Re: rms on debian
>>>>> "Diego" == Diego Calleja García <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't
>> have links to their site on www.gnu.org.
Diego> I was going to say....well. Better I'll shut up. Some people just
Diego> can't learn.
Learn what? Or is it that you can't learn?
Different people have different opinions, and the fact that www.gnu.org
decided not to have a link to Debian means that the crews in www.gnu.org
agreed to RMS about not having Debian listed is a good idea, even though GNU
is the one who started Debian. And www.gnu.org does not represent RMS
alone, but instead a group of followers who are pushing the ideals of GNU.
FSF is not about getting something usable as soon as possible. If that is
the case, we don't need GNU, since Unix had always been available (although
probably with a fee and unsatisfying license). It's a political movement,
and being such it wants the largest number of people know about the
political ends. Having the most people using Linux or even GNU software is
*not* the motivation of GNU. So if some existing distribution doesn't
suggest the use of proprietary software *at all*, it is simply natural for
GNU to promote that, than to promote something that *does* suggest the use
of those proprietary software (people would say, "proprietary software are
good and necessary---even the software distribution promoted by primary
proponents like FSF suggests the use of them). Frankly, I don't find
anything wrong or sad about it, and I don't find it difficult to continue to
use Debian as a result of that. Of course, moving non-free software out of
Debian is better, but it's so hard to get there.