Talk:Debian: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:30, 23 March 2014 editGuy Macon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,290 edits hist --> sci← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:20, 5 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,379 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Debian/Archive 10) (bot
(369 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}		{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes \|search=no}}
			{{Article history
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC\|action1date=18:13, 3 July 2004\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/July 2004#Debian\|action1result=failed\|action1oldid=4454441		\|action1=FAC\|action1date=18:13, 3 July 2004\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/July 2004#Debian\|action1result=failed\|action1oldid=4454441
	\|action2=~~GAN~~\|action2link=~~Talk~~:Debian/~~GA1~~\|action2date=02:05, 4 ~~December~~ 2008 (UTC)\|action2result=~~not listed~~\|action2oldid=~~255624570~~		\|action2=PR\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Debian/archive1\|action2date=10:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)\|action2result=\|action2oldid=
			\|action3=GAN\|action3link=Talk:Debian/GA1\|action3date=02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)\|action3result=not listed\|action3oldid=255624570
	\|currentstatus=FFAC
			\|action4=GAN\|action4link=Talk:Debian/GA2\|action4date=13:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)\|action4result=listed\|action4oldid=614225287
			\|dykdate=28 June 2014
			\|dykentry= ... that the name of the ''']''' ] is a combination of the first names of its creator ] and his then-girlfriend Debra?
			\|currentstatus=FFAC/GA
			\|topic=technology
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{~~Linuxproject\|class=B~~\|importance=Top}}		{{WikiProject Linux\|importance=Top}}
	{{~~WPFS\|class=B~~\|importance=High\|software-importance=~~Mid~~\|~~computing~~-importance=~~Low~~}}		{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=High \|free-software=yes \|free-software-importance=High \|software=yes\|software-importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Open~~\|class=B~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Open\|importance=mid}}
	}}		}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 32K		\|maxarchivesize = 32K
	\|counter = 5		\|counter = 10
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 24:		Line 29:
	\| leading_zeros = 0		\| leading_zeros = 0
	\| indexhere = yes		\| indexhere = yes
	}}{{archives\|search=yes\|index=Talk:Debian/Archive index\|bot=~~MiszaBot~~ I\|age=90}}		}}{{archives\|search=yes\|index=Talk:Debian/Archive index\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=90}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=

			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Sid Phillips) ]. <!-- {"title":"Sid Phillips","appear":{"revid":229500348,"parentid":229435867,"timestamp":"2008-08-03T00:57:55Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":,"replaced_anchors":{"Sidney Phillips":"Sid Phillips"}},"disappear":{"revid":1215488592,"parentid":1215375927,"timestamp":"2024-03-25T12:58:57Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
	== GA Review ==
			}}

			== Software by the Debian project ==
	This article was up for review for promotion to "Good Article" status in December 2008. The promotion failed. If anyone would like to contribute please follow instructions from the reviewer ] at: .

	== Feature list ==

	What about adding a feature list of the advantages of Debian over others?
	For example preseeded installations.

	== Steam ==

	It seems to me that the availability of Steam for Linux has gotten a lot of attention in the trade press, with some commentators saying it could be a game changer. I think it is notable enough for a mention.--] (]) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

	: Sorry, but isn't that better suitable for the ] and maybe ] articles? -- ] (]) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

	:: Steam OS beta is now available and Debian Wheezy (stable) based. See following blog post why this is more relevant than ever for Debian: http://richardhartmann.de/blog/posts/2013/12/14-SteamOS/ There is no doubt that SteamOS should be covered on the Debian article :) ] 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

	::: Got it! You're right, that totally deserves to be mentioned in this article. — ] (]) 17:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

	I do not know if this "SteamOS is a Debian derivative" fact should be in ], but it has been notable enough to appear in the . ] (]) 17:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	== First Image ==

	Is it really necessary, to repeat it three times?
	"only the '''first''' optical iso image of any of its downloadable sets is sufficient. Debian requires the '''first''' installable image, but uses online repositories for additional software. Debian's basic installation requires only the '''first''' CD or DVD of its release in order to have a working desktop ex" ] (]) 07:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Debian private practices and Debian Women activities ==

	=== Proposed changes ===

	Since the dispute resolution will take some time and newcomers will not know what the problem is, these are the current overall changes:

	* Add to the last paragraph of "Developer recruitment, motivation, and resignation":

	: Although expulsion has happened in the past,<ref>{{cite mailing list \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00068.html \|title = Re: Questions to the candidates \|mailinglist=debian-vote \|date = 2007-03-04 \|quote = This was just hours before expulsion.}}</ref> other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans<ref>{{cite mailing list \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/01/msg00005.html \|title = Re: Sven Luther, report of the mediation attempt and further actions \|mailinglist=debian-project \|date = 2007-01-03 \|quote = I'm asking Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists.}}</ref> or account locking.<ref>{{cite mailing list \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00241.html \|title = Re: Expulsion process: Sven Luther - Decision \|mailinglist=debian-project \|date = 2007-03-28 \|quote = we do not expell Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year.}}</ref>

	* Add to "Developer recruitment, motivation, and resignation":

	: ==== Female recruitment ====
	: The influx of male applicants is far greater than that of female ones. As of February 2014, there are only 15 developers identified as female.<ref name="dbdebian">{{cite web \|url = https://db.debian.org/ \|title = debian.org Developers LDAP Search \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-16}}</ref> The Debian Women project was found in 2004 to increase the participation of women in Debian.<ref>{{cite web \|url = http://www.debian.org/women/about \|title = About Debian Women \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref>

	: However, given the lack of results, their activities have been questioned. The lack of female presence has been the target of jokes.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://xkcd.com/306/ \|title = Orphaned Projects \|publisher = xkcd \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref> Debian Women organizes positive discrimination events in an effort to encourage women.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://wiki.debian.org/DebianWomen/Projects/MiniDebconf-Women/2014/CallForProposals \|title = MiniDebConf 2014 Barcelona Call for Proposals \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref> For instance, they consider showing a woman talk about Debian subjects does encourage. But that reason is not among the real motivations that actually encouraged in the past.<ref>{{cite web \|url = http://bits.debian.org/2013/10/ada-lovelace-day.html \|title = Ada Lovelace Day: meet some of the "women behind Debian"! \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref>

	* Split "Reception" into "Awards" and "Criticism".

	* Add to "Criticism":

	: Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-private/ \|title = Private discussions among developers \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref> This questions the transparency of the project and Debian acknowledged it. In 2005, they decided to establish a declassification procedure for future posts to debian-private.<ref>{{cite web \|url = http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002 \|title = General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref> Nevertheless, they have not implemented the procedure yet.

	: Some Debian developers send intimidating messages privately to Debian users. Debian officers support this behaviour. Dissenting users that disclose this intimidation are permanently banned from the community.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735030 \|title = debian-user-catalan ruled by fear \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref> Debian is accused of arbitrary bans. The reasons for the ban are sent to debian-private, therefore not available to the public.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735031 \|title = arbitrary bans \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref>

	: Dissenting developers can be banned too. In 2007, Sven Luther openly disagreed with other developers including ].<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/01/msg00001.html \|title = Re: Sven Luther, report of the mediation attempt and further actions \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-16}}</ref> Sven Luther was among those against Dunc-Tank and its effect on Debian Etch.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/12/msg00090.html \|title = Re: Debian Etch Stable. \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-16}}</ref> He complained about this and other subjects many times. His account was suspended and it is still locked.<ref name="dbdebian" /> The suspension prevented him to work in the ] port, which does not seem an appropriate solution.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00247.html \|title = Re: Expulsion process: Sven Luther - Decision \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-16}}</ref> Sven Luther has not given up on the project yet.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2013/12/msg00001.html \|title = Re: Bug#731069: gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-16}}</ref>

	This wording will be modified as discussion advances. ] (]) 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

	:As was explained to you at ''']''' and several other places, the consensus is clearly against your proposed changes, and nobody is willing to continue engaging you on this forever. You have been advised by me and by multiple arbcom members to pursue the RfC route instead. --] (]) 15:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

	=== Discussion ===

	The undoing from 80.100.245.50 claims vandalism. As I understand, the content does meet Misplaced Pages requirements (neutral point of view, verifiability, etc). Most references are already in Debian, from many different contributors. The bug reports cited are archived, hosted in Debian and have been subject to Debian review. All references are appropriate for an article about Debian.

	I would like whoever makes the undoing to challenge the material or to prove that what was written is wrong. In the meantime, I will restore the content. It is obvious that the user from 80.100.245.50 is the one doing vandalism. For instance, it is a fact that debian-private and a related General Resolution exist.

	I would like to request for arbitration if consensus cannot be reached. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	The users removing content are refusing to talk, challenge the material or prove the opposite. What does campaigning have to do? Please be specific, what points have been infringed (advertising, opinion pieces...)? This is the second time a user has removed debian-private existence, which is an easy verifiable fact.

	] has removed the references about account locking, leaving the material unsourced. The reference in "Developer recruitment" shows that Sven Luther, Andrew Suffield and Jonathan/Ted Walter are in this situation. This is not one specific case. This is not an ongoing dispute, but facts that happened in 2007. Expulsion from Debian is not something theoretical.

	About applicant influx, "As in the wider technology field", I challenge that edit. Debian has less than 1% developers identified as female.

	The removal of the "Female recruitment" subsection would make sense if the previous edits were right, but it is not the case.

	] is a proud Debian user. It is significant that the user has Catalan skills and that those are better than Spanish ones. ] has removed facts without a good explanation and has proved to be unable to keep neutrality. This user has a conflict of interest (]).

	] already found this article to fail the neutral point of view. I request that readers do not remove facts they do not like without explained reasons. I will restore the content again. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	* How is it "significant" that I know some Catalan? You should familiarise yourself with ]. And how do I have a "conflict of interest"? ] (]) 10:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

	:: ] has removed virtually all content without a good explanation, twisting the remaining content. The user advertises to contribute using Debian GNU/Linux, therefore a conflict of interest is a likely cause. Assuming the user has actually read the content, one reference title is "debian-user-catalan ruled by fear". Thus Catalan and Spanish skill levels are significant. The user may be subscribed to debian-user-catalan and know the background. ] (]) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

	: I am biased in favor of Debian by default, and a few factoids found in these edits should be included in the article, but the edits overall are an egregious ] violation. The English is bad, the references are largely sub par, and the use of weasel words is plentiful. Overall, it's just a lot of editorializing over largely fringe topics. Please don't use Misplaced Pages if you have ]. --] (]) 14:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

	:: Indeed, ] is a Debian developer. But he may help anyway. Please tell what "factoids" should be included and suggest a better English wording. ] (]) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

	The users removing content are still refusing to talk, challenge the material or prove the opposite; ] has challenged the ] only. Another excuse: bug reports and emails are not necessarily reliable sources. But these bug reports and emails are reliable sources for the presented material. ] even mentions the template to cite public mailing lists. I can improve the citation style if necessary. Besides, there are other reference types. A General Resolution is a reliable source. This is the third time a user has removed debian-private.

	There has been only censorship so far. I am trying to improve a Misplaced Pages article. The dispute resolution is not advancing. Can we start moving forward?
	: Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates.<ref name="constitution" />
	Any objections?

	In the meantime, I will restore the content. There has been not a single sensible explanation to remove it. ] (]) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

	:Consensus has been acquired, the content should not be on the Debian page ] ] (]) 09:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

	:: Consensus has not been reached, since there has been no consensus-building in the first place. I would like to point that ] cannot handle criticism. This user did remove the ] criticism along with the content despite an ongoing discussion (Mthink cpp). This user lies in the user talk page when claiming that I accuse "those (several users) who revoke the edits of vandalism"; this Debian talk page clearly shows what I have actually written. ] (]) 01:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	No other user is even trying to talk. There has been not a single effort to challenge the material. This is plain censorship. This is not a content-related issue, but conduct-related. Since administrator help has already been requested, I will wait for their answer. ] (]) 01:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	* Guys and IP addresses, this whole thing is quite ridiculous. Personally, I've been following it from day one, but haven't had enough energy to investigate/research the whole thing into detail. Are there any people who can shed some light, please, but not only by stating that the provided references are not good enough etc.? — ] (] \| ]) 01:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	:: I ask ] to check just the first sentence, the one I have written:
	::: Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates.<ref name="constitution" />
	:: This is in the , section 3.2.2. ] (]) 02:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	::: So what? Should a Debian developer be protected like a polar bear, making his/her own membership unconditionally of a lifetime nature? Sure thing that a constitution needs something like this, as the last measure in line if a developer starts acting crazy. — ] (] \| ]) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	:::: Please keep to the point. Did I provide a fact and a reliable source? ] (]) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	::::: Yes, you did. What next? — ] (] \| ]) 02:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	:::::: Thanks. I do not want to abuse ]'s time. I am still waiting for the administrator answer and there are other users that disagree. The next sentence for a different volunteer. Of course, if ] thinks he can do better than other users and that he can represent them, I will proceed. ] (]) 03:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	::::::: I don't think I'm better than other people; anyway, you should be presenting your arguments more cleanly, possibly with alternative/additional references, if they're available. Just as an advice. — ] (] \| ]) 03:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	: What about of the debian-private mailing list (which is part of this ), for example? That makes it look completely different when compared to the conspiracy theories presented by 84.127.80.114. — ] (] \| ]) 02:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	:: Can anyone cite or explain these so called "conspiracy theories"? How does an article about a General Resolution and a user reply compare to the actual General Resolution? ] (]) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	I have received an answer from the administrator. Please try to ]. As I said, I am trying to improve a Misplaced Pages article. I know there is a reason users acted that way. It is difficult to accept the truth. Maybe I presented too much material at once. But criticism is actually a good thing. Misplaced Pages has its ] and users are still in the project. I will try to reintroduce the material more slowly.

	My intent is to not cite too many references and keep the changes within a reasonable size. Of course, I hope users can provide more useful feedback if they think further explanations are necessary.

	The administrator made a content challenge in the ]. I would like to request the assistance of ].
	: Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private.<ref>{{cite web \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-private/ \|title = Private discussions among developers \|publisher = Debian \|accessdate = 2014-02-14}}</ref>
	The reference proves debian-private existence. A reference in the next paragraph will show one decision. I do not know if security decisions are made in debian-private. As I understand, it is absurd to criticize security decisions done privately. Is it disputed that Debian makes many non-security decisions via debian-private?

	Because there are no objections, I will add the previous sentence about expulsion. ] (]) 12:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

	I have contacted administrator ] again. ] wrote "They can alternatively be forcefully dismissed from their position when necessary.". This is a good chance to see the reaction from the other editors. ] (]) 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

	I would like to request the assistance of ] about the changes I am trying to make. His feedback is far better than the silence of everyone else. I do not find fair that ] has to do the work reverters have not done. I will not blame him if he remains silent. Discussions on this talk page are not going anywhere, thus I should start using the noticeboard.

	I repeat my last question: is it disputed that Debian makes many non-security decisions via debian-private? ] (]) 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

	: Well, unfortunately I have no first-hand insights regarding the way Debian development works internally, and what actually goes through the debian-private mailing list, for example; therefore, I can rely only on published sources, like . See, 84.127.80.114, majority of your edits did look like some kind of revealing the conspiracy theories, and people tend to react badly to those; however, very few editors were willing to discuss the whole thing and provide references. To me, that's strange, but it's not my call to draw any conclusions here. — ] (] \| ]) 22:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

	:: Insight is not required, just neutrality and will to accept whatever is true. Revealing facts about "decisions" and "private" does sound like a conspiracy theory. I already stated my intent but I guess I should provide further explanations.
	:: I think we can agree on these facts. debian-private exists for private discussion. This private status is important enough that a General Resolution was necessary.
	:: The controversy does not lie in those time-sensitive messages or with personal information. The criticism comes because of messages related to decisions.
	:: That view about debian-private should be included, it would be representative. Can we reliably assume that the reply is actually from Joe Wreschnig (piman)? ] (]) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

	: Hey Sven, is that you? This style reminds me of those discussions on the Debian mailing lists, maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The onus is on the person who adds content to make sure that that content abides by the relevant policies and guidelines. If you've read up on these, just go ahead and try again. If the content is acceptable, it will stay; otherwise someone will probably remove it. --] (]) 17:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

	:: Patterns emerge indeed. That would explain why I was blocked.
	:: I see ] knows Sven Luther from long ago. May he could help when I address the Sven Luther case later.
	:: I am aware of the burden of evidence. I do not expect ] to reveal anything not published already. I was asking about the provided , where Don Armstrong confirms that "Bans are published as they are done with reasoning to debian-private and are subject to the oversight of Debian Developers." I guess the reference should be near the "many decisions" sentence. ] (]) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

	While ]'s change restores the neutrality, the fact is inaccurate. The project leader cannot expel developers directly, as explained in section 8.1.2; only delegates (and resolutions) can. I still believe my wording is better. Perhaps it should be added that "A project leader cannot expel developers directly." The "when necessary" is noise, but I guess consensus is better than perfection. ] (]) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

	: D'oh! Is there an end to that bureaucracy? Project leaders, delegates, resolutions, general resolutions... What's next? — ] (] \| ]) 20:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

	: The paragraphs could be changed to:
	:: Debian Developers may resign their positions at any time by orphaning the packages they were responsible for and sending a notice to the developers and the ] maintainer (so that their upload authorization can be revoked).
	:: Existing developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates when necessary. A project leader cannot expel developers directly.<ref name="constitution" />
	: Is this acceptable? ] (]) 20:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

			Being a Linux distribution Debian consists almost entirely of free and open-source software written by 3rd parties. But some software is being developed by Debian, e.g. ], the ], ], and maybe some other stuff. Not sure whether this Debian-own software should get an own section. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em black">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:41, 29 August 2016
	] has been the only one contributing to the discussion and he did not revert my edits in the first place. There are currently 344 watchers to this page as well as to the article. I infer that users know there is a discussion. As I said, I will reintroduce the material more slowly. Because of this ], may I assume consensus and start committing the changes? ] (]) 21:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

			== No longer free software/open source? ==
	: You may not. Read ]. This states that an editor may withdraw from a discussion or debate after having made their position clear and that should they not argue or debate further does not constitute silence, or consensus. This also includes reverting the edit. Likewise if you debate this point, should I not respond it is not a case of ].
	: ] (]) 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

	I ~~would~~ ~~like~~ to ~~invite~~ ~~those~~ ~~interested~~ ~~to participate in~~ this ]. ] (]) 21:56, 1 ~~March~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		It includes non-free firmware in the installer. Is this already mentioned? ] (]) 12:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
	:For those interested, the material has been re-tagged (as part of the dispute) as violating Misplaced Pages's policies by the ]. Therefore it cannot be used, or placed on the ] page, with no compromises possible. ] (]) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
	::Correction: I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. My only "power" is that of persuasion and anyone is free to ignore me. DRN was set up this way purposely, so that we can be a good starting place for those with content disputes. --] (]) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

			:I do not know if these links
	: Like I said in the case, I request reverters to let me work an acceptable version with ] or another editor willing to discuss. Resuming the work, I would like to add:
	:: Although expulsion has happened in the past,<ref>{{cite mailing list \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00068.html \|title = Re: Questions to the candidates \|mailinglist=debian-vote \|date = 2007-03-04 \|quote = This was just hours before expulsion.}}</ref> other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans<ref>{{cite mailing list \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/01/msg00005.html \|title = Re: Sven Luther, report of the mediation attempt and further actions \|mailinglist=debian-project \|date = 2007-01-03 \|quote = I'm asking Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists.}}</ref> or account locking.<ref>{{cite mailing list \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00241.html \|title = Re: Expulsion process: Sven Luther - Decision \|mailinglist=debian-project \|date = 2007-03-28 \|quote = we do not expell Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year.}}</ref>
	: The paragraph would look like I {{Diff2\|598771593\|showed}} in the case. ] (]) 22:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

			https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
	* Please see ''']'''. --] (]) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

			https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171742/https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
	I am trying to request an arbitration case. The request is currently in my ], so feel free to make statements there. ] (]) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

			https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html
	As I {{oldid2\|600572625\|Case request declined\|said}}, the Arbitration Committee has spoken. Dogma: refusal to discuss is not a conduct issue.

			https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171923/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html
	It is RfC time. According to this very {{oldid2\|600205917\|talk page}}, three article policies must be met: ], ] and ]. While I wait for {{Diff2\|600572905\|more information}}, I think 1 simultaneous request is a safe assumption.

			are already mentioned in the article or now, but some information may also need to be changed to reflect the changes in the policy of Debian.
	Any comments before proceeding? ] (]) 10:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

			I hope I'm using the talk page correctly.
	I think it is worth noting that the does no longer list former developers and many of those with their account locked. We cannot see ], Thiemo Seufer and this controversial Sven Luther anymore. I am curious about whether those locked developers were expelled eventually.

			I do not yet know where I should place this information about the policy change in Debian.
	Assuming that ] mentioned is actually from Joe Wreschnig (who is no longer listed as well), the answer to "There are what, like 3000 of us now?" is no. There is no evidence that Debian has ever reached 2000 developers, including former ones. ] (]) 20:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

			Other users may know where the best place in this article is to place the references.
	: Well, putting together many people and steering them into the same direction has always been full of troubles. In such environments, there will always be those who had their feelings hurt, or who experienced lack of justice. That's life, and life sucks; in many cases, unfortunately, ]. — ] (] \| ]) 20:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

			I think near the top changing
	:: ] replied. I am still trying to improve the article. Someone cares. No fuck, no life. ] (]) 21:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

			"Since its founding,"
	=== References ===
	{{Reflist-talk\|close=1\|colwidth=30em}}

			to
	== RfC: WP:NOR/WP:VERIFY - Expulsion event ==

			"Since its founding till 2022,"
	{{rfc\|sci\|rfcid=B524297}}
	Regarding this proposed clause:
	: expulsion has happened in the past,<ref>{{cite mailing list \|url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00068.html \|title = Re: Questions to the candidates \|mailinglist=debian-vote \|date = 2007-03-04 \|quote = This was just hours before expulsion.}}</ref>

			And putting the links in a "ref" may be a way to show the change.
	The source is a message from Aigars Mahinovs, a member of the Debian organization. He is talking about Ted Walter (Jonathan Walther) who is no longer a member of the Debian organization.
	Current members are listed in a .

			Though there may be a better way to link to the change.
	Is this source reliable and directly supporting the proposed clause?

			] (]) 21:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk\|close=1}}
			: I'm sorry but that's not a ]. Debian an install image with proprietary firmware long before 2022, and the FSF's disavowal of Debian long before that date. "Since its founding" may not be accurate, but "until 2022" is definitely incorrect. ] (]) 11:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
			::I've updated it to a better synthesis that talks about how Debian generally follows FOSS principles but includes some proprietary software. ] (]) 03:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

			== Debian latest software version ==
	=== Survey ===
	Please do not add threaded replies to this section.
	<!-- *'''Yes''', my reason. ~~~~ -->
	<!-- *'''No''', my reason. ~~~~ -->

			Latest version as of 2/13/2024 is 12.5 (not 12.4) ] (]) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
	*'''No'''. The phrase ''"expulsion has happened in the past"'' does not belong in this article. No other open source project contains such details about the project's internal politics. Furthermore, the cited source doesn't support the claim, directly or indirectly. Two people agreeing that one should leave "just hours before expulsion" does not actually establish that any expulsion has ever actually occurred. --] (]) 07:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

			== Debian Logo ==
	*'''No'''. I agree with ]'s points. That is, this text is not encyclopedic. Additionally: 1) this source is a ] one, not from a ], 2) if this text was encyclopedic, it would have to be handled carefully, according to ] (I'm assuming the person who was being expelled is still alive). 3) The text with the references supplied violates ], so clearly does not belong in the article. ] (]) 10:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

			The article claims that the "genie bottle" was originally part of the logo and fell out of use. That seems to me to be either misleading or simply incorrect. When the logo was originally designed, there were two versions, one for public use and one for official use. The public use one was the one with the bottle, and the official one was the swirl only. Shortly after that logo design won the competition, it was decided to swap the meaning of both logos (one of the reasons being that is was weird that the official only use logo was a subset of the public one).
	=== Threaded discussion ===
			The official logo guidelines still show that the bottle version still exists and is reserved for official use.
	Feel free to add threaded replies here.

			So it's not that the bottle version "was effectively superseded", it simply was not the correct logo to use anymore. ] (]) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
	* '''The question is flawed''' as is the RfC title. Even if there is a consensus that the source is reliable and directly supports the proposed edit, that alone would not allow 84.127.80.114 to insert it into the article. The statement "The scientific name of the ] is Oncorhynchus mykiss" is directly supported by ''Trout and Salmon of North America'' by Behnke and Tomelleri, and that book is a reliable source, but if I were to insert it into ], the consensus would be that it is not suitable. 84.127.80.114 needs to ask whether it is suitable for the Debian article instead of asking a loaded question. (Note: you are allowed to improve the question in an RfC while it is running as long as it is not done in a deceptive manner that invalidates existing responses.) --] (]) 01:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:: I know what I have asked. As I {{Diff2\|600576527\|said}}, three article policies must be met. If ] has any further requirements, speak now. There is no such thing as ]. ] (]) 04:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::NOTE: This is my last response to 84.127.80.114; I refuse to waste any more time on this. It is '''NOT''' true that simply meeting selected requirements means that we must include the material. Meeting those policies is ] There is an overwhelming consensus against any and all of 84.127.80.114's proposed changes, including this one. --] (]) 07:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::: So ] does not specify further requirements. I should note that ], the uninvolved volunteer,{{Diff2\|597843673}} was the one advising to file a RfC.{{Diff2\|598823465}}{{Diff2\|600167029}} Now the user is trying to disrupt this RfC that is supposed to get opinions from outside editors. Overwhelming consensus... any actual diff about this RfC question? ] (]) 08:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::This RfC is young. Only three editors have made statements. And based on those three statements, the source and the text are found not to be worthy of inclusion in this article. I note, I'm an outside editor, new to this discussion. ] (]) 10:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:20, 5 July 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debian article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Debian is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Debian has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 3, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 6, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
December 4, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 24, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 28, 2014.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the name of the Debian* operating system is a combination of the first names of its creator Ian Murdock and his then-girlfriend Debra?*
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This

level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linux Top‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (Sid Phillips) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Software by the Debian project

Being a Linux distribution Debian consists almost entirely of free and open-source software written by 3rd parties. But some software is being developed by Debian, e.g. deb (file format), the Debian installer, Advanced Packaging Tool, and maybe some other stuff. Not sure whether this Debian-own software should get an own section. User:ScotXW 18:41, 29 August 2016

No longer free software/open source?

It includes non-free firmware in the installer. Is this already mentioned? Alohaidled (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not know if these links

https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171742/https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171923/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html

are already mentioned in the article or now, but some information may also need to be changed to reflect the changes in the policy of Debian.

I hope I'm using the talk page correctly.

I do not yet know where I should place this information about the policy change in Debian.

Other users may know where the best place in this article is to place the references.

I think near the top changing

"Since its founding,"

"Since its founding till 2022,"

And putting the links in a "ref" may be a way to show the change.

Though there may be a better way to link to the change.

Other Cody (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not a proper synthesis. Debian distributed an install image with proprietary firmware long before 2022, and the FSF's disavowal of Debian also existed long before that date. "Since its founding" may not be accurate, but "until 2022" is definitely incorrect. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've updated it to a better synthesis that talks about how Debian generally follows FOSS principles but includes some proprietary software. Dexcube (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Debian latest software version

Latest version as of 2/13/2024 is 12.5 (not 12.4) 27.110.206.46 (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Debian Logo

The article claims that the "genie bottle" was originally part of the logo and fell out of use. That seems to me to be either misleading or simply incorrect. When the logo was originally designed, there were two versions, one for public use and one for official use. The public use one was the one with the bottle, and the official one was the swirl only. Shortly after that logo design won the competition, it was decided to swap the meaning of both logos (one of the reasons being that is was weird that the official only use logo was a subset of the public one). The official logo guidelines still show that the bottle version still exists and is reserved for official use.

So it's not that the bottle version "was effectively superseded", it simply was not the correct logo to use anymore. Joghurt42 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: