing problems
> > for some use-cases; but the problem she wants to address still
> > exists and is still in need of a solution. I see very little
> > interest here in people actually addressing the problem (except
> > Catherine); just a lot of "Get off my lawn"-style posts, and a
> > propensity of people to misprepresent *their* opinion with that of
> > the project as a whole. 
> > > if they insist on not wanting to be educated  
> >
> > Interestingly that's exactly how I'd characterize most of the
> > responses *to* Catherine; deaf ears to the problem, due to
> > dissatisafaction with a proposed solution.
> >  
> > > at a certain point you must simply wash
> > > your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive.  
> >
> > "Washing your hands" is deleting the thread and moving on; it's not
> > posting aggressive, toxic messages.  
> 
> What we have *all* been losing sight of in this thread is that none
> of us can do anything about it anyway.  An installer proposal needs
> making to the installer developers.
> 

And before that happens, there needs to be some sort of consensus as to
what might constitute an improvement, which a group of Debian users
might reasonably be expected to discuss. Politely.

I would have thought that where an installation is expected to end up
without a network connection, particularly a netinstall, the user
should be notified and asked whether to continue.

I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in the
days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed to find I
had no network interfaces at the end of the process.

I wasn't a complete beginner, I had more than one computer available,
and it wasn't that hard to fix, but I was still annoyed not to have
been warned about this behaviour, which was completely undesirable but
deliberate, beforehand. Not quite the same situation, but similar.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179252 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromLisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-24 16:20 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tozaq-3qf-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179244
On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote:
> the user
> should be notified and asked whether to continue.

The user *is* notified and asked whether to continue.  The user is not 
*prevented* from continuing, should he or she be perverse enough to wish to 
do so.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179253 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromLisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-24 16:20 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tozaq-3qf-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179244
On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote:
> I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in the
> days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed to find I
> had no network interfaces at the end of the process.

Until fairly recently I have always had static IPs and chosen to use static 
IPs.  I have always been able to tell the installer so, and have ended up 
with a properly configured network and a well-written network interfaces 
file.

I now use DHCP with addresses fixed in the router via MAC address, so this 
doesn't arise.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179268 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromJoe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date2017-03-24 19:30 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<toC8i-5sk-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179253
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:18:31 +0000
Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote:
> > I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in
> > the days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed
> > to find I had no network interfaces at the end of the process.  
> 
> Until fairly recently I have always had static IPs and chosen to use
> static IPs.  I have always been able to tell the installer so, and
> have ended up with a properly configured network and a well-written
> network interfaces file.

a) Is this with a not-expert installation?
 and
b) Even though you did not use it, was a DHCP server running in the
network?

I've no idea if it is true today, but when this incident happened, the
combination of non-expert and no DHCP server detected resulted in no
network drivers being loaded, even though the network had been used
during installation.

When I reported it as a bug I was told it was not, it was a feature.
Presumably only experts understand network configuration. I've always
used expert mode before and since, but on that occasion it was some kind
of temporary installation and I thought that non-expert ought to take
care of it.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179299 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromLisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-25 10:20 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<toQ1A-78B-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179268
On Friday 24 March 2017 18:25:30 Joe wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:18:31 +0000
>
> Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote:
> > > I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in
> > > the days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed
> > > to find I had no network interfaces at the end of the process.
> >
> > Until fairly recently I have always had static IPs and chosen to use
> > static IPs.  I have always been able to tell the installer so, and
> > have ended up with a properly configured network and a well-written
> > network interfaces file.
>
> a) Is this with a not-expert installation?

I used to chose "expert" long enough to chose a non-default DE, when that was 
how one had to do it, but it then went back to the "automatic" installation 
unless one went backwards at any stage.  (One chose expert install, chose a 
DE, clicked "install", the installer took over.)  Perhaps choosing a 
different DE affected how the installer ran.  I could never see why not 
wanting Gnome counted as expert and always thought that a lot of non-experts 
who didn't want Gnome, must have got landed with it, for fear of asking for 
an expert install, even briefly.

>  and
> b) Even though you did not use it, was a DHCP server running in the
> network?

Yes.

> I've no idea if it is true today, but when this incident happened, the
> combination of non-expert and no DHCP server detected resulted in no
> network drivers being loaded, even though the network had been used
> during installation.
>
> When I reported it as a bug I was told it was not, it was a feature.
> Presumably only experts understand network configuration. I've always
> used expert mode before and since, but on that occasion it was some kind
> of temporary installation and I thought that non-expert ought to take
> care of it.
I am sure that something similar came up recently with the Live CD.  I am 
obviously lucky that it didn't happen!  Maybe it was to do with which 
driver(s) were needed.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179241 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromJonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
Date2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<touDM-64-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179186

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain
> wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis,
> and has been contradicting herself.

Catherine's *suggestion* has been shot down for causing problems for some
use-cases; but the problem she wants to address still exists and is still in
need of a solution. I see very little interest here in people actually
addressing the problem (except Catherine); just a lot of "Get off my
lawn"-style posts, and a propensity of people to misprepresent *their* opinion
with that of the project as a whole.

> if they insist on not wanting to be educated

Interestingly that's exactly how I'd characterize most of the responses *to*
Catherine; deaf ears to the problem, due to dissatisafaction with a proposed
solution.

> at a certain point you must simply wash
> your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive.

"Washing your hands" is deleting the thread and moving on; it's not posting
aggressive, toxic messages.
 

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179161 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromDavid Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date2017-03-22 17:10 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tnQZI-586-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179136
On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 20:52:46 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote:
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> > On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:20 PM, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 15:44:18 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote:
> >> 
> >> The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured network card, and it shouldn't.
> > 
> > Please explain how this statement doesn't take away the option of
> > continuing the installation without a configured network card.
> 
> You are perfectly free to remove that $15 USB NIC after you reach the installation point you want.

…which contradicts your statement "Please explain how you think my
suggestion takes away any installation options, because it
doesn't. You can still do any type of installation you want."

> The point of Debian is not elitist snobbery, but universal access.

So now it's elitist snobbery to disobey your order to buy a $5 NIC?
I think you should contemplate the words "universal access".

> What is wrong with a simple change that would make it clear to the beginner that they can't do what they want to do, and need to do some reading?

As I said, there's nothing wrong IMO with a change to make the d-i
warn that selecting certain options will have certain consequences,
just like the example I gave of swap. Just no refusals, right?

> This rabid insistence on being able to use the netinst installer without a network is ridiculous.

Of course I'm insistent that one is able to install without a network
and using the netinst installer. I've done it. It didn't seem
ridiculous at the time. The results were spelled out in the other
subthread, in reply to your Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 10:33:29 (-0400) post.
All you're demonstrating here is your lack of ingenuity, and a desire
to prevent others from exercising theirs.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#179123 — Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)

FromCatherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com>
Date2017-03-21 20:20 +0100
SubjectRe: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Message-ID<tnxu1-7Db-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#179117

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean the installer should refuse to work.  There is
> absolutely nothing wrong with doing a minimal install using a netinst
> image to get a working Debian system.  Maybe you want to do the first
> part of the install on this machine in one location where there's no
> network, and then carry the machine to another location to finish it up.

You can't do that. The network card is recognized and configured very early in the installation, and you can't carry the machine to another location without either aborting the installation or finishing up the base installation. That pesky power plug, you know.

> Maybe your network is temporarily slow or unreliable because your kids
> are streaming YouTube, so you'll do the first part of the install now,
> then wait a few hours to do the rest.  

That assumes a working network card, so is irrelevant to your objection to requiring one.

> Maybe ALL YOU WANT is a minimal
> system, and you have no intention of networking it, ever.  Maybe you
> have some other goals that I can't even guess.  There's no reason for
> the installer to REFUSE TO LET YOU DO THIS.  You are asking for Debian
> to take away functionality for NO REASON.

This suggestion in no way prevents you from doing a base installation only if that is what you want. It simply ensures that people who don't want just a base installation don't end up with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user


csiph-web