Talk:Debian

GA Review

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 miranda at: GA Review.

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.--agr (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't that better suitable for the Linux Gaming and maybe SteamOS articles? -- Dsimic (talk) 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 :) Skx7 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I do not know if this "SteamOS is a Debian derivative" fact should be in Debian, but it has been notable enough to appear in the project news. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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" 141.39.13.45 (talk) 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 "Developer recruitment, motivation, and resignation":

Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates. A project leader cannot expel developers directly. Although other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans or account locking. These events have already happened.

==== 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. The Debian Women project was found in 2004 to increase the participation of women in Debian.

However, given the lack of results, their activities have been questioned. The lack of female presence has been the target of jokes. Debian Women organizes positive discrimination events in an effort to encourage women. 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.

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

• Add to "Criticism":

Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private. 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. 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. Debian is accused of arbitrary bans. The reasons for the ban are sent to debian-private, therefore not available to the public.

Dissenting developers can be banned too. In 2007, Sven Luther openly disagreed with other developers including Anthony Towns. Sven Luther was among those against Dunc-Tank and its effect on Debian Etch. He complained about this and other subjects many times. His account was suspended and it is still locked. The suspension prevented him to work in the PowerPC port, which does not seem an appropriate solution. Sven Luther has not given up on the project yet.

This wording will be modified as discussion advances. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The undoing from 80.100.245.50 claims vandalism. As I understand, the content does meet Wikipedia 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

Rwxrwxrwx 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.

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

miranda 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• How is it "significant" that I know some Catalan? You should familiarise yourself with WP:NPA. And how do I have a "conflict of interest"? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Rwxrwxrwx 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. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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 WP:SOAPBOX 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 Wikipedia if you have an axe to grind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Joy is a Debian developer. But he may help anyway. Please tell what "factoids" should be included and suggest a better English wording. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The users removing content are still refusing to talk, challenge the material or prove the opposite; Rwxrwxrwx has challenged the WP:COI 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. WP:REF 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 Wikipedia article. The dispute resolution is not advancing. Can we start moving forward?

Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates.

Any objections?

In the meantime, I will restore the content. There has been not a single sensible explanation to remove it. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has been acquired, the content should not be on the Debian page see here mthinkcpp (talk) 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 mthinkcpp cannot handle criticism. This user did remove the C++ 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. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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.? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I ask Dsimic to check just the first sentence, the one I have written:

Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates.

This is in the Debian Constitution, section 3.2.2. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please keep to the point. Did I provide a fact and a reliable source? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did. What next? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not want to abuse Dsimic'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 Dsimic thinks he can do better than other users and that he can represent them, I will proceed. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What about this explanation of the debian-private mailing list (which is part of this 2005 article), for example? That makes it look completely different when compared to the conspiracy theories presented by 84.127.80.114. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 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? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have received an answer from the administrator. Please try to assume good faith. As I said, I am trying to improve a Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia has its own criticism page 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 reply. I would like to request the assistance of Joy.

Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private.

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. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have contacted administrator JamesBWatson again. mthinkcpp 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. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request the assistance of Dsimic 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 Dsimic 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? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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 this explanation. 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. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 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)? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 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. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Patterns emerge indeed. That would explain why I was blocked.

I see Joy 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 Joy to reveal anything not published already. I was asking about the provided reference, 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. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While Dsimic'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. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! Is there an end to that bureaucracy? Project leaders, delegates, resolutions, general resolutions... What's next? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 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 keyring 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.

Is this acceptable? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic 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 WP:SILENCE, may I assume consensus and start committing the changes? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You may not. Read WP:SILENCE#What_does_not_constitute_silence. 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 WP:SILENCE.

mthinkcpp (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to invite those interested to participate in this content dispute discussion. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, the material has been re-tagged (as part of the dispute) as violating Wikipedia's policies by the volunteer. Therefore it cannot be used, or placed on the Debian page, with no compromises possible. mthinkcpp (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Correction: I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)