This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: News

Maintainer's resignation highlights problems in Debian project

By Bruce Byfield on September 01, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

The resignation of Matthew Garrett, one of the most active developers in Debian, has drawn attention to some ongoing issues about how the project operates. Specifically, Garrett's announcement on his blog cites a lack of civility and a slowness in decision-making, and compares Debian unfavorably to Ubuntu, the Debian-derived distribution which is increasingly attracting the efforts of many Debian maintainers.

Garrett did not hold any office in Debian, although he was a candidate for project leader in 2005. However, he has been consistently active in policy discussions and an active poster on the debian-devel and debian-legal mailing lists. In addition, he has been one of four members of Ubuntu's technical board, and doing work on laptop support for Ubuntu. He is described as "high-profile" by Benjamin Mako Hill, another active Debian maintainer. Steve McIntyre, who is currently acting as assistant to the Debian Leader says, "Most of the Debian Developers are sorry to see Matthew leave." Some, like McIntyre himself, have blogged about it.

The criticisms

In his own blog, Garrett relates his gradual discovery that Debian's free-for-all discussions were making him intensely irritable and unhappy with other members of the community. He contrasts Debian's organization with Ubuntu's more formal structure. In particular, he mentions Ubuntu's code of conduct, which is enforced on the distribution's mailing lists, suggesting that it "helps a great deal in ensuring that discussions mostly remain technical." He also approves of Ubuntu's more formal structure as "a pretty explicit acknowledgment that not all developers are equal and some are possibly more worth listening to than others." Then, in reference to Mark Shuttleworth, the founder and funder of Ubuntu, Garrett says, "At the end of the day, having one person who can make arbitrary decisions and whose word is effectively law probably helps in many cases."

Expanding on these remarks to NewsForge, Garrett said, "The biggest problem with Debian is probably the idea that every developer's voice is equal. It's clear that this isn't really true -- people tend to end up in positions to make decisions due to merit rather than popular acclaim, and there's no obligation on the people in these positions to listen to everyone. It tends to lead to prolonged discussion as the developers fight amongst themselves because everyone feels that they need to make their opinion clear in case it's ignored."

Even more seriously, he claims, many Debian developers no longer participate in public discussions, and such decision-making as occurs goes on in private in "poorly advertised (or even secret) IRC channels used by smaller groups in order to be able to get work done." He concludes that "Debian's online communication shows little sign of being a real, functional community."

"There's a balance to be struck between organisational freedom and organisational effectiveness," he concludes in his blog. "I'm not convinced that Debian has that balance right as far as forming a working community goes. In that respect, Ubuntu's an experiment -- does a more rigid structure and a greater willingness to enforce certain social standards result in a more workable community?"

Reactions

Debian developers are restrained about discussing their reactions to Garrett's comments publicly. Many prefer to confine their comments to the debian-private mailing list, away from the eyes of the media. However, from both what is said and not said, it is clear that Garrett's resignation has caused a stir.

The reaction is not due to Garrett saying anything new. Lack of civility and frustration with the slowness of Debian's decision-making are frequently mentioned on Debian's mailing lists, and solutions have been part of the platforms for many candidates for Debian Leader in the past few years. Rather, Garrett's comments, to say nothing of his decision to remain active in Ubuntu while resigning from Debian, have re-emphasized these issues -- especially since his decision is the same as that of several other Debian developers, notably Scott James Remnant, another current member of Ubuntu's technical board. Hill, who also works on Ubuntu, may speak for many when he expresses surprise at such decisions, explaining, "I've always felt my allegiance very much to the old project -- to Debian first."

If anything, those who are willing to speak publicly take Garrett's comments as a given. Asked if the comments are true, McIntyre replied simply, "Of course," then goes on to say that frustration with the way that Debian operates is "not uncommon." As examples of the slowness in decision-making, McIntyre cites the decisions needed to ensure that etch, the next release of Debian, is ready in December. Another example that McIntyre offers is the debate over non-free software that remains in Debian's main repository, which many developers would prefer to reserve only for software that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

"There are issues in trying to push 1,000 developers in the same direction," McIntyre says. Because of strong differences in opinion by leading developers, he adds, "We've been finding it difficult to get consensus on some of the proposals suggested."

McIntyre acknowledges that civility has been a problem in the past, but considers it "a minor one recently." However, Hill, who wrote Ubuntu's code of conduct, would disagree. In the past, Hill says, the reaction from much of the community to complaints about civility has been, "This is the Debian project. We run on fear. Grow a skin or get out."

As a result of such attitudes, Hill says,"There's a lot of frustration in the Debian community. There's a real culture of flame wars, and there's real inertia and frustration." He hopes that Garrett's resignation will give the Debian community an added impetus to adapt its own code of conduct, like the one proposed by Enrico Zini.

Debian's future

Hill suggests that while Ubuntu's more structured approach may allow for quicker progress and an atmosphere that some developers prefer, Debian continues to have a unique role in the free software community. Debian, Hill suggests, is "the ultimate in institutional independence. This is a place where anyone can come, and it's not controlled by a single institution or corporation. That's still an incredibly valuable thing that's going to attract lots of people."

Summing up the impact of Garrett's announcement, Hill concludes, "This isn't Debian's death throes or anything. I just hope that it wakes people up."

Bruce Byfield is a course designer and instructor, and a computer journalist who writes regularly for NewsForge, Linux.com and IT Manager's Journal.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Maintainer's resignation highlights problems in Debian project

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

It isn't like Ubuntu and Debian compeate

Posted by: Monsuco on September 02, 2006 09:00 AM
People commonly forget, in FOSS, people don't really compeate for developers. Any improvements made by Ubuntu developers can be used by Debian developers. The ability to borrow code is the benifit of the GPL. Any improvements that someone makes to one project are also useable by other projects. That is why linux eventually surpassed Unix. Linux started out inferior to most commercial Unix based OS's but because they were close sourced, they became fragmented. One developer would create a feature for one Unix distro, and others would spend all their time trying to catch up. With FOSS if one developer adds a feature, the developers of other projects are perfectly able to take advantage of it, and don't need to spend all their time reinventing the wheel and can improve on the new feature if desired. If Ubuntu gets more developers, Debian can still benifit from it. That is how Ubuntu got started, it used Debian code but built on it. Debian can do the same, the situation is just sorta backwards now.

#

Re:It isn't like Ubuntu and Debian compeate

Posted by: sarek1024 on September 02, 2006 09:32 AM
The right to fork is good but actually excercising it is bad for many reasons not the least of which is the people forking can easily disguise where the orginal came from... for example Linux's early use of BSD's protocol stack with out giving much credit... there are other issues that are covered in more detail at <a href="http://www.miai-siw.org/" title="miai-siw.org">http://www.miai-siw.org/</a miai-siw.org> and <a href="http://www.softdevelcoop.org/o.openMailingList.htm" title="softdevelcoop.org">http://www.softdevelcoop.org/o.openMailingList.ht<nobr>m<wbr></nobr> </a softdevelcoop.org> They tend to be subtle but serious so a little bit of digging (especially on the second url might be needed)

#

Re:It isn't like Ubuntu and Debian compete

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 10:39 AM
> People commonly forget, in FOSS, people don't really compeate for developers. Any improvements made by Ubuntu developers can be used by Debian developers.

Actually, I may be wrong, but I think Ubuntu depends on a healthy Debian framework. There is work that Debian provides which Ubuntu can use. If not for Debian, Ubuntu should probably resort to Gentoo or something...

Debian, OTOH, cannot sometimes use Ubuntu developments (mainly because of self-imposed licence restrictions).

#

Re:It isn't like Ubuntu and Debian compete

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 12:02 AM
Yeah, but that's Debian's fault then, is it? I absolutely hate this stupid game of "blame Ubuntu" for your own damn shortcomings. Evolve or die!

#

Re:It isn't like Ubuntu and Debian compeate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 06:33 PM
The code and the developers can move from distro to distro, and as long as patches and improvements move upstream then everyone benefits. In Debian's and Ubuntu's case these patches can include specific fixes for the distro, which makes code sharing between them even better.

        The difference seems to be in the community around the distro, since that is not readily transferable. For example, pretty much every distro has the GIMP, OpenOffice, etc. but only one has ubuntuforums.org (I would like to point out here that I actually help in the chatrooms and Wikis more often than the forums, but the forums still seem the most popular community gathering).

        Personally I moved over to Ubuntu from Debian since a) it seems like I can play a more active role even though my programming skills aren't "1337" and b) Ubuntu seems able to make a bigger difference in terms of getting the users in, then once they are Free they can switch to whatever they want. I really don't like things like this: <a href="http://fridge.ubuntu.com/node/515" title="ubuntu.com">http://fridge.ubuntu.com/node/515</a ubuntu.com> since they seem to be competing for a tiny fraction of their target audience, and I am perfectly happy to offer whatever support I can to people using any Free Software.

#

Re:It isn't like Ubuntu and Debian compeate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 05:50 PM
Also Debian has user forums where developers and users can exchange ideas and help each other.

<a href="http://forums.debian.net/" title="debian.net">http://forums.debian.net/</a debian.net>

#

Some Debain package maintainers look like fools.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 08:04 PM
If you want to see some problems with Debain,... see this article:

3D Acceleration for ATI cards (works for SuSE, Mandriva and Debian)

at <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm</a domaindlx.com>

Some Debain package maintainers look like fools.

#

Re:Some Debain package maintainers look like fools

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 10:20 PM
And whoever wrote it knows less about Debian than I do after not using it for 5 years.

#

the article is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 01:44 AM
sorry to bust your bubble, but that article is completely wrong. This tells how to build custom kernels under Debian:
<a href="http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html" title="debian.org">http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-commo<nobr>n<wbr></nobr> -tasks.html</a debian.org>

One surefire way to look like a fool is to be wrong on both kernel building, and how to spell Debian.

#

Sorry but the article is correct.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 06:53 AM
Your link to some page on the internet changes exactly nothing, as you well know.

#

Re:Sorry but the article is correct.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 07:14 AM
forgot to take your meds again, didn't you.

#

Re:Some Debain package maintainers look like fools

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 11:34 AM
Caveat, a Debian 'user' for 8 years. I must say, as a Debian user, I could not follow the logic or procedures in the ATI article. It seemmed to be completely opposite of how I do things in Debian, but then again I taught myself how to use the system, with lots of help from Debian Users lists.

It is like the 'bizzaro world' in Seinfelds TV show. I find trying to get any kernel/module development in other distros to be a steep re-learning curve,

I think the ATI article is BS, just my humble $.02

greg

#

What the above linked to article says:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 06:44 AM
Extra Help for Debian Users.



Although, Debian has worked hard to make the addition of pre-compiled packages easy, they have gone out of their way to make compiling your own programs, a nightmare.



Unlike SuSE or Mandriva, the Debian packagers have not included the kernel sources for the default kernel images (those automatically chosen when you install Debian).




For example, the kernel image chosen for me, was:



kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686 (2.6.8-16sarge1) Kernel image for PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/P4.



However, the only kernel source packages are:



kernel-source-2.2.25 (2.2.25-4) Kernel source for 2.2.25

kernel-source-2.4.27 (2.4.27-10sarge3) Kernel source for 2.4.27 with Debian patches

kernel-source-2.6.8 (2.6.8-16sarge4) Kernel source for 2.6.8 with Debian patches



none of which match the kernel image. The closest source package is kernel-source-2.6.8, however, it has a different patch level (patch level four, instead of one). There are two ways around this, you can either roll back the patches to level one (hard) or choose a new kernel image which matches the available sources (easy). So, I chose the new kernel (which was a better fit than the automatically chosen kernel, anyway):



kernel-image-2.6.8-3-k7 (2.6.8-16sarge4) Kernel image for AMD K7.



After installing the new kernel image with synaptic, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/grub/menu.lst file now has entries for each kernel version:



title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-3-k7

root (hd0,5)

kernel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-3-k7 root=/dev/hda6 ro

initrd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-3-k7



title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-2-686

root (hd0,5)

kernel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-686 root=/dev/hda6 ro

initrd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-686



Choosing Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-3-k7 from the grub menu, boots the 2.6.8-3-k7 kernel.

Choosing Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-2-686 from the grub menu, boots the 2.6.8-2-686 kernel.



Unlike SuSE or Mandriva, the Debian packagers have split the kernel source into a number of separate pieces.



For the 2.6.8-16sarge4 kernel, the sources come in the following three pieces:



kernel-source-2.6.8 (2.6.8-16sarge4),

kernel-headers-2.6.8-3 (2.6.8-16sarge4),

kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7 (2.6.8-16sarge4).



The installation does not reintegrate the sources, even though it easily could have done so, but leaves you with one unopened tar archive and two separate directories containing header files. Never before, have I seen a package install, that does not even bother to unpack the archive. This is the Debian packagers, deliberately making it difficult for you to compile your own kernel.



I looked around for a README, or some help, and was not surprised when I didn't find any. I eventually found lots of documentation in the directories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/doc/kernel*. Unfortunately, most of it was for the 2.4 kernel and I could not find where it explained how to reassemble the kernel sources.



After installing the three, above mentioned, kernel packages with synaptic, you have the two directories of headers files:



kernel-headers-2.6.8-3

kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7



and the kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2 archive in the directory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/.



To sort out the install mess, execute the following commands:



 cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/

 mv kernel-headers-2.6.8-3 linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 tar cf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 rm -fr linux-2.6.8-3-k7



(go to the directory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/)

(the move ensures the tar archive will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7)

(creates tar archive named kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar)

(removes unneeded directory and contents)



 mv kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7 linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 tar cf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 rm -fr linux-2.6.8-3-k7



(the move ensures the tar archive will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7)

(creates tar archive named kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar)

(removes unneeded directory and contents)



 tar xjf kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2

 mv kernel-source-2.6.8 linux-2.6.8-k7



(unpacks main kernel source)

(move main kernel source to linux-2.6.8-k7)



 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar

 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar



(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)

(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)



In summary, the directories of header files are repacked so that they will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2 package is unpacked and moved to linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The tarred kernel-header directories, also unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7 and the sources are reintegrated.



By the way, the name linux-2.6.8-3-k7 was chosen simply because the command uname -r returned 2.6.8-3-k7.



Well, fine and good, so far. But the nightmare is not quite over.



The Debian packagers have "accidentally" forgotten a necessary link and have another pointing to some random place. To fix these "oversights" do the following:




 cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib/modules/2.6.8-2-k7

 rm -fr boot source

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 boot

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 source



Now you can continue with the ATI driver installation as above (tested on Debian Sarge).



Of course, you will have to adjust the kernel versions in the above to reflect your situation. You may also ask some Debian person for the name of the script (assuming it exists) that reassembles the unnecessarily split kernel sources. Of course, this script should be automatically run, when the kernel sources are installed.



Remember, that with SuSE or Mandriva, the kernel-sources can be installed with one or two clicks.



You may wish to speculate, as to the reasons the Debian packagers are deliberately making things difficult for you.



From <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm</a domaindlx.com>

#

Continued:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 06:49 AM
 mv kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7 linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 tar cf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 rm -fr linux-2.6.8-3-k7



(the move ensures the tar archive will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7)

(creates tar archive named kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar)

(removes unneeded directory and contents)



 tar xjf kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2

 mv kernel-source-2.6.8 linux-2.6.8-k7



(unpacks main kernel source)

(move main kernel source to linux-2.6.8-k7)



 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar

 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar



(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)

(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)



In summary, the directories of header files are repacked so that they will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2 package is unpacked and moved to linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The tarred kernel-header directories, also unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7 and the sources are reintegrated.



By the way, the name linux-2.6.8-3-k7 was chosen simply because the command uname -r returned 2.6.8-3-k7.



Well, fine and good, so far. But the nightmare is not quite over.



The Debian packagers have "accidentally" forgotten a necessary link and have another pointing to some random place. To fix these "oversights" do the following:




 cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib/modules/2.6.8-2-k7

 rm -fr boot source

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 boot

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 source



Now you can continue with the ATI driver installation as above (tested on Debian Sarge).



Of course, you will have to adjust the kernel versions in the above to reflect your situation. You may also ask some Debian person for the name of the script (assuming it exists) that reassembles the unnecessarily split kernel sources. Of course, this script should be automatically run, when the kernel sources are installed.



Remember, that with SuSE or Mandriva, the kernel-sources can be installed with one or two clicks.



You may wish to speculate, as to the reasons the Debian packagers are deliberately making things difficult for you.



From <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm</a domaindlx.com>

#

Microsoft Rabble-Rousers are Probably Involved

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 01:31 AM
I sympathize, and agree that you must do what is necessary to protect your mental well-being.

It's unfortunate, but probably true, that part of what has driven you to take this step has been activity by Microsoft astroturfers.

We all know that Microsoft is a company that will do anything to protect their monopoly position. That includes breaking the law by, among other things, committing fraud and sabotage. Consider, for example, Microsoft's past involvement in undermining WordPerfect, or the OpenGL standards development. Or, look at Microsoft's attempt to sabotage Java, in their own words, to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." Or, look at Microsoft's payments to SCO, and various "pretending to be independent" political action groups, such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute.

So, years ago (probably 1998), when Microsoft held a strategy meeting on how to stop Linux, someone would have proposed the following idea:

> Infiltrate Open Source Development Teams and...
> - submit polluted (e.g. broken) code
> - push complexity and bad ideas
> - create dependencies on proprietary software
> - slow down progress in general
> - make life miserable for other developers
> - argue every minor detail, disrupt discussions
> - be pedantic about OSS concepts
> - polarize every discussion -> no common sense
> - hound and drive out the best developers

We know that Linux threatens to take a multi-billion dollar market away from Microsoft.

And we know that Microsoft has no morality, and little fear of the law.

And so, Microsoft would have chosen not to follow the above strategy... why? Because it's not nice?

We see Microsoft astroturfers at work all the time, writing FUD articles, or posting obvious lies in various forums.

Thus, I take it as a given that Microsoft has people involved with the most major Open Source projects, trying to do exactly as suggested above.

As some have pointed out, it can be difficult to interfere with a project such as Ubuntu, where a benevolent dictator can identify and kick out the troublemakers.

But it is relatively easier to infiltrate a highly democratic project, such as Debian.

Likewise, I expect that Microsoft has people in the FSF. Those people would not be arguing against Free Software, on the contrary, they would appear as the most extreme supporters of FSF principles. They would attempt, for example, to make GPL3 so extreme as to prevent its success in commercial venues, as they may have previously succeeded in making the FSF's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net replacement unusable in business, through overly-strict licensing.

Unfortunately, sabotage has always been one of Microsoft's most effective weapons. While Microsoft's technical incompetence is such that they have never defeated a strong competitor through actual competition, various acts of sabotage have allowed Microsoft to come out ahead against DR_DOS, Geoworks, WordPerfect, OS/2, Go, AmiPro, Netscape, and Java, among others.

Also unfortunate is the fact that it is hard for a democratic group (political parties, unions, Debian, etc.) to prevent this sort of infiltration. After all, you can't go around accusing everyone of being an agent, or you create an atmosphere of paranoia, which just plays into the infiltrator's hands.

Thus, what we are usually left with is simply to continue to fight the good fight. Keep arguing with the jerks until it becomes obvious that they are jerks. Make them ineffective, and force them to start again with a new identity, and no credibility. And continue to push the project forward, even if at a slower pace.

Note that I am not trying to talk you into changing your mind. If you feel the way you do, then you should rest. Let the young idealistic hotshots carry the torch. As for you, if you still want to be involved with OSS, then choose your own project, where you can avoid the astroturfers and the jerks. There is plenty to do.

It is exhausting fighting an evil that is as relentless and well-funded as Microsoft. Hopefully enough people can continue the fight until it is no longer necessary, i.e., until Microsoft is irrelevant.

Are you old enough to remember the joy of working with the Commodore 64? Remember the joy of the early days of the PC, before Windows? Everything was open -- anything was possible! Remember the same joy when you discovered Linux?

Although it is still possible to find that joy today, by focussing on a particular project and ignoring the politics, the day will come when Microsoft is no longer in a position to push their poison, and that joy once again becomes the norm in the computing industry.

Meanwhile, you should find something that will make _you_ happy. Best wishes!

#

GENTOO &amp; Linux BULLETIN BOARDS infiltrated:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 03:31 PM
GENTOO and most LINUX BULLETIN BOARDS have been INFILTRATED,
and/or are RUN BY THOSE OPPOSING LINUX.


One surprising thing I discovered along the way, is that some of the Gentoo group have an interest in "accidentally" making the installation process much more difficult than it need be. Let me relate the following incident.


  In Gentoo 2005.0, the command emerge --usepkg kde installs the KDE desktop. However, this command does not work in 2005.1. To find out what gives, I registered with the Gentoo forum forums.gentoo.org. After some time I was told that a new command emerge --usepkg kde-meta had been introduced. Why a new command? Why not the natural old command, which after all, now has no purpose at all? I thought this rather strange, but stranger things were yet to come.

I imagined that a lot of people would be interested in this information and started a thread about it at the forum.

To my great surprise, it was deleted (well, actually, it was moved from the installation section, to some hidden corner of their site).


So I started another thread, with the same result. This time I was informed that the thread had been moved because the topic had been dealt with in some other post (that had also been quite deliberately hidden away from public view). I repeated this process some 7 or 8 times. Then they banned me.

Think about it, the Gentoo people were so desperate to remove my posts from view, that they hid 7 threads, using 7 times the disk space, rather than have one visible to the public.

Actually, the last thread was locked and it quietly sunk out of sight. Since it was doomed to be lost among unvisited/unread pages, the administration felt no need to move or delete it, as they had the other threads. Besides leaving the locked thread there for a few hours was "proof they were not involved in censorship."

So the Gentoo forum administration succeeded in hiding all threads related to the correct installation of KDE.

Some good did come from my persistence, however, as someone added the correct command to the Gentoo KDE installation page the next day. I know this because I saved copies of the page on successive days (just before, and just after, it was added). When last I looked, it had not been added to the installation manual.

There is plenty of evidence that certain Gentoo people are deliberately (and surreptitiously) crippling their product. Why might this be? Well, for an answer to that, you will have to ask them.

Wow, this is all even weirder than I at first imagined. I visited Ubuntu's forum, ubuntuforums.org, and started a thread which essentially just pointed to this page. Guess what? Yes, it was deleted. I re-posted it in another section and guess what? Yes, it was deleted again. In the end, I must have posted it there some 8 or 9 times, and 8 or 9 times, it is was deleted. I was then temporarily banned for, you guessed it, "spamming". How sick is that?

And I have just been banned from www.linuxforums.org/forum/ for posting it there just ONCE!

Quote from: <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm</a coconia.net>

Jade @ <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/</a coconia.net>

#

Good riddance to M$, MPAA, infiltrator Garrett

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 07:52 PM
Good riddance to M$, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrator Matthew Garrett:

Matthew Garrett is one of the M$, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrators described in the above post.

He has deleted the copy of the above article on M$ infiltrators from the main body of his blog, so that it will not attract the attention it deserves.

It is now a "(Screened Post)". Look for yourself: <a href="http://mjg59.livejournal.com/66647.html" title="livejournal.com">http://mjg59.livejournal.com/66647.html</a livejournal.com>

When the article was first posted he collapsed the thread to hide it in a link that most would not click (previous to this the thread had been flat, ie, all posts were displayed).

Because he hid the article in this way, I posted it again to the main body of the thread, where it would attract attention, so he just deleted it.

Clearly, Matthew Garrett is one of the M$, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrators described in the post that he deleted.

#

You fruitcake.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 09:07 PM
You utter raving lunatic, great posts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

The thread folding happened when the blog got enough posts - LiveJournal does that automatically.

Presmuably Matthew deleted your reposted rantings precisely because they were reposted, and therefore redundant.

But, don't let the facts get in the way of this tosh you're imagining. Keep going, it's hilarious.

#

Specific accusations are a bad idea

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 10:18 PM
I wrote the "Microsoft Rabble-Rousers" post, and I am glad you liked it.

However, as I pointed out in that post, it is not a good idea to go around accusing people.

It is too easy to hit the wrong target.

It is too easy to mistake other things (errors, stubborness, ego, inexperience, and so on) as intentional badness.

Plus, the accusations just contribute to the negative atmosphere that the infiltrators want to create.

In my opinion, the proper (indeed, the only workable) approach is as follows:

1. Be aware that the infiltrators may be there.

2. Consider that possibility when confronted with an outrageously bad idea, especially when the same person always seems to be the source of the bad ideas.

But then...

3. Respond with positive action. Propose better ideas, and explain why they are better. Be polite and reasonable. Contribute to making the forum a nice place to visit. If you do that, then eventually, the true troublemakers will become obvious to everyone, by contrast, and they will become ineffective.

#

Was the Kool-Aid good?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 07, 2006 06:29 PM
Eesh, I haven't heard such nonsensical raving since the last State of the Union Address. Thanks for the laughs, though!

#

Surely Garrett will post it in a thread of its own

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 10:07 PM
Actually you are wrong, no more posts were added when the thread switched mode, I just checked.

I guess it is just an accident that the Micro$oft post is no longer displayed prominently.

Since it is just an accident, I am sure Garrett will have it posted prominently in the original thread just to prove he did not hide it deliberately.

In fact, I am sure that he will post it as another thread topic, in its own thread.

#

Specific Accusations are a Bad Idea

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 10:32 PM
[I am reposting this in the main thread, because the posts I want to respond to keep getting added to the main thread.]

I wrote the "Microsoft Rabble-Rousers" post, and I am glad you liked it.

However, as I pointed out in that post, it is not a good idea to go around accusing people.

It is too easy to hit the wrong target.

It is too easy to mistake other things (errors, stubborness, ego, inexperience, and so on) as intentional badness.

Plus, the accusations just contribute to the negative atmosphere that the infiltrators want to create.

In my opinion, the proper (indeed, the only workable) approach is as follows:

1. Be aware that the infiltrators may be there.

2. Consider that possibility when confronted with an outrageously bad idea, especially when the same person always seems to be the source of the bad ideas.

But then...

3. Respond with positive action. Propose better ideas, and explain why they are better. Be polite and reasonable. Contribute to making the forum a nice place to visit. If you do that, then eventually, the true troublemakers will become obvious to everyone, by contrast, and they will become ineffective.

I think it is important to remind people of how Microsoft (and some others) operate, as I did in my original post. I think that being aware of the fact that someone may be purposely disrupting things makes it easier to ignore those disruptions, and focus on the positive progress, rather than becoming depressed about things (as the infiltrators intended). However, making specific allegations about a given event or person just causes problems (I speak from experience), and I advise against it.

#

Specific Accusations are a VERY GOOD Idea

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2006 03:50 AM
You are wrong.
Specific Accusations are an EXTREMELY GOOD Idea

#

less drama

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 08:17 AM
"Debian's online communication shows little sign of being a real, functional community."

There are several Debian forums, newsgroups, and IRC channels (a biggie is #debian on irc.freenode.net) and mailing lists.

Less drama in departures is preferable.

#

Re:less drama

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 03:35 PM
Didn't you notice the real Debian channels <a href="http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604" title="debian.org">moved off FeeNode</a debian.org> a couple of months ago already? Try irc.oftc.net instead.

#

Re:less drama

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 13, 2006 11:21 PM
irc #debian still in irc.debian.org which now points to irc.oftc.net
<a href="http://www.tumujer.com/" title="tumujer.com">www.tumujer.com</a tumujer.com>

#

One of the most active developers in Debian?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 01:31 PM
I think describing me as one of the most active developers in Debian is massively unfair on the large number of people who have been significantly more active than me. I've seen many members of the project devote much more of their life to Debian, and I think their efforts and opinions are much more important than mine.

Matthew Garrett

#

Don't pull your punches

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 08:45 PM
The entire project is massively dysfunctional, and the quality of Debian has suffered tremendously. When destructive parasites like the infamous Andrew Suffield (for one examples) are allowed to rampage unchecked, it's a slap in the face to the people who are trying to get some real work done and get along with everyone else. The Debian leadership should be more concerned with how many talented, hardworking contributors have been driven away by the hostile atmosphere than with how many personality disorders they can nurture. The Debian world is psychotic. Your energies are better devoted to a project where rabid foaming is not the norm, and common courtesy and civility are the norm.

#

Re:Don't pull your punches

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 01:41 AM
Well fucking said. Debian = you lose.

#

Re:Don't pull your punches

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 07:36 PM
Andrew Suffield

Wow, that's a name I haven't seen or heard on d-devel or d-user in quite some time...

Are you sure you know WTF you're talking about?

#

Re:One of the most active developers in Debian?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 05:00 PM
So you're just a drama queen?
Goodbye, then, drama queen.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

#

Microsoft Rabble-Rousers are Probably Involved

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 01:28 AM
I sympathize, and agree that you must do what is necessary to protect your mental well-being.

It's unfortunate, but probably true, that part of what has driven you to take this step has been activity by Microsoft astroturfers.

We all know that Microsoft is a company that will do anything to protect their monopoly position. That includes breaking the law by, among other things, committing fraud and sabotage. Consider, for example, Microsoft's past involvement in undermining WordPerfect, or the OpenGL standards development. Or, look at Microsoft's attempt to sabotage Java, in their own words, to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." Or, look at Microsoft's payments to SCO, and various "pretending to be independent" political action groups, such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute.

So, years ago (probably 1998), when Microsoft held a strategy meeting on how to stop Linux, someone would have proposed the following idea:

> Infiltrate Open Source Development Teams and...
> - submit polluted (e.g. broken) code
> - push complexity and bad ideas
> - create dependencies on proprietary software
> - slow down progress in general
> - make life miserable for other developers
> - argue every minor detail, disrupt discussions
> - be pedantic about OSS concepts
> - polarize every discussion -> no common sense
> - hound and drive out the best developers

We know that Linux threatens to take a multi-billion dollar market away from Microsoft.

And we know that Microsoft has no morality, and little fear of the law.

And so, Microsoft would have chosen not to follow the above strategy... why? Because it's not nice?

We see Microsoft astroturfers at work all the time, writing FUD articles, or posting obvious lies in various forums.

Thus, I take it as a given that Microsoft has people involved with the most major Open Source projects, trying to do exactly as suggested above.

As some have pointed out, it can be difficult to interfere with a project such as Ubuntu, where a benevolent dictator can identify and kick out the troublemakers.

But it is relatively easier to infiltrate a highly democratic project, such as Debian.

Likewise, I expect that Microsoft has people in the FSF. Those people would not be arguing against Free Software, on the contrary, they would appear as the most extreme supporters of FSF principles. They would attempt, for example, to make GPL3 so extreme as to prevent its success in commercial venues, as they may have previously succeeded in making the FSF's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net replacement unusable in business, through overly-strict licensing.

Unfortunately, sabotage has always been one of Microsoft's most effective weapons. While Microsoft's technical incompetence is such that they have never defeated a strong competitor through actual competition, various acts of sabotage have allowed Microsoft to come out ahead against DR_DOS, Geoworks, WordPerfect, OS/2, Go, AmiPro, Netscape, and Java, among others.

Also unfortunate is the fact that it is hard for a democratic group (political parties, unions, Debian, etc.) to prevent this sort of infiltration. After all, you can't go around accusing everyone of being an agent, or you create an atmosphere of paranoia, which just plays into the infiltrator's hands.

Thus, what we are usually left with is simply to continue to fight the good fight. Keep arguing with the jerks until it becomes obvious that they are jerks. Make them ineffective, and force them to start again with a new identity, and no credibility. And continue to push the project forward, even if at a slower pace.

Note that I am not trying to talk you into changing your mind. If you feel the way you do, then you should rest. Let the young idealistic hotshots carry the torch. As for you, if you still want to be involved with OSS, then choose your own project, where you can avoid the astroturfers and the jerks. There is plenty to do.

It is exhausting fighting an evil that is as relentless and well-funded as Microsoft. Hopefully enough people can continue the fight until it is no longer necessary, i.e., until Microsoft is irrelevant.

Are you old enough to remember the joy of working with the Commodore 64? Remember the joy of the early days of the PC, before Windows? Everything was open -- anything was possible! Remember the same joy when you discovered Linux?

Although it is still possible to find that joy today, by focussing on a particular project and ignoring the politics, the day will come when Microsoft is no longer in a position to push their poison, and that joy once again becomes the norm in the computing industry.

Meanwhile, you should find something that will make _you_ happy. Best wishes!

#

Re:One of the most active developers in Debian?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 05:40 PM
test

#

Debian structure

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 02:16 PM
I have thought for several years now that Debian needs to remedy some structural problems.

Something like Ubuntu's Code of Conduct is badly needed. Arguments develop very easily in relatively-anonymous email groups -- humans didn't evolve their social cues on the Internet. Debian is not the only victim of this problem, of course. It's endemic to the medium. But the little bit of time I've spent on one of Debian's mailing lists quickly convinced me of how dysfunctional it could be.

Also, there are good reasons that most democratically run organizations have an elected board running them, rather than a single elected individual (in this case the DPL) trying to herd a thousand members. It allows more than one person to be involved in the decision making process, which is more inclusive. And it gives the organization the benefit of more than one mind addressing the big decisions. But at the same time it recognizes the many virtues of representative democracy over assembly democracy. Debian is long overdue to appreciate this.

#

The Benevolent Dictator

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 03:19 AM
This already exists. Different committees have different responsabilities.

There is a great deal of benefit to having a Benevolent Dictator, like Shuttleworth. Even the Greek democracies would occasionally elect a dictator for a while, to clean up the messes that always occur when things are run by committee.

Adding yet another committee is not going to improve Debian efficiency, all it will do is spread the blame and create another layer for things to be delayed by.

If I were dictator, I would invest the DPL with greater discretionary power for project/release related questions during their tenure. But that's all.

#

Some Debain package maintainers look like fools.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 07:55 PM
If you want to see some problems with Debain,... see this article:

3D Acceleration for ATI cards (works for SuSE, Mandriva and Debian)

at <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm</a domaindlx.com>

Some Debain package maintainers look like fools.

#

Re:Some Debain package maintainers look like fools

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 02:19 AM
Nope, it only seems that who wrote it doesn't know Debian...

#

The relevant section of the article is:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 08:48 PM
Extra Help for Debian Users.



Although, Debian has worked hard to make the addition of pre-compiled packages easy, they have gone out of their way to make compiling your own programs, a nightmare.



Unlike SuSE or Mandriva, the Debian packagers have not included the kernel sources for the default kernel images (those automatically chosen when you install Debian).




For example, the kernel image chosen for me, was:



kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686 (2.6.8-16sarge1) Kernel image for PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/P4.



However, the only kernel source packages are:



kernel-source-2.2.25 (2.2.25-4) Kernel source for 2.2.25

kernel-source-2.4.27 (2.4.27-10sarge3) Kernel source for 2.4.27 with Debian patches

kernel-source-2.6.8 (2.6.8-16sarge4) Kernel source for 2.6.8 with Debian patches



none of which match the kernel image. The closest source package is kernel-source-2.6.8, however, it has a different patch level (patch level four, instead of one). There are two ways around this, you can either roll back the patches to level one (hard) or choose a new kernel image which matches the available sources (easy). So, I chose the new kernel (which was a better fit than the automatically chosen kernel, anyway):



kernel-image-2.6.8-3-k7 (2.6.8-16sarge4) Kernel image for AMD K7.



After installing the new kernel image with synaptic, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/grub/menu.lst file now has entries for each kernel version:



title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-3-k7

root (hd0,5)

kernel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-3-k7 root=/dev/hda6 ro

initrd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-3-k7



title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-2-686

root (hd0,5)

kernel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-686 root=/dev/hda6 ro

initrd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-686



Choosing Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-3-k7 from the grub menu, boots the 2.6.8-3-k7 kernel.

Choosing Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-2-686 from the grub menu, boots the 2.6.8-2-686 kernel.



Unlike SuSE or Mandriva, the Debian packagers have split the kernel source into a number of separate pieces.



For the 2.6.8-16sarge4 kernel, the sources come in the following three pieces:



kernel-source-2.6.8 (2.6.8-16sarge4),

kernel-headers-2.6.8-3 (2.6.8-16sarge4),

kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7 (2.6.8-16sarge4).



The installation does not reintegrate the sources, even though it easily could have done so, but leaves you with one unopened tar archive and two separate directories containing header files. Never before, have I seen a package install, that does not even bother to unpack the archive. This is the Debian packagers, deliberately making it difficult for you to compile your own kernel.



I looked around for a README, or some help, and was not surprised when I didn't find any. I eventually found lots of documentation in the directories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/doc/kernel*. Unfortunately, most of it was for the 2.4 kernel and I could not find where it explained how to reassemble the kernel sources.



After installing the three, above mentioned, kernel packages with synaptic, you have the two directories of headers files:



kernel-headers-2.6.8-3

kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7



and the kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2 archive in the directory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/.



To sort out the install mess, execute the following commands:



 cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/

 mv kernel-headers-2.6.8-3 linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 tar cf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 rm -fr linux-2.6.8-3-k7



(go to the directory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/)

(the move ensures the tar archive will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7)

(creates tar archive named kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar)

(removes unneeded directory and contents)



 mv kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7 linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 tar cf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 rm -fr linux-2.6.8-3-k7



(the move ensures the tar archive will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7)

(creates tar archive named kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar)

(removes unneeded directory and contents)



 tar xjf kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2

 mv kernel-source-2.6.8 linux-2.6.8-k7



(unpacks main kernel source)

(move main kernel source to linux-2.6.8-k7)



 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar

 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar



(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)

(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)



In summary, the directories of header files are repacked so that they will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2 package is unpacked and moved to linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The tarred kernel-header directories, also unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7 and the sources are reintegrated.



By the way, the name linux-2.6.8-3-k7 was chosen simply because the command uname -r returned 2.6.8-3-k7.



Well, fine and good, so far. But the nightmare is not quite over.



The Debian packagers have "accidentally" forgotten a necessary link and have another pointing to some random place. To fix these "oversights" do the following:




 cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib/modules/2.6.8-2-k7

 rm -fr boot source

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 boot

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 source



Now you can continue with the ATI driver installation as above (tested on Debian Sarge).



Of course, you will have to adjust the kernel versions in the above to reflect your situation. You may also ask some Debian person for the name of the script (assuming it exists) that reassembles the unnecessarily split kernel sources. Of course, this script should be automatically run, when the kernel sources are installed.



Remember, that with SuSE or Mandriva, the kernel-sources can be installed with one or two clicks.



You may wish to speculate, as to the reasons the Debian packagers are deliberately making things difficult for you.



From <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm</a domaindlx.com>

#

dear nutjob, you're wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 01:41 AM
This tells how to get sources and build custom kernels under Debian:
<a href="http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html" title="debian.org">http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-commo<nobr>n<wbr></nobr> -tasks.html</a debian.org>

Sorry, there is no anti-user conspiracy.

#

Re:The relevant section of the article is:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 07:05 AM
You've got obsession man. You are talking about this in every place where Debian is mentioned. Are you sick?
Reading docs is enough to make your own kernel image. It takes about 40 minutes, including finding docs, reading, compiling, installing and rebooting. Calm down please.
And BTW it's not the place to complain about Debian internals.

#

There is an anti-user conspiracy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 11:21 AM
"Sorry, there is no anti-user conspiracy"

Oh, really,... why? Because you say so?

I think people can easily decide this for themselves.

The proof of an anti-user conspiracy is right in front of them.

The reasons for the anti-user conspiracy,...? Money? Selling documentation?

#

Re:There is an anti-user conspiracy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 02:20 PM
That link on how to compile a kernel looked free to me.

Maybe you have some adware on your computer?

#

Re:The relevant section of the article is:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 03:53 PM
It seems from the other comments to your post that you're some kind of local nutcase, so I'm not sure if I should reply at all. First of all you totally don't get what this whole story is about (did you read it at all?) because your little blown-up frustration has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's just a typical case of PEBKAC.

Although indeed the kernel-system in Debian is in some cases a little bit over-engineered for my taste (make-kpkg) you're completely wrong in this case. I suppose you need a kernel source tree to compile your ATI drivers. Well, then this is your lucky day, because actually the kernel-headers package (the one with -k7 in its name) is all you need (it'll automatically install the package not specific to k7 as a dependency). No need to get the complete kernel source. You only need that when you compile your own kernel, and if you're into that kind of (time wasting) activities, just switch to <a href="http://www.gentoy.be/" title="gentoy.be">Gentoy</a gentoy.be> and I'm sure you'll feel perfectly at home.

#

Continued

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2006 08:50 PM
 mv kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7 linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 tar cf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar linux-2.6.8-3-k7

 rm -fr linux-2.6.8-3-k7



(the move ensures the tar archive will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7)

(creates tar archive named kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar)

(removes unneeded directory and contents)



 tar xjf kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2

 mv kernel-source-2.6.8 linux-2.6.8-k7



(unpacks main kernel source)

(move main kernel source to linux-2.6.8-k7)



 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar

 tar xf kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar



(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)

(unpack kernel-headers-2.6.8-3-k7.tar into linux-2.6.8-k7)



In summary, the directories of header files are repacked so that they will unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The kernel-source-2.6.8.tar.bz2 package is unpacked and moved to linux-2.6.8-3-k7. The tarred kernel-header directories, also unpack into linux-2.6.8-3-k7 and the sources are reintegrated.



By the way, the name linux-2.6.8-3-k7 was chosen simply because the command uname -r returned 2.6.8-3-k7.



Well, fine and good, so far. But the nightmare is not quite over.



The Debian packagers have "accidentally" forgotten a necessary link and have another pointing to some random place. To fix these "oversights" do the following:




 cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib/modules/2.6.8-2-k7

 rm -fr boot source

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 boot

 ln -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.6.8-2-k7 source



Now you can continue with the ATI driver installation as above (tested on Debian Sarge).



Of course, you will have to adjust the kernel versions in the above to reflect your situation. You may also ask some Debian person for the name of the script (assuming it exists) that reassembles the unnecessarily split kernel sources. Of course, this script should be automatically run, when the kernel sources are installed.



Remember, that with SuSE or Mandriva, the kernel-sources can be installed with one or two clicks.



You may wish to speculate, as to the reasons the Debian packagers are deliberately making things difficult for you.



From <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/ati/ati.htm</a domaindlx.com>

#

Re:Continued

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 12:02 AM
I always take the easy way out when installing Debian on new hardware. Once the basic system is up and running, I use 'dselect' to select the kernel-sources package so that it will trigger all of the required packages to build a kernel. I then un-select the Debianized kernel and install everything. Then I wander over to www.kernel.org and get the latest stable kernel.

#

Re:Continued

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 02:17 PM
My God, you sure have taken a difficult way to compile a kernel in debian.

I usually
make oldconfig
add any patches
make xconfig (remove anything I don't want)
then
make-kpkg --initrd --append-to-version=-mykernel kernel_image kernel_headers
and finally
dkpg -i linux*.deb

Done withethe kernel headers installed.

#

Code of conduct

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 01:16 AM
Unlike the article suggests, there already exists a code of conduct for the Debian mailing lists.

<a href="http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct" title="debian.org">http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct</a debian.org>

#

Re:Code of conduct

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 01:48 AM
Ubuntu - An ancient African word for "Can't install Debian"

#

Ubuntu, an ancient word for "Can't install Debian"

Posted by: Administrator on September 03, 2006 03:58 AM


Sure. There is a lot of truth in this saying.


Debian for all of them whipper-snappers calls itself "Ubuntu".


Good: L*O*T*S of propaganda. Shit^H^H^Hpecial skin in brown-orange. Gnome WM. Just one application for the job.


Bad: L*O*T*S of unnerving propaganda. This special skin in brownish-orange(?). Gnome WM, which even Linus can't stand. Just one, arbitrarily chosen, application for the job.


Now for the eternal "Unix^H^H^Hbuntu vs Windows" discussion:

- Both are bound to a strangely dysfunctional Desktop Environment (DE).

- Both let even the utterly clueless user heavily configure his _standard_ DE.

- Both let the user easily install apps, goodies, even the whole shebang if need arises.

- Both can be shared (oops, did I just told it?).


Debian detests the clueless luser. At its Homepage, there is no pizzazz. There is even less about what, where, and how (no big red button with "JUST PRESS HERE" on it). The screaming power of Debian is all beneath its surface - and this is plain wrong. Well, you could build a great system, but in order to put food on your table you have to sell it, and you have to sell it well..


Ubuntu excels at selling. The Unspeakable marvels at selling, too. Debian - not quite so. Unless the Debian community promote astute sellers into key positions, the distro will suffer undue pain, losing valuable community members to greedy newcomers.


We want our Debian, we want it all, and we want it fast! Let's do what it takes to outpace those pesky me-toos; let them hone non-critical flaws of one or the other Debian branch, whereas the core Debian stays at the helm of the development.


Debian is in dire need of smart salesmen.


Yours,

YBK

#

Re:Ubuntu, an ancient word for "Can't install Debi

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 04:18 AM
YBK

Nicely put !

Ubuntu does have a good selling market (lots of $$$), but to use it, NOT. I don't see all the HYPE with this distro. I am being nice.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

What does 2.6.8-16sarge4 mean?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 02:46 PM
Apparently, 2.6.8-16sarge4 means a 2.6.8 kernel, with general patch level 16 and security patch level 4. Is this correct?

#

Installation of headers alone did not work.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 06:23 PM
"Well, then this is your lucky day, because actually the kernel-headers package (the one with -k7 in its name) is all you need (it'll automatically install the package not specific to k7 as a dependency)."

Small problem sunshine: It don't work.

Initially, I was interested in getting the ATI drivers working and I suspected that the headers were all I needed.

I installed them but nothing worked. The configuration of the sources/headers was stuffed.

In trying to get the configuration together I figured it was easier to install everything and get to a position I was familiar with.

Besides, many more would be more interested in the installation of the kernel-sources, than in the ATI drivers.

Hence the article on installing kernel sources (killing 2 birds with 1 stone).

The article above is destined to become a Debian kernel-sources installation HOWTO (at some point along the way, that became part of the plan).

#

Re:Installation of headers alone did not work.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 02:23 PM
Or use the Debian tools (apt) to install a kernel that has matching headers.

If you are going to use Debian try using its tools Sunshine

#

I who have installed Debian once, know more than U

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 02:47 PM
"Or use the Debian tools (apt) to install a kernel that has matching headers"

Try reading the articles you comment on, turkey. Did you notice the comment:

After installing the new kernel image with synaptic, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/grub/menu.lst file now has entries for each kernel version

Perhaps you are just ignorant and don't know that synaptic is a GUI for apt.

Funny, that I who have installed Debian once, know more about it than you.

#

Re:I who have installed Debian once, know more tha

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 07, 2006 10:09 AM
Doesn't look like it since I seem yo have no where near the problems you do, cow (I can't think of another animal)

#

Re:Ubuntu, an ancient word for "Can't install Debi

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2006 07:02 PM
Gnome WM, which even Linus can't stand.

I care about Linus' favored desktop about as much as I care about his brand of toothpaste or deodorent.

#

I love the free market!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 03:27 AM
I care about Linus' favored desktop about as much as I care about his brand of toothpaste or deodorant.

I love the free market. Otherwise, everyone would use the same toothpaste that Comrade Stalin uses. Or Bush, pick your decade.

For that matter, and to be on topic, everyone would have to use the same distribution that Comrade Rumsfeld uses.

#

Matthew Garrett = Troll

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 03:53 AM
Matthew Garrett = Troll

#

None of the *BSD projects are controlled by ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 06:14 AM
None of the *BSD projects are controlled by institutions or corporations and they all work better than Debian. Stop with this shit that you're special. You're not special @ Debian, you are *incompetent*.

#

11 hardware architectures, and Debian/BSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 03:35 AM
Say that again, slowly: 11 Hardware Architectures. Standard. Working.

From ARM PDAs to S390 mainframes, all from the same code base.

Using exactly the same commands, the same user environment, on Mac, Alpha, PowerPC, SPARC, ia64, AMD64, oh yeah and i386.

And silly troll, were you unaware of these?

<a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/" title="debian.org">http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/</a debian.org>
<a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/" title="debian.org">http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/</a debian.org>

#

This from newsforge.com

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 06:46 AM
I sympathize, and agree that you must do what is necessary to protect your mental well-being.

It's unfortunate, but probably true, that part of what has driven you to take this step has been activity by Microsoft astroturfers.

We all know that Microsoft is a company that will do anything to protect their monopoly position. That includes breaking the law by, among other things, committing fraud and sabotage. Consider, for example, Microsoft's past involvement in undermining WordPerfect, or the OpenGL standards development. Or, look at Microsoft's attempt to sabotage Java, in their own words, to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." Or, look at Microsoft's payments to SCO, and various "pretending to be independent" political action groups, such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute.

So, years ago (probably 1998), when Microsoft held a strategy meeting on how to stop Linux, someone would have proposed the following idea:

> Infiltrate Open Source Development Teams and...
> - submit polluted (e.g. broken) code
> - push complexity and bad ideas
> - create dependencies on proprietary software
> - slow down progress in general
> - make life miserable for other developers
> - argue every minor detail, disrupt discussions
> - be pedantic about OSS concepts
> - polarize every discussion -> no common sense
> - hound and drive out the best developers


We know that Linux threatens to take a multi-billion dollar market away from Microsoft.

And we know that Microsoft has no morality, and little fear of the law.

And so, Microsoft would have chosen not to follow the above strategy... why? Because it's not nice?

We see Microsoft astroturfers at work all the time, writing FUD articles, or posting obvious lies in various forums.

Thus, I take it as a given that Microsoft has people involved with the most major Open Source projects, trying to do exactly as suggested above.

As some have pointed out, it can be difficult to interfere with a project such as Ubuntu, where a benevolent dictator can identify and kick out the troublemakers.

But it is relatively easier to infiltrate a highly democratic project, such as Debian.

Likewise, I expect that Microsoft has people in the FSF. Those people would not be arguing against Free Software, on the contrary, they would appear as the most extreme supporters of FSF principles. They would attempt, for example, to make GPL3 so extreme as to prevent its success in commercial venues, as they may have previously succeeded in making the FSF's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net replacement unusable in business, through overly-strict licensing.

Unfortunately, sabotage has always been one of Microsoft's most effective weapons. While Microsoft's technical incompetence is such that they have never defeated a strong competitor through actual competition, various acts of sabotage have allowed Microsoft to come out ahead against DR_DOS, Geoworks, WordPerfect, OS/2, Go, AmiPro, Netscape, and Java, among others.

Also unfortunate is the fact that it is hard for a democratic group (political parties, unions, Debian, etc.) to prevent this sort of infiltration. After all, you can't go around accusing everyone of being an agent, or you create an atmosphere of paranoia, which just plays into the infiltrator's hands.

Thus, what we are usually left with is simply to continue to fight the good fight. Keep arguing with the jerks until it becomes obvious that they are jerks. Make them ineffective, and force them to start again with a new identity, and no credibility. And continue to push the project forward, even if at a slower pace.

Note that I am not trying to talk you into changing your mind. If you feel the way you do, then you should rest. Let the young idealistic hotshots carry the torch. As for you, if you still want to be involved with OSS, then choose your own project, where you can avoid the astroturfers and the jerks. There is plenty to do.

It is exhausting fighting an evil that is as relentless and well-funded as Microsoft. Hopefully enough people can continue the fight until it is no longer necessary, i.e., until Microsoft is irrelevant.

Are you old enough to remember the joy of working with the Commodore 64? Remember the joy of the early days of the PC, before Windows? Everything was open -- anything was possible! Remember the same joy when you discovered Linux?

Although it is still possible to find that joy today, by focussing on a particular project and ignoring the politics, the day will come when Microsoft is no longer in a position to push their poison, and that joy once again becomes the norm in the computing industry.

Meanwhile, you should find something that will make _you_ happy. Best wishes!

#

Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA's boy as dictator.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 11:29 AM
As some have pointed out, it can be difficult to interfere with a project such as Ubuntu, where a benevolent dictator can identify and kick out the troublemakers.

Actually, the opposite is more likely to be true.

Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA just plant their boy as the benevolent dictator,.... end of story.

Clearly, Ubuntu would be most easily controlled with a "benevolent dictator" structure.

#

Re:Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA's boy as dictator.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 02:31 AM
But Mark Shuttleworth is the the benevolent dictator as far as I know, and he is the founder of Ubuntu, it is in his best interesting that Ubuntu flourish.

#

Re:This from newsforge.com

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 03:32 PM
I think anyone who tried becoming a Debian Developer can tell you that infiltrating Debian isn't that easy.

#

You mean Debian is already held by the enemy?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 06:21 PM
"I think anyone who tried becoming a Debian Developer can tell you that infiltrating Debian isn't that easy."

Why? You mean that Debian is already secured by the enemy?

#

GENTOO &amp; Linux BULLETIN BOARDS infiltrated:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 07:21 AM
GENTOO and most LINUX BULLETIN BOARDS have been INFILTRATED,
or are RUN BY THOSE OPPOSING LINUX.


One surprising thing I discovered along the way, is that some of the Gentoo group have an interest in "accidentally" making the installation process much more difficult than it need be. Let me relate the following incident.

In Gentoo 2005.0, the command emerge --usepkg kde installs the KDE desktop. However, this command does not work in 2005.1. To find out what gives, I registered with the Gentoo forum forums.gentoo.org. After some time I was told that a new command emerge --usepkg kde-meta had been introduced. Why a new command? Why not the natural old command, which after all, now has no purpose at all? I thought this rather strange, but stranger things were yet to come.

I imagined that a lot of people would be interested in this information and started a thread about it at the forum.

To my great surprise, it was deleted (well, actually, it was moved from the installation section, to some hidden corner of their site).


So I started another thread, with the same result. This time I was informed that the thread had been moved because the topic had been dealt with in some other post (that had also been quite deliberately hidden away from public view). I repeated this process some 7 or 8 times. Then they banned me.

Think about it, the Gentoo people were so desperate to remove my posts from view, that they hid 7 threads, using 7 times the disk space, rather than have one visible to the public.

Actually, the last thread was locked and it quietly sunk out of sight. Since it was doomed to be lost among unvisited/unread pages, the administration felt no need to move or delete it, as they had the other threads. Besides leaving the locked thread there for a few hours was "proof they were not involved in censorship."

So the Gentoo forum administration succeeded in hiding all threads related to the correct installation of KDE.

Some good did come from my persistence, however, as someone added the correct command to the Gentoo KDE installation page the next day. I know this because I saved copies of the page on successive days (just before, and just after, it was added). When last I looked, it had not been added to the installation manual.

There is plenty of evidence that certain Gentoo people are deliberately (and surreptitiously) crippling their product. Why might this be? Well, for an answer to that, you will have to ask them.

Wow, this is all even weirder than I at first imagined. I visited Ubuntu's forum, ubuntuforums.org, and started a thread which essentially just pointed to this page. Guess what? Yes, it was deleted. I re-posted it in another section and guess what? Yes, it was deleted again. In the end, I must have posted it there some 8 or 9 times, and 8 or 9 times, it is was deleted. I was then temporarily banned for, you guessed it, "spamming". How sick is that?

And I have just been banned from www.linuxforums.org/forum/ for posting it there just ONCE!

Quote from: <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm</a coconia.net>

Jade @ <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/</a coconia.net>

#

irwinr seems to have trouble with facts:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2006 12:37 PM
"The fact that Gentoo and Ubuntoo forum admins (Who are very helpful and friendly, by the way) removed your posts is proof to me that your posts had no business being there."

And the fact that I think you are an idiot is proof to me that you are an idiot,... if you get my drift,...

You really should read the entire article <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm</a coconia.net> before commenting and making yourself look like a FOOL.

Here is the post that was continuously moved out of sight by Gentoo (deleted by Ubuntu people):

GENTOO 2005.1 INSTALLATION SCRIPT/WALK-THROUGH.

If you are interested in a reasonably well written set of 3 short scripts to help you through the installation of Gentoo 2005.1, visit the site:

<a href="http://linux.coconia.net/" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/</a coconia.net>

I would be interested in any errors that anyone may find.


Thats it. Real nasty post that one,.... certainly it should be hidden (seven times) from all view. You should also understand that the page <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm</a coconia.net> was the only page on the site at that time. The site grew around that page.

and you clearly don't know what you are talking about, eg, the page where you now find the kde/kde-meta info is also mentioned in the article:

Some good did come from my persistence, however, as someone added the correct command to the Gentoo KDE installation page the next day. I know this because I saved copies of the page on successive days (just before, and just after, it was added). When last I looked, it had not been added to the installation manual.

Not that I would expect you to understand the concept of time.

"Also, I installed kde without using the meta package just fine on 2005.1, the old package name should work just fine, which is just more evidence that you simply don't know what you're talking about."

Oh,... really. Why don't you tell me exactly what you did, because kde does not install happily as GRP packages.

So since you claim to have done it, tell me all the steps you took. Tell me the commands you used.

The installation of KDE in 2006 was also sabotaged. Read about it here:

<a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2006.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2006.htm</a coconia.net>

#

irwinr hides in a make-believe world

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2006 12:42 PM
"The fact that Gentoo and Ubuntoo forum admins (Who are very helpful and friendly, by the way) removed your posts is proof to me that your posts had no business being there."

And the fact that I think you are an idiot is proof to me that you are an idiot,... if you get my drift,...

You really should read the entire article <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm</a coconia.net> before commenting and making yourself look like a FOOL.

Here is the post that was continuously moved out of sight by Gentoo (deleted by Ubuntu people):

GENTOO 2005.1 INSTALLATION SCRIPT/WALK-THROUGH.

If you are interested in a reasonably well written set of 3 short scripts to help you through the installation of Gentoo 2005.1, visit the site:

<a href="http://linux.coconia.net/" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/</a coconia.net>

I would be interested in any errors that anyone may find.


Thats it. Real nasty post that one,.... certainly it should be hidden (seven times) from all view. You should also understand that the page <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2005.htm</a coconia.net> was the only page on the site at that time. The site grew around that page.

and you clearly don't know what you are talking about, eg, the page where you now find the kde/kde-meta info is also mentioned in the article:

Some good did come from my persistence, however, as someone added the correct command to the Gentoo KDE installation page the next day. I know this because I saved copies of the page on successive days (just before, and just after, it was added). When last I looked, it had not been added to the installation manual.

Not that I would expect you to understand the concept of time.

"Also, I installed kde without using the meta package just fine on 2005.1, the old package name should work just fine, which is just more evidence that you simply don't know what you're talking about."

Oh,... really. Why don't you tell me exactly what you did, because kde does not install happily as GRP packages.

So since you claim to have done it, tell me all the steps you took. Tell me the commands you used.

The installation of KDE in 2006 was also sabotaged. Read about it here:

<a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2006.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gentoo/2006.htm</a coconia.net>

#

Re:GENTOO &amp; Linux BULLETIN BOARDS infiltrated:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2006 12:45 PM
Sorry about the repeat -- there was some trouble posting.

#

Re:GENTOO &amp; Linux BULLETIN BOARDS infiltrated:

Posted by: Administrator on September 05, 2006 09:57 AM
You were probably banned because you're an idiot and you don't how to RTFM or follow the basic rules of conduct for the forums you posted to.

Why the hell did you post a comment to a thread about John Ellch saying:

"Read about the Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrators of linux here:"

The fact that Gentoo and Ubuntoo forum admins (Who are very helpful and friendly, by the way) removed your posts is proof to me that your posts had no business being there. Add this to the fact that you are posting completely inappropriate crap here simply re-affirms the notion that you were probably doing the same thing there.

To get back to your original, idiotic complaint: The kde to kde-meta change was not a change in the name of a command, it was a change in the way kde was packaged, that's all.

The old 'kde' package is still there. They added kde-meta for packaging reasons. You can still use either 'kde' or 'kde-meta'. Installing kde in 2005.1 works just the same as 2005, it just won't install everything like kde-meta will.

If you would have looked at the KDE specific install docs, you would see the difference between kde and kde-meta explained:

<a href="http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kde-config.xml" title="gentoo.org">http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kde-config.xml</a gentoo.org>

Your post was probably removed because there are already plenty of posts on the Gentoo discussion board to cover this change.

Also, I installed kde without using the meta package just fine on 2005.1, the old package name should work just fine, which is just more evidence that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

#

Good riddance to M$, MPAA, infiltrator Garrett

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 07:50 PM
Good riddance to M$, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrator Matthew Garrett:

Matthew Garrett is one of the M$, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrators described in the above post.

He has deleted the copy of the above article on M$ infiltrators from the main body of his blog, so that it will not attract the attention it deserves.

It is now a "(Screened Post)". Look for yourself: <a href="http://mjg59.livejournal.com/66647.html" title="livejournal.com">http://mjg59.livejournal.com/66647.html</a livejournal.com>

When the article was first posted he collapsed the thread to hide it in a link that most would not click (previous to this the thread had been flat, ie, all posts were displayed).

Because he hid the article in this way, I posted it again to the main body of the thread, where it would attract attention, so he just deleted it.

Clearly, Matthew Garrett is one of the M$, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrators described in the post that he deleted.

#

Re:Good riddance to M$, MPAA, infiltrator Garrett

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 07:49 AM
I see.
So anyone who dares to exercise their freedom of speech and speaks out is automatically classed as an enemy.
Hmm...sounds like something I'd expect to hear from Bush and his mob.
Nothing like mentioning Microsoft to get the blood boiling. It was such a pathetically cheap shot. Couldn't you come up with something a bit more original? Nah - lash out at the 'system' as usual.
I see the beginning of Debian's end. Anarchy in action is doomed to failure. We are not all equal. Linus is better than any of you. Distributions will come and go, but the kernel will live on.
Or maybe everyone will get fed up and switch to *BSD instead.
You and I are all irrelevant.
RMS and ESR and the Debian anarchist/pro-terrorist/pro-kiddyporn scum are fascists.

#

linux.slashdot.org is also very suspect:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 10:19 PM
linux.slashdot.org is also clearly run by Micro$oft, RIAA, MPAA, infiltrators:

Note the way they have tried to hide the posts I have made by converting them to links, even though they were originally on the front page.

They were not like this last time I looked. They were all shown in full.

See, for yourself:

<a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=195649" title="slashdot.org">http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=-<nobr>1<wbr></nobr> &mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=195649</a slashdot.org>

Note that the change occurs immediately after my first post, ie, at the post:

Debian has serious problems by Anonymous Coward Monday September 04, @03:48AM

So many infiltrators,... so many liars.

#

Specific Accusations are a Bad Idea

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2006 10:44 PM
I see that someone copied my post about Microsoft infiltrators from NewsForge to here (actually it was already here as a sub-thread - see "Microsoft Rabble-Rousers"). I'm glad you liked it.

However, as I pointed out in that post, it is not a good idea to go around accusing people.

It is too easy to hit the wrong target.

It is too easy to mistake other things (errors, stubborness, ego, inexperience, and so on) as intentional badness.

Plus, the accusations just contribute to the negative atmosphere that the infiltrators want to create.

In my opinion, the proper (indeed, the only workable) approach is as follows:

1. Be aware that the infiltrators may be there.

2. Consider that possibility when confronted with an outrageously bad idea, especially when the same person always seems to be the source of the bad ideas.

But then...

3. Respond with positive action. Propose better ideas, and explain why they are better. Be polite and reasonable. Contribute to making the forum a nice place to visit. If you do that, then eventually, the true troublemakers will become obvious to everyone, by contrast, and they will become ineffective.

I think it is important to remind people of how Microsoft (and some others) operate, as I did in my original post. I think that being aware of the fact that someone may be purposely disrupting things makes it easier to ignore those disruptions, and focus on the positive progress, rather than becoming depressed about things (as the infiltrators intended). However, making specific allegations about a given event or person just causes problems (I speak from experience), and I advise against it.

#

Re:Specific Accusations are a VERY GOOD Idea

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2006 03:48 AM
Specific Accusations are a VERY GOOD Idea

#

Sham or false opposition

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2006 04:16 AM
The person who wrote the "Microsoft infiltrators" article is what is generally know as sham or false opposition.

The sham or false opposition pretends to oppose the other members of a team who are working a thread/group.

However, they are working the thread/group together as a team.

His/her job is to make sure that those who really oppose the team are steered away from things the team does not want you to discuss, or think.

In this case, the team does not want specific accusations.

Sham or false opposition are a well known facet of propaganda, and you are seeing a lot of propaganda here.

The group that is out to manipulate you here, is the same group that manipulates politics, and actually, everything they can.

You have to understand the mechanics of manipulation, before you can readily recognize it.

It is everywhere -- try looking for it -- its fun, and its everywhere.

#

Re:Sham or false opposition

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2006 05:29 AM
How do we know you are not part of the false-FALSE opposition?

#

Cyclotouriste? Is that you?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 02:05 AM
If you're not him, then you two should meet. It would be the greatest meeting of minds (or congress of paranoid thought, take your pick) since I don't know when.

#

No one knows enough about Debian to answer,

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2006 09:36 AM
Here we are discussing Debian and Debian policy, yet no one knows enough to answer the above question, namely:

"2.6.8-16sarge4 means a 2.6.8 kernel, with general patch level 16 and security patch level 4. Is this correct?"

If you people know so little about Debian, then who are you?

Professional bulls**t artists, (who know nothing about Debian).

RIAA, MPAA, M$ paid bulls**t artists I guess.

#

Matthew Garrett is a hero

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 07:04 PM
Good for him for having the guts to tell it like it is.
Debian need to restructure and put an elected group of developers in charge to avoid this anarchy (erm, but aren't all debian people anarchists?).
Anyway, those who accuse him of being a troll have *no* evidence to back up their claims. They are just bitter and angry that the truth came out. Whistleblowers always get hated for what they do.
Matthew Garrett is a people's champion.
And no matter what people think, debian *isn't* linux. It's just one of a few hundred distros. Theres nothing 'special' about it.
I think the debian fanboys are getting drunk on their own hype.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya