Discussion - non-free software removal
First, I do not think the proposed GR does any good. There
are reasons why non-free exists.
Some need for some non-free software is sadly still
a reality. Luckily this become fewer and fewer and
for private usage almost everything is replaced.
Using the infrastructure of Debian for maintaining
those packages, helps keeping the the nagative impacts
of this low. People pushing Debian in corporate environments
often do this, so that their work there is easier and they
can spend more time for free software. People forced
by this to maintain packages need less time for it
and can thus spend more time on free software.
Thus I think non-free is some ugly duty, so that
one can concentrate on free software.
I can understand that some people have problems
with non-free. But I think by removing it, one
does much more bad then good.
Much more worthwile would to evaluate the current
software in non-free. I guess netscape could be
thrown out. (At least, when phoenix enters, there
is absolutly no need for it any longer, that I know of)
For many/most of the packages there will sadly enough
be a reason to keep them. If there is nothing near a
replacement, few can be done.
For those with something near a replacement or something
envolving that could become a replacement, some hint
in the description of the non-free package would be a good
thing.
I think some rule forcing such hint would do much more
good then removing them. If they are on computers
related with Debian or will find some other place, most
people will first search for their name. If they find it
only outside, they will add some more apt-lines, only
causing less security for them and more work for them and
the person needing to maintain the package.
If the package is in Debian and prominently has some hints
for replacements in progress, the user might more easily
try the replacement if it already has what he needs.
As the non-free package is easily and fast installed and
he has neighter to search for it nor change config-files,
the user has the time to evaluate the replacement. If
he only knows the program has to be installed until some
(normaly too near) deathline and it will be complicated to
do so, I doubth out of personal experience, that the user
will have much time to evaluate the alternative and
persuade people to use this instead. ("Try this one first,
when it does not work, the other thing is installed by one
line." stops in my experience calls quite fast.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve
nor will he ever receive either. (Benjamin Franklin)
Reply to: