<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Debian is NOT switching to time-based releases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/</link>
	<description>a potpourri of mirth and madness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 03:06:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sinhalen FOSS » Blog Archive &#187; Podcats episode 30: කර්නල් මත භේද.</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1551</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sinhalen FOSS » Blog Archive &#187; Podcats episode 30: කර්නල් මත භේද.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:03:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Debian goes to time based releases. No they don&#8217;t [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Debian goes to time based releases. No they don&#8217;t [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ubuntu Podcast Episode #32 &#124; Ubuntu Podcast</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1469</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ubuntu Podcast Episode #32 &#124; Ubuntu Podcast]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] its 10K SEC filings, first Launchpad community meetup, 100 Hundred papercuts round 3 and round 4, Debian is going to a fixed freeze schedule, SpreadUbuntu keeps moving along, Landscape System Management Tool Adds Dedicated Server, UbuCon @ [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] its 10K SEC filings, first Launchpad community meetup, 100 Hundred papercuts round 3 and round 4, Debian is going to a fixed freeze schedule, SpreadUbuntu keeps moving along, Landscape System Management Tool Adds Dedicated Server, UbuCon @ [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Flimm</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1449</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Flimm]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:39:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You missed another one on the list: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/debian_adopts_time_based_releases_somebody_check_temperature_hell
By the Free Software Magazine no less! (Halfway through the article, though, the author admits the headline is incorrect.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You missed another one on the list: <a href="http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/debian_adopts_time_based_releases_somebody_check_temperature_hell" rel="nofollow">http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/debian_adopts_time_based_releases_somebody_check_temperature_hell</a><br />
By the Free Software Magazine no less! (Halfway through the article, though, the author admits the headline is incorrect.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jg</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1448</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1448</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lots of Debian devs now know how Canonical devs &quot;work&quot;. It&#039;s no mere coincidence that the &quot;decision&quot; to &quot;freeze&quot; the next Debian stable release was made, not via proper discussion on the debian email list, but at a conference infested by you and your Canonical cohorts, and just so happened to be at an atypical interval that coincidences with the next Ubuntu LTS (and subsequent 2 year periods to also coincidence). Thankfully, enough people figured out how Canonical is attempting to undermine the very, very successful debian infrastructure, and volunteer dev community, to serve Ubuntu&#039;s/Canonical&#039;s needs at debian&#039;s expense. I&#039;m sure you&#039;d love to have all the volunteer debian devs freely contributing to Ubuntu LTS so you can try to grab away debian&#039;s installed server base with sales of ubuntu server, and instead of wasting your time actually being fully responsible for your debian fork, you can instead spend your time spitting in the faces of your own volunteer community by using the Ubuntu trademark to hawk your Ubuntu One commercial service, and also ride on the shoulders of the FOSS community while selling your closed source Canonical Landscape Dedicated Server. At least, Redhat contributes back more to the community, isn&#039;t so parasitic and unappreciative of the FOSS community, and doesn&#039;t close-source their alternative to Canonical Landscape Dedicated Server (ie, rpath).

Canonical is the linux version of Microsoft. If people allow Canonical to further subvert debian for Canonical&#039;s own gain, then it may be the first example of a supposed linux commercial enterprise pulling off &quot;embrace, extend, and extinguish&quot; to commercialize and close-source FOSS.

You are a troll upon linux itself.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lots of Debian devs now know how Canonical devs &#8220;work&#8221;. It&#8217;s no mere coincidence that the &#8220;decision&#8221; to &#8220;freeze&#8221; the next Debian stable release was made, not via proper discussion on the debian email list, but at a conference infested by you and your Canonical cohorts, and just so happened to be at an atypical interval that coincidences with the next Ubuntu LTS (and subsequent 2 year periods to also coincidence). Thankfully, enough people figured out how Canonical is attempting to undermine the very, very successful debian infrastructure, and volunteer dev community, to serve Ubuntu&#8217;s/Canonical&#8217;s needs at debian&#8217;s expense. I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;d love to have all the volunteer debian devs freely contributing to Ubuntu LTS so you can try to grab away debian&#8217;s installed server base with sales of ubuntu server, and instead of wasting your time actually being fully responsible for your debian fork, you can instead spend your time spitting in the faces of your own volunteer community by using the Ubuntu trademark to hawk your Ubuntu One commercial service, and also ride on the shoulders of the FOSS community while selling your closed source Canonical Landscape Dedicated Server. At least, Redhat contributes back more to the community, isn&#8217;t so parasitic and unappreciative of the FOSS community, and doesn&#8217;t close-source their alternative to Canonical Landscape Dedicated Server (ie, rpath).</p>
<p>Canonical is the linux version of Microsoft. If people allow Canonical to further subvert debian for Canonical&#8217;s own gain, then it may be the first example of a supposed linux commercial enterprise pulling off &#8220;embrace, extend, and extinguish&#8221; to commercialize and close-source FOSS.</p>
<p>You are a troll upon linux itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mdz</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1444</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mdz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, thanks for pointing that out.  I would much rather that people get first-hand opinions from actual Debian and Ubuntu developers about how they work, instead of irrelevant commentary from trolls.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, thanks for pointing that out.  I would much rather that people get first-hand opinions from actual Debian and Ubuntu developers about how they work, instead of irrelevant commentary from trolls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jg</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1442</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[P.S. Please go to the _real_ Debian email lists -- not some Canonical associated website such as referenced above if you want to know the _real_ story of what Debian devs think about Ubuntu &quot;patches&quot;. All you&#039;ll get from a Canonical website is the same disingenous &quot;Canonical is great&quot; spin that everyone has come to expect from a company that is nothing more than the linux version of a Microsoft PR department.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>P.S. Please go to the _real_ Debian email lists &#8212; not some Canonical associated website such as referenced above if you want to know the _real_ story of what Debian devs think about Ubuntu &#8220;patches&#8221;. All you&#8217;ll get from a Canonical website is the same disingenous &#8220;Canonical is great&#8221; spin that everyone has come to expect from a company that is nothing more than the linux version of a Microsoft PR department.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jg</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1441</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And many, many various criticisms of those &quot;patches&quot; can be found on the Debian email list.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And many, many various criticisms of those &#8220;patches&#8221; can be found on the Debian email list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mdz</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1437</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mdz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please do not feed the troll, however hungry it may seem.

Various indexes of the patches routinely submitted by Ubuntu developers to Debian can be found at https://wiki.edubuntu.org/Debian/Usertagging for the benefit of anyone interested in objective data.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please do not feed the troll, however hungry it may seem.</p>
<p>Various indexes of the patches routinely submitted by Ubuntu developers to Debian can be found at <a href="https://wiki.edubuntu.org/Debian/Usertagging" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.edubuntu.org/Debian/Usertagging</a> for the benefit of anyone interested in objective data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jg</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1435</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:34:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I think it’s great news for both projects&quot;.

No, it isn&#039;t. Ubuntu &quot;patches&quot; do _not_ apply &quot;cleanly&quot; in Debian, because Canonical doesn&#039;t release any such &quot;patches&quot;. Canonical simply releases a &quot;log&quot; of what it has changed in order to create its own fork, not some patch that can be directly applied to Debian.

When will Canonical employees get off of their lazy asses and finally take full responsibility for their fork, instead of trying to change Debian&#039;s infrastructure purely for the sake of making Canonical&#039;s job of ripping off Debian devs&#039; work (otherwise mislabeled as &quot;maintaining Ubuntu&quot;) easier?

You forked Debian. Forks take a lot of work. Either do your own work and leave Debian alone, or stop distributing your fork. It&#039;s not the job of Debian volunteers to make the work of paid Canonical employees easier (so they can sell their closed source software such as Canonical Landscape Dedicated Server, and Ubuntu-only services such as Ubuntu One, which also is a slap in the face to anyone who actually believed Canonical&#039;s lie that they wouldn&#039;t use the Ubuntu trademark to hawk a commercial product).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I think it’s great news for both projects&#8221;.</p>
<p>No, it isn&#8217;t. Ubuntu &#8220;patches&#8221; do _not_ apply &#8220;cleanly&#8221; in Debian, because Canonical doesn&#8217;t release any such &#8220;patches&#8221;. Canonical simply releases a &#8220;log&#8221; of what it has changed in order to create its own fork, not some patch that can be directly applied to Debian.</p>
<p>When will Canonical employees get off of their lazy asses and finally take full responsibility for their fork, instead of trying to change Debian&#8217;s infrastructure purely for the sake of making Canonical&#8217;s job of ripping off Debian devs&#8217; work (otherwise mislabeled as &#8220;maintaining Ubuntu&#8221;) easier?</p>
<p>You forked Debian. Forks take a lot of work. Either do your own work and leave Debian alone, or stop distributing your fork. It&#8217;s not the job of Debian volunteers to make the work of paid Canonical employees easier (so they can sell their closed source software such as Canonical Landscape Dedicated Server, and Ubuntu-only services such as Ubuntu One, which also is a slap in the face to anyone who actually believed Canonical&#8217;s lie that they wouldn&#8217;t use the Ubuntu trademark to hawk a commercial product).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Varghese</title>
		<link>http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/#comment-1433</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sam Varghese]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=576#comment-1433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[i have reminded you of the fact that you have made an error in your posting. i don&#039;t expect you to have the courage to admit that and correct that.

i have reminded you of the fact that great britain is a law-abiding country. to stretch that and rant that someone is bullying is, even for you, a stretch, zimmerman]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have reminded you of the fact that you have made an error in your posting. i don&#8217;t expect you to have the courage to admit that and correct that.</p>
<p>i have reminded you of the fact that great britain is a law-abiding country. to stretch that and rant that someone is bullying is, even for you, a stretch, zimmerman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

