On 02/07/12 05:49, Loui Chang wrote: > On Sun 01 Jul 2012 21:23 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sun 01 Jul 2012 23:08 +0800, Zero, Chien-An Cho wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> First of all, I am sorry to bring political issues to here. I have >>>> been using ArchLinux for years, deployed on many servers, though I'm >>>> not joining the community until now. The recent changes to the >>>> ArchLinux webpages (ex. Downloads, Mirror Status) is really offending >>>> Taiwanese people. I would like to bring up this issue, and preferably >>>> to resolve this issue. >>>> >>>> I have posted this message on the forum: >>>> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=144315 . The moderator >>>> suggested me to post on arch-general, so here it is. :) >>>> There is also a bug tracking issue submitted by other Taiwanese user >>>> that I'm requesting for reopen here: >>>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30444 >>>> >>>> The following text is the same as the post on forum, except a few >>>> modification to make text smoother. >>>> >>>> The recent changes on the download page named Taiwan as Taiwan, >>>> Province of China, which is not reflecting the truth that Taiwan is a >>>> independent country which having its own government. I think this >>>> might be caused by following the ISO-3166 country name list standard. >>>> However, I don't think ISO-3166 is a good list when it comes to the >>>> country name. >>>> >>>> Many open source communities have encountered this problem before. >>>> Most of them understand that ISO-3166 is not really a neutral list >>>> that we all hope for, and thus made switch to a separate maintained >>>> country list. For example, FreeBSD[1], Rails[2], Debian[3]. Many big >>>> commercial entities also opt not to use "Taiwan, PRC" in their country >>>> list, like: Apple[4], IBM[5], also try Google, Facebook, Twitter, et >>>> cetra. A possible solution might be using the country name list from >>>> ICU[6]. >>>> >>>> I believed the ArchLinux is trying to expand its user-base around the >>>> world, so a neutral country name list would be the best for the >>>> benefit of all of us, ArchLinux developers and users. As a Taiwanese >>>> ArchLinux user, I'm really happy to see that user base of ArchLinux is >>>> growing in Taiwan. Some educational institutions provide mirrors site >>>> in Taiwan, Wiki localized in Traditional Chinese in the recent years. >>>> I sincerely hope this issue can be resolved as soon as possible. Let's >>>> keep the issue simple and not flaming it, thanks. >>>> >>>> References: >>>> >>>> [1] FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=138672 >>>> [2] Rails: http://www.koziarski.net/archives/2008/9/24/countries-and-controversies/ >>>> [3] Debian: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg00798.html >>>> [4] Apple: http://www.apple.com/choose-your-country/ >>>> [5] IBM: http://www.ibm.com/planetwide/select/selector.html >>>> [6] ICU: http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/source/data/region/en.txt >>> >>> I agree. I'm very disappointed by the response of Dave Reisner on that >>> bug report. The reality is that the PRC does not have jurisdiction or >>> claim over Taiwan. When standards are false they should not be followed. >>> >>> Dave: Can you educate yourself a little about the Republic of China and >>> Taiwan vs the People's Republic of China, before making a final >>> decision? Thank you. >> >> This has been discussed a number of times. While no one has so far >> questioned the validity of the bug, the consensus seems to be that >> this should be taken upstream [0]. >> >> I hope it is clear that no offense is intended, and that we do not >> want to make any political judgments (and hence defer to the UN). >> >> [0]: <http://www.iso.org/iso/updates_on_iso_3166.html>. > > Gimme a break. These kind of political issues aren't solved by "taking > it upstream". Since when are politicians or people under the influence > of politics known for their outstanding adherence to logic and reason? > It's not such a simple technical thing that you can "take it upstream." > If you have any idea how the ISO works you will wake up to the fact of > how ridiculous that suggestion is. If Taiwan (ROC) can't get it to > happen, what do you expect of us? > > But as has been suggested maybe Arch should choose a different upstream > for this kind of information. Please open your mind a little, a false > standard is no standard at all. > Well... this discussion will go nowhere... And I should point out that most developers are now not subscribed from this list because of its low signal-to-noise ratio so this thread will likely not get to the right people. The solution is to find us a different upstream that has any sort of standards backing. This is just like Arch's policy with software. We do not patch because a feature is not the way we like it. Allan
