Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:27:46 +1000, Shane King wrote:
> The pragmatic approach is just as hypocritical, if not more so. You've
> basically said it's ok for debian to be pragmatic while telling the users
> they should not be pragmatic and instead rely on only software which
> conforms to the DFSG. That is hypocricy, pure and simple.
That's Realpolitik. At this moment, we employ a small set of non-free
packages for which there is no free alternative yet. Yes, we should not be
using them, but the world isn't ideal yet.
Perhaps it's time for the free software revolution to eat its own children?
RMS worked on gcc and emacs under non-free OSes. Linus programmed the kernel
under a non-free OS. Should we stone them for that?
> I'm not a developer, but rather just a user, but from the outside looking
> in there's nothing worse than a person or organisation that doesn't
> practice what it preaches. In my opinion, debian should either do without
> the non-free software, or stop suggesting other people shouldn't use
> non-free software (and in the case of this server move, it seem actively
> trying to make it "harder" to do so).
That's rubbish. With apt, you can fetch packages from three servers just as
easily as from one. The switch merely emphasises what's already in the
current setup.
> Need I quote the Debian social contract that states:
>
> "4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software"
Where would our users be without the mailing list? If a free MTA can handle
the load qmail is handling for lists.debian.org, great, let's switch to it.
If there isn't, what would you rather have? Pragmatism and working lists or
purism and no lists?
Ray
--
Cyberspace, a final frontier. These are the voyages of my messages,
on a lightspeed mission to explore strange new systems and to boldly go
where no data has gone before.
Reply to: