Re: [Bug-sysutils] #sysutils

[David Weinehall]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 09:41:46PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[snip]
>    I didn't know it was possible to only filter out specific wallops?
> 
> Depends on what you mean with `specific' wallops.  /mode -w (or some
> such) filters out all of 'em.  Dunno if you can say `filter out
> wallops that are about splits'

That's what I want.

>    > technical reasons instead of personal ones?
> 
>    No.  But those wallops are definitely unnecessary noise.
> 
> I think the ones about rehubbing are not needed, and I personally
> would like to see more wallops that are directly concerned with
> actions against DRM, GNU related things, etc.

I'm already aware of the evils of DRM, and I can find GNU related
information other places.  The only information I need is about
network downtime.  Anything else is a nuisance, nothing else.
Especially the fundraiser messages.

>    > Splits are a nautral thing on big big IRC networks.
> 
>    Yes.  And using a smaller IRC network helps alleviate that problem.
> 
> It also helps to `alleviate' getting any users to know about the
> network or helping it out.
> 
>    > Both Savannah and Freenode are the offical places for GNU source
>    > code repositories and IRC time wastage.  Why would do you want to
>    > make GNU Sysutils hard to find and get help with for users?
> 
>    #sysutils is for us developers, not the users, and as such,
>    whatever fits us best is most benificient for the project, wouldn't
>    you agree?
> 
> #sysutils is the project channel, so there is nothing `developer
> specific' about it IMHO. I'd agree if it was #sysutils-devel.

Well, at this point, we have roughly 0 users.  No distribution ships
sysutils yet (a fact which I'm thankful for, since it has not been
properly security audited yet).  If any users would show up and ask
for help - I wouldn't mind answering, but for the benefit of these
potential users a simple /topic #sysutils "Check out this channel on
oftc instead" on freenode would work.

>    I am getting frustrated by some of the bullshit going on lately,
>    however, such as the "FDL documentation only" policy, and the rants
>    about texinfo...
> 
> These are offical GNU policies, and since sysutils is a GNU project it
> must follow them.  As a maintainer (I assume both you and Jeff
> maintain sysutils together) of a GNU project you agreed to follow
> these policies.

No, I did not agree to follow those policies, they have been
introduce post-fact after we set up the sysutils project at
Savannah.

I'm not going to abandon real manual pages in exchange for totally
unusable info pages, and the pages will remain under a usable free
license.  The MIT license is GFDL compatible though, to the best of my
knowledge, so that shouldn't pose a problem.  Any submissions of
documentation to Sysutils that isn't GPL compatible (which the GFDL
isn't) will be dropped.  If anyone feels like submitting info-pages
for Sysutils, that's all fine and dandy, but the manual pages will
remain the authoritive documentation.

If push comes to shove on that issue, I will definitely stop any and all
work on GNU Sysutils and return to developing it on my own.  Considering
that I've written more than 95% of the code and documentation so far,
I don't feel that I demand too much when I ask for license terms and
means of documentation that I can accept myself.


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <address@hidden> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/