On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:55:20AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:39:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to > > > achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however, > > > I don't believe there are any other decisions I can make in this area. > > > > now that the Knights Lunar have proved that they are Holier Than > > Stallman, can they just get on with the job of killing debian > > quickly? watching and waiting for it to die slowly is both painful > > and unpleasant. > > Actually, this may be useful. If this inspires the pragmatists to go > make a "Debian Useful" variant that actually has documentation, > firmware, fonts, etc. then the fringe fanatics that want to spend all > of their time arguing over the Social Contract can do that. This, of > course, assumes that people worked on Debian because they were > interested in technical excellence. > > If instead, it turns out there are significant numbers of people who > believe their participation in Debian is really more about proving > that they are Holier Than Stallman, those that *are* interested in > making something useful for their users have their choice of either > (a) trying to see if they have the votes to shut-out the fanatics, (b) > try to build something useful that uses Debian as a base, and leaves > the insanity behind, or (c) join the Fedora project, or some other > distribution. False dilemma. My default assumption is that an overwhelming majority of Debian project members consider the SC to be an uncompromisable statement of goals. Certainly anybody who has joined the project in recent years had to state that they agree with it. You seem to be wrapping the "freedom doesn't actually matter" argument up in an prejudicial manner and just stopping there; I don't see what this is supposed to accomplish, especially here. If you think that a significant number of Debian developers would accept that argument, you're quite mistaken. [RMS doesn't matter, that's just your imagination (and rather strange that you should bring that up at all). Usefullness does not matter: we don't ship popular win32 applications despite them being useful to a not-insignificant portion of our users, and we ship lots of things that aren't useful, so it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for inclusion.] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature