use to be... Re: KDE

[Bruce Sass <bsass@bms.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>]

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> > 
> > > RMS wants to make a point, and his point is that it is realistic to use a
> > > completely free OS.  He'd like us to prove his point by providing an
> > > example of such.
> > Isn't that what GNU is about.  
> Yes.
> 
> Funnily enough, it's also precisely what Debian's about.  And we're in a
> position to do so.

No argument there... but why isn't GNU in the same position?

> > Why doesn't GNU prove his point?


> Why don't we?

Because Debian is not GNU.

Because presenting Debian in one way, namely as an organization that
believes in what GNU stands for without the fanatical rhetoric and
hardline stance, then switching over to a more GNU-like operation: may
alienate users who accept Debian because it is less radical and more
free than GNU; is an underhanded way to try and score a victory for the
GNU philosophy; changes the stance of Debian as a left-of-center
organization more to the left, narrowing the choices for users.

> > [Put on your `logic goggles' and check out the GNU site sometime,
> > specifically the philosophy section.  The UDI discourse is good for a
> > laugh, from a logic POV.]
> 
> Some of the stuff there is very good indeed, however.

The philosophical stuff is pretty well done, what I looked at anyway...  
but when they try to apply it, as in the UDI paper, the result can be
disjointed ramblings that boil down to `we don't like commercial
software and we will hinder anyone who tries to aid it in whatever way
we can'.  :(

Don't get me wrong here, I am not anti-GNU.
I just don't believe that their tactics will be the most fruitful in the
long run; and especially that as much as GNU is a necessity, a less
radical looking alternative is required for the mainstream, and it may
as well be Debian.


- Bruce