Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 28 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
> I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use
> patterns
> -- not just at the command line, but in overall terms.
>
> And a related question is: what free software effort would be harmed
> by putting ndiswrapper in config?
Err, wrong question. End users benefit from having this
interface to networking drivers around; it gives them more freedom in
dealing with hardware they might not have a choice about.
Helping users make use of hardware they are saddled with adds
to the quality of implementation; and since users come high on our
list of things to care about, we should not be looking at "is some
free software effort damaged if we move things out of debian, even if
users selecting just debian (like, CD based users in areas with poor
network connectivity) have to jump through hoops"
Also, you need to look at how many future efforts you are
encouraging -- or discouraging -- by your treetment of this freely
licensed module wrapping tool chain.
If ndiswrapper is not in my universe, I may never get around
to writing fee windows drivers that could also be used on Linux :)
manoj
not happy about the quote picking ai
--
Every absurdity has a champion who will defend it.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: