1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Mirror%20layout%2C%20round%20two&In-Reply-To=%3C4CFC6E5D.5060202%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="001619.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="001622.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Mirror%20layout%2C%20round%20two&In-Reply-To=%3C4CFC6E5D.5060202%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two">andr55 at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Mon Dec 6 06:02:21 CET 2010</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001619.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001622.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1621">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1621">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1621">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1621">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Maarten Vanraes a écrit :
><i>
</I>><i> Op zaterdag 04 december 2010 21:32:51 schreef andre999:
</I>>><i> Dale Huckeby a écrit :
</I>>>><i> On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote:
</I>>>>><i> John a écrit :
</I>>>>>><i> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:28:26 +0100
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> Maarten Vanraes wrote:
</I>>>>>>><i> Op vrijdag 03 december 2010 10:45:05 schreef Ahmad Samir:
</I>>>>>>><i> [...]
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>><i> The kernel uses the word "tainted" when it detects the nvidia
</I>>>>>>>><i> proprietary module for example, (which admittedly gave me a bit of
</I>>>>>>>><i> shock the first time I saw it :)).
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>><i> Heh, i had the same reaction.
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>><i> From all the proposed names, I think "tainted" is the best one, as
</I>>>>>>>><i> the
</I>>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>><i> packages in there are in a "grey" zone, i.e. not totally illegal
</I>>>>>>>><i> everywhere, but illegal only in some places in the world. And in
</I>>>>>>>><i> reality the existence of a patent doesn't necessarily mean it's
</I>>>>>>>><i> enforceable in a court of law (the only way we'd know for sure is if
</I>>>>>>>><i> someone actually does try to sue)... my 0.02€ worth :)
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> Generally only potentially "illegal" in some countries.
</I>>>>><i> "Tainted" means contaminated, polluted. A lot stronger than
</I>>>>><i> potentially "illegal". (Really only actionable in a civil sense, not
</I>>>>><i> criminally illegal, as well.)
</I>>>>><i> A package could end up there due to an apparently credible rumour,
</I>>>>><i> later discredited. (Anyone remember SCO ?)
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> I agree. Problematic comes closer to "potentially illegal", so I looked
</I>>>><i> up some synonyms: ambiguous, debatable, dubious,
</I>>>><i> iffy, suspect, speculative, precarious, suspicious, uncertain,
</I>>>><i> unsettled, in addition to problematic itself. Personally
</I>>>><i> I like iffy, which is both short and to the point, but I think several
</I>>>><i> of these would do. WDYT?
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> Dale Huckeby
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> A much better set of choices.
</I>>><i> (Thanks for looking these up. Good idea.)
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Let's remember that the question for these packages is not the quality
</I>>><i> of their functioning - but rather the advisability to use them, for
</I>>><i> other reasons, in some countries.
</I>>><i> So I think that it is better to avoid words that could question the
</I>>><i> QUALITY of the packages.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Words in the list like
</I>>><i> ambiguous, debatable, problematic, and speculative
</I>>><i> avoid questioning the quality ... but could be too long or too formal.
</I>>><i> Or just not catchy enough ;)
</I>>><i> ("Iffy" might be ok - certainly catchy enough.)
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Additional words I found in Roget's thesaurus, along the same lines :
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Associated more with debatable :
</I>>><i> arguable, contestable, controvertible, disputable, questionable,
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Associated more with controversial :
</I>>><i> confutable, deniable, mistakable, moot
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Of these additional words, I think that "contestable", "disputable", and
</I>>><i> "controversial" are probably closest to the SENSE of the repositories.
</I>>><i> But maybe too formal ?
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Many of these words could be good choices.
</I>>><i> And maybe someone will come up with some more ?
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> my 2 cents :)
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> - André
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> i like speculative
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>That's not bad
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001619.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001622.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1621">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1621">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1621">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1621">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
