Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Branden> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:37:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"John" == John Goerzen <email@example.com> writes:
>> >> I think I disagree. I have not found Mozilla to be as yet an
>> >> adequatre replacement for netscape; nor can I find something for the
>> >> festvox packages, and I certainly would hate to lose angband and
>> >> zangband (which are only in non free since they prevent commercial
>> >> use; the sources are freely available for modification).
John> I don't think that games justify the continued support of non-free
>> Please read up on festvox before you start labelling it. I
>> think this reinforces my impression; you have not looked at the
>> packages in non-free, and have not a clue about what you are
>> advocating throwing away.
Branden> There are four possible pieces of software to which John could have been
Branden> mozilla - An Open Source WWW browser for X and GTK+
Branden> festvox - Package `festvox' is not available. (hmm, dunno)
Branden> angband - A single-player, text-based, dungeon simulation
Branden> zangband - A single-player, text-based, roguelike game
Branden> How creative of you to deliberately misinterpret his words
Bull shit. I mentioned 4 pieces of software (a mere sample iof
what he is advocating throwing away). He answers with games aint
wqorth saving. What is creative about bringing to light his evasion
of the non-games part of my objection?
Branden> Package: angband
Branden> Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Branden> I think you know good and well which one(s) of the above
Branden> packages was a game. Do you think John DIDN'T know what
Branden> Mozilla is, especially since you likened its function to an
Branden> even MORE well-known piece of software?
No, he know. He is just being evasive, and hiding behind the
fact that some of the packages I emntioned were games. It is easier
to lable my objection as being just game related in a masterly piece
of sophistry than toi address the issue (which you have not either).
Branden> It is reasonable to assume ignorance of Mozilla by many
Branden> Debian developers as all? If not, then isn't it perfectly
Branden> reasonable to conclude that John's remarks about games
Branden> applied to a subset of the packages you listed?
How naive. No, it is more reasonable to recognize it as what
it appears to be: trivialize your oppositions argumewnts as just
being ``games'', ignoring what you know are not games -- word play.
Branden> Please try to constrain yourself to reasonable arguments and
Branden> not manufactured offense to positions you know your
Branden> opponents don't even hold.
Nice try. You ignore the baggage that words carry -- and
ignoring the dismissive ``they are just games''aspect of Johns
remarks is not something I'll let lie.
In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C