FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Gobuntu Developer

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-17-2008, 03:36 PM
"Dave Crossland"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Hi,

I'm going offline for a week tomorrow, so apologies for the length, I
wanted to get my thoughts out there.

On 16/04/2008, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> > Gobuntu uses Epiphany as its default browser, and moving the Firefox
> > package to restricted seems to resolve the problem of making it
> > unavailable to Gobuntu but available 'out of the box' to Ubuntu.
>
> We don't consider Firefox's perfectly legitimate request not to have
> modified versions of the software confused with versions they are involved
> with, directly or indirectly, a restriction on freedom.

"Anyone who thinks it's a trademark issue has been baffled by the
bullshit emanating from the Mozilla Corporation ... The copyright
license governing
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/other-licenses/branding/firefox/
does not permit modification or redistribution. That's it. Really.
Anyone who claims the issue is more complicated than that is either
misinformed or lying."
- http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/10/18/gobuntu-has-already-failed

> So it would be inappropriate for us to move Firefox to
> the "restricted" component, because it is no more restricted than Epiphany.

My understanding is that Gobuntu's goal is to "encourage copyleft
thinking in areas beyond code" and its first release did that as best
it could on the CD image. Firefox was included in that image, but
there are parts of Firefox which are not modifiable, and even though
they are not functional parts of the program, Gobuntu's goal means
Firefox should not be included.

You said that the fastest way to do this for the CD image is to not
include Firefox in the desktop seed, which has been done for Gobuntu
Hardy afaik, and is a good move imo.

(Please explain why Firefox is it not the default browser in Gobuntu
now, if I've misunderstood.)

Indeed, I expect that the "free software only install" feature on
Ubuntu CDs announced on this list this week means that regular Ubuntu
CDs have become what Gobuntu Fiesty was.

In order to build on its success to date and serve the software
freedom community better going forward, Gobuntu's scope now needs to
shift from the CD to the package repositories.

gNewSense evolved the same way; first they built a "100% free
software" 6.06 CD, then they picked through the package repository by
hand and ejected anything with propriety software inside.

Shifting from the CD to the package repositories means Gobuntu ought
not to have Firefox available from its package repository components
for the same reasons it does not ship it out of the box.

I say the fastest way to do this is to move it to the restricted
component; the tainted Ubuntu distributions include this component on
their CDs, and Canonical provides its commercial support for packages
in there. This has an unsightly effect of tarring Firefox with the
"proprietary" brush, but like shipping Epiphany in Gobuntu Hardy, it
is a short term measure.

The long term measure is to re-architect the Ubuntu repository backend
with "meta source" packages, and the metasource for Firefox would
build 4 packages: 2 for Firefox as source and binary (same as today's)
and 2 for WWWhatever (same as gNewSense' BurningDog and Debian's
IceWeasel). At that point Gobuntu would switch its default browser
back to WWWhatever from Epiphany, and Firefox would go into a new
repository component, "trademarked" say.

> Freedom is not about
> the rights to use someone's trademarks, it's about the right to modify the
> code, which is untarnished. The FSF has a similar view, if I recall, in
> regard to the GFDL.

My understanding of Richard's personal views are that all bitstreams
ought to be non-commercially redistributable worldwide, and that
different levels of freedom-to-modify are appropriate for the three
kinds of works we can classify:

* Works of Opinion should not be modified for a long time. (Essays,
science journals, blog posts, copyright licenses, political manifestos)

* Works of Art should be non-commercially modifiable for a short time,
then commercially modifiable. (Novels, music, paintings, photography)

* Functional Works should always be commercially modifiable.
(programs, encyclopedias, textbooks, dictionaries, typeface designs,
icons used in toolbars)

The FSF reflects his views in this because the GNU project has manuals
that are mostly functional works, wrapped in words of opinion. Its
easy to imagine someone heavily modifying GCC and shipping it with an
updated manual that replaces "free software" with "open source," and
the FSF wants to prevents that. Thus the FDL was drawn up, and the FSF
doesn't maintain opinions on non-software issues outside its software
manuals. (This left room for Creative Commons to fill, which Larry
derived from Richard's conceptual framework I just described.)

So the FSF agrees that Mozilla doesn't restrict software freedom with
its copyright policy, because the icons in question are not functional
parts of the software.

But none of this is directly relevant to Gobuntu, because Gobuntu's
goal has always been to exclude bitstreams without freedom-to-modify.
That includes Firefox artwork and FSF manuals.

The "bitstream" philosophy espoused by http://freedomdefined.org is
that any bitstream ought to have the "preferred form of modification"
and "four freedoms" available to the public. To me, this makes more
sense than Richard's categories; programming was the first "digital
culture," and as all other aspects of culture become digitised, the
new abilities offered by the new medium (in the McLuhan sense) come to
apply to them too. Software and functional information like
encyclopedias were just digitised earlier than the rest.

OpenBSD, Debian and gNewSense are all also moving towards this goal,
but have slightly different sets of views on what constitutes that
freedom. OpenBSD aspires to not include copyleft restrictions, Debian
doesn't include anti-DRM restrictions (ie, Creative Commons licensed
works). Gobuntu does include CC stuff but not FSF manuals; gNewSense
includes both.

Gobuntu is therefore filling a space in the continuum of distributions
with a focus on freedom-to-modify, and that position is suitable for
its goal as an upstream of efforts like gNewSense.

Other significant differentiators are the reputable worldwide
commercial support for Gobuntu and its membership in the Ubuntu
family.

Fedora and OpenBSD's bugtrackers/repositories don't support
proprietary software, but the CodecBuddy and BSD ports system
facilitate using proprietary software out of the box. Debian's
software doesn't facilitate proprietary software out of the box, but
the Debian bugtracker/repositories support it. gNewSense don't do
either, so the FSF recommends it and not the others.

Gobuntu's position on the continuum is by way of its goals; will be a
lot stronger when it no longer includes or facilitates using
proprietary software. ("not facilitating" is not "preventing" or
"forbidding") But it is inescapably tied to the Ubuntu archives, brand
and Canonical's launchpad bugtracker - which all rest on a value
system that using proprietary software is acceptable.

For some people, like the FSF, that is a dealbreaker for recommending
Gobuntu - just like Debian. That means that gNewSense will carry on,
but the size of the delta between it and Gobuntu will be reduced,
which is positive.

But for other people, these are positive things: an OS "for human
beings" with reputable worldwide commercial support outweighs the
association with proprietary software.

Mark Pilgrim's comment on gNewSense -
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/11/06/gnewsense - is indicative
of a trend I've seen where people are interested in installing a fully
free OS, seeing how much of a pain in the ass it is, and switching
back to their current distro. As time passes, Ubuntu users are likely
to stick with Gobuntu rather than switch back, and recommend Gobuntu
to others.

Maybe if Gobuntu has free software source packages, gNewSense people
will contribute more. But maybe Ubuntu's association with proprietary
software is too entrenched, so gNewSense people will never get close
to the project. Because Ubuntu is spearheading the rapid growth of
GNU/Linux users, I think if it hangs in there, it will find people get
more into it.

> In addition to that, I deeply dislike the restricted component, and want to
> see it get smaller, not bigger.

Wonderful to hear this :-)

Sadly though, because there are various non-free pieces in main (call
them "slightly controversial" if you will) restricted must
neccessarily get bigger before it gets smaller.

> We specifically don't put other proprietary
> apps in there, if I remember correctly, we limit that to things related to
> hardware enablement, which is what was agreed when Ubuntu was chartered. We
> have multiverse and a third-party apps repository, which are more
> appropriate for those, but nothing from those can be on the CD which we
> ship, because that would be promoting the apps we specifically don't want to
> promote.

Popping Firefox into Restricted is a quick fix. Setting up a new
"trademarked" repository and moving things from main that ought not to
be available in Gobuntu isn't a massive change, compared to
re-engineering the way packages are built, which is something I don't
underestimate - I'd expect to see it by the next LTS if you said it
was worth doing.

> > I'm unconvinced that the social problem of proprietary software is
> > different for drivers and applications.
>
> I find our approach more honest, even as I dislike restricted in the
> first place.

What I meant was, from the start, Ubuntu has treated drivers and
applications differently to drive adoption without totally
compromising its software freedom ethic.

Application-level packages are split between totally-free and
some-parts-proprietary, such as the gstreamer ones.

Splitting packages at the driver level - either with low tech
duplication of effort, or with high tech metasource packages - does
not interfere with driving massive user adoption and then opening
dialogue with vendors who require such adoption to care.

> > > We don't have the resources in Canonical to maintain two different
> > > packages of the Firefox code. Nobody else has stepped up to do the
> > > work.
>
> > I take the view that Ubuntu should have a single "meta source" package
> > that generates Ubuntu and Gobuntu source and binary packages in the
> > small number of packages in main/universe that require this, and that
> > security patches therefore happen once.
>
> If you could demonstrate that in action for Firefox, the kernel, openoffice
> and some of the others, then we could seriously consider adopting it.

I guess this means you don't have the resources in Canonical to
engineer "meta source" packages, and are asking me to step up.

Sadly, I'm a junior systems administrator and aspiring font developer,
not a software engineer, so I lack the skillset to step up. If I had
the skillset, I guess as a freelancer I'd need the kind of familiarity
and access to Ubuntu's server/network architecture that only Canonical
employees or existing senior Ubuntu commuity members have. That is,
the people already generously working on Gobuntu.

If you want to shift the budget for Gobuntu to better use elsewhere,
perhaps the Gobuntu community can help fund the work. The GNU Herds
website (or the FSF job site, or indeed implementing
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/launchpad/+spec/bountypledges :-)
offers a way to find a new freelancer, and Pledgebank offers a way for
the community to raise the amount required.

Or the work could just be done on a slower timescale to lower the cost.

--
Regards,
Dave

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-17-2008, 05:52 PM
Markus Laire
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
>> I hope that by Gobuntu 8.10 or 9.04, the Ubuntu package hosting system
>> will create 3 packages from their mixed free/proprietary sources: 2
>> binary packages as now, and a 3rd source package without the
>> proprietary software.
>>
> Most source packages don't actually have non-free pieces, they have
> pieces that may be slightly controversial. For example, some code as
> text in the Linux kernel, or the Firefox requirement that one rename the
> software if one modifies it. We don't see those as issues worth
> splitting the source packages over, and different groups take different
> views. We are very careful not to put proprietary application code in
> userspace in Ubuntu, other people focus on other approaches.

I'd like to ask whether you consider this as one of those "slightly
controversial" pieces or not:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/218616


If the answer is "no", then I'd need to apologize about my somewhat
hostile attitude towards Ubuntu. (But I doubt this and I filed this bug
just to confirm the situation.)

If the answer is "yes", then unfortunately that would mean that pages
like "Our Philosophy" [1] and "Licensing" [2] are just empty words
which Ubuntu isn't going to follow in practice if the cost of doing so
would be too high (e.g. less functional hardware because of omitted
firmware), just like Debian.

[1] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy
[2] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing

--
Markus Laire

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-17-2008, 07:36 PM
Mark Shuttleworth
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Dave Crossland wrote:

I'm going offline for a week tomorrow, so apologies for the length, I
wanted to get my thoughts out there.


Thanks for a really good in-depth analysis of the spectrum of views
held by the different groups that are working on this. Have a great
holiday!



Mark



--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-17-2008, 09:30 PM
"Dave Crossland"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

On 16/04/2008, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think [gNewSense] gets the same level of security
> maintenance even then, though I could be mistaken

There isn't a security reason for folks to choose Ubuntu over
gNewSense - as long as 6.06 has security updates, gNewSense 6.06
mirrors its subset of Ubuntu packages within a few hours.

--
Regards,
Dave

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-17-2008, 11:15 PM
Zeth
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

On 17/04/2008, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com> wrote:
> In order to build on its success to date and serve the software
> freedom community better going forward, Gobuntu's scope now needs to
> shift from the CD to the package repositories.

From my perspective, putting no proprietary on the boot CD of Gobuntu
is great. However, I think one needs to carefully analyse what we mean
when we say "shift to the package repositories".

I think the aim must be to provide as information as possible to the
user about the ethical problems regarding certain packages, rather
than to have a book burning rally. It is all after all about the
software freedom of the user, and allowing them to follow their own
ethics on their own computer.

At my current day job, I got permission to use a free operating system
(GNU/Linux) instead of Windows. I use no proprietary kernel drivers,
however, I have to use one piece of proprietary user space software
(the SUN JAVA Runtime Environment) in order to do my job. Maybe my job
changes, or maybe the JRE finally becomes free software. Probably
both.

It is fine for Gobuntu to throw up lots of warnings and checkboxes,
but at some point it should allow the user to follow their own
conscience.

If it is unethical for media companies to build "Treacherous
computing" platforms and force them on users in the name of
"protecting copyright", it is equally unethical to build a
"Treacherous computing" platform in the name of software freedom. Just
because software freedom is a noble end, it does not follow that this
end justifies any means to get there.

I want a computer (and a world) free proprietary software. However,
some of the ideas proposed for Gobuntu and gNewSense sound quite scary
to me. We need to be careful not to throw the freedom baby out with
the proprietary bathwater.

> IceWeasel). At that point Gobuntu would switch its default browser
> back to WWWhatever from Epiphany, and Firefox would go into a new
> repository component, "trademarked" say.

Why? I like Epiphany, I like that Gobuntu has chosen Epiphany as the
default browser.

Epiphany is a browser that has grown up fully in the GNU/Linux world
(especially now it will remove the gecko dependency). Firefox started
as a proprietary Windows application which was more-or-less ported to
Linux. If you want a distribution that comes by default with Firefox
there are a thousand out-there, let's have one distribution that dares
to be different on this.

So I liked the idea that Gobuntu would be a showcase for technologies
from the Free Software/Open Source world, e.g. Epiphany rather than
Firefox, Ogg instead of MP3, Python instead of Mono, etc.

Best Wishes,
Zeth

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-18-2008, 01:00 AM
"Dave Crossland"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

On 18/04/2008, Zeth <theology@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the aim must be to provide as information as possible to the
> user about the ethical problems regarding certain packages, rather
> than to have a book burning rally. It is all after all about the
> software freedom of the user, and allowing them to follow their own
> ethics on their own computer.

Again: "not facilitating" is not "preventing" or "forbidding."

Please don't exaggerate what I am saying.

You can't disallow people from installing whatever they like. It's not
physically possible.

But you can facilitate it, and if you facilitate using proprietary
software, you are acting in a way that I and people like me, like
those at the FSF, will criticise.

> At my current day job, I got permission to use a free operating system
> (GNU/Linux) instead of Windows.

Great :-)

> I use no proprietary kernel drivers,
> however, I have to use one piece of proprietary user space software
> (the SUN JAVA Runtime Environment) in order to do my job. Maybe my job
> changes, or maybe the JRE finally becomes free software. Probably
> both.

Sad to hear this, I hope so too :-)

> It is fine for Gobuntu to throw up lots of warnings and checkboxes,
> but at some point it should allow the user to follow their own
> conscience.

All OS allow the user to follow their own conscience from the get-go.

> If it is unethical for media companies to build "Treacherous
> computing" platforms and force them on users in the name of
> "protecting copyright", it is equally unethical to build a
> "Treacherous computing" platform in the name of software freedom. Just
> because software freedom is a noble end, it does not follow that this
> end justifies any means to get there.

You are exaggerating what is suggested; no one is suggesting that kind of thing.

> I want a computer (and a world) free proprietary software. However,
> some of the ideas proposed for Gobuntu and gNewSense sound quite scary
> to me. We need to be careful not to throw the freedom baby out with
> the proprietary bathwater.

The point of Gobuntu is to throw out the proprietary bathwater. If
you're uncomfortable with this, or need non-free stuff for your job
and don't want to find another one, stick with Ubuntu :-)

> > IceWeasel). At that point Gobuntu would switch its default browser
> > back to WWWhatever from Epiphany, and Firefox would go into a new
> > repository component, "trademarked" say.
>
> Why? I like Epiphany, I like that Gobuntu has chosen Epiphany as the
> default browser.

Gobuntu switched to Epiphany because Firefox has non-modifiable parts.
If Firefox is made with 100% modifiable parts, I expect Gobuntu to
switch back.

I don't mind if it doesn't, that's just my expectation; and your
suggestion that Gobuntu showcase "homegrown" free browser technology
is worthy of consideration I think :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-18-2008, 12:19 PM
Toni Ruottu
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

A Debian source code package consists of multiple files:

- dsc file that contains meta-data
- tar.gz file published by the upstream
- diff file that does distribution specific changes

See below url for example
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/h/hello/hello_2.2-2.dsc

Maybe it would be possible to add a fourth file (say hello_2.2.sanitize)
defining rules for performing sanitation to make the source fit what
ever policy. The sanitation file could be optional.

--Toni


--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-18-2008, 03:35 PM
Tim Dobson
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Zeth wrote:
> I have to use one piece of proprietary user space software
> (the SUN JAVA Runtime Environment) in order to do my job. Maybe my job
> changes, or maybe the JRE finally becomes free software. Probably
> both.

apt-get install icedtea

you probably know more about it than me, but if not:

it is the version of Java taken from Sun's release of most of it's code
for Java and a few bits of one of the java clones patching a few bits up.

It's not perfect but it may work.

--
www.tdobson.net
----
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-18-2008, 03:59 PM
Tim Dobson
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> The real issue is that there is nobody who identifies strongly enough
> with the goals as articulated - "A platform within the Ubuntu family
> which emphasises freedom" - to devote their time, care and attention to
> making it work. Doing it within Ubuntu is in some senses easier, because
> updates are largely free and many packages are "just there". But in
> other senses it is harder, because you have to defend those changes
> during the development cycle while other people are changing the things
> that are important to them.
>
> The gNewSense model, which waits till an LTS release of Ubuntu is done,
> *then* makes changes, is much more straightforward. You take a static
> snapshot, and then make the changes you want. Unfortunately, the
> gNewSense process tends to be described as "fixing Ubuntu", as if there
> was something wrong with Ubuntu, when Ubuntu and Debian have done most
> of the work to make that approach possible in the first place. It is
> also not really possible to have the same release cycle with the
> gNewSense model as with the Gobuntu model.

Wise Words.

I've been lurking for a while, and perhaps I have something useful to say.

Do you think people would be more willing to work on a freedom
emphasising Ubuntu derivative, if things like launchpad[1] and the
infrastructure to cope with a free version existed?

If the infrastrucute changes, were implemented so that we could have
muliple packages & meta packages for certain thing sand if the launchpad
issue didn't exist,

Do you think people would identify more?

(Aside) I have been using Gobuntu Hardy now for a fairly long time and I
can confirm that annoyingly controversial pieces of software like
Firefox, Thunderbird & Sunbird are all available easily. It's a pity we
can't put some energy into the gnuzilla project to solve that one. -
Icecat 3.0b5 debs in hardy? that would be cool.

(Still Aside) Unlike some free software developers and activists, I *do*
suffer from latest and greatest syndrome, which is one of the reasons I
like Gobuntu. Unfortunatly, I don't think I would recommend it
particularly either, though i would be loathed to suggest a critical
newbie use a cleaned up dapper snapshot.

[1] I hate to bring it up like a big stick in every debate, but for some
it is understandably a big issue.

--
www.tdobson.net
----
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-18-2008, 05:14 PM
Zeth
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

On 18/04/2008, Tim Dobson <personalwebsite@army.com> wrote:
> Do you think people would be more willing to work on a freedom
> emphasising Ubuntu derivative, if things like launchpad[1]
> [1] I hate to bring it up like a big stick in every debate, but for some
> it is understandably a big issue.

As far as I know there is nothing in Launchpad that requires a Gobuntu
desktop to have any type of proprietary software on it. So Launchpad
is not really relevant to this discussion; as I wrote before on this
topic, we have to think about what we mean when we say "Launchpad is
not free" or "Launchpad is not open source":
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2007-July/000054.html

According to my "smoke and mirrors" conspiracy theory, Launchpad is
no less free than the Debian homepage, Gentoo homepage or FSF
homepage.

> (Aside) I have been using Gobuntu Hardy now for a fairly long time and I
> can confirm that annoyingly controversial pieces of software like
> Firefox, Thunderbird & Sunbird are all available easily.

But not as easily as Epiphany, a more free and generally more superior
browser, and Evolution a superior mail reader. If one is not
influenced by branding and spin, why would you want to use slow
ugly-looking XUL apps over fast beautiful GTK native ones?

(Sunbird I will concede as it is one of the only free software desktop
applications that has working CalDaV support).

> (Still Aside) Unlike some free software developers and activists, I *do*
> suffer from latest and greatest syndrome, which is one of the reasons I
> like Gobuntu.

Yup agreed. Do we actually know that significantly more people are
using gnewsense than Gobuntu? I doubt it. Show me the numbers. Show me
the numbers

> Unfortunately, I don't think I would recommend it particularly either,

But is that more a hardware thing? That currently Gobuntu and
gnewsense do not currently works in many computers or real life
situations? Rather than Gobuntu is untrustworthy or not free enough?

> If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
> still has one object.
> If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
> has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw

Nice sig!

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org