Re: Why the GR is not necessary
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:52:03PM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote:
> > > rename "main" to "debian"
> > I don't think that works
> Actually, it can work if we do several things:
> 1) make the user do something extrordinary (like -gasp- edit a file)
> to get non-free software. (referring to the sources.list; once done,
> it's perm for that user)
> 2) the renaming is a really good idea.
> To illustrate...
> deb http://site/debian stable main
> suggests that there's more to come. If there is a main, that implies
> the existance of a not-main. I want to avoid that implication entirely.
> deb http://site/debian stable debian
> is very clean and says it all without suggesting wrongfully that
> debian has a connection to non-free stuff. The statement the user
> is making is "give me the stable debian from the mirror site/debian".
so far, so good. can't see much point in it, but i've seen far worse
ideas than this.
if it will keep the rabid zealots happy, then i'd compromise on this. i
still don't see why they can't just ignore the existence of non-free,
but if it shuts them up, that's fine by me.
i note in passing that 'contrib' has vanished too, which is something
you pro-GR people have been trying to avoid discussing - if non-free
goes, then contrib must go too as package dependancies can not be met.
> 3) debian as released will -never- release a sources.list on anything
> debian calls an official release with the string "non-free" in
> it. Not ANYWHERE in that file, not as documentation, not as
this censorship is lunacy. it's fair enough to not have non-free in the
default sources.list, but to fail to document it is just insane.
there is no justification for it. i'm trying real hard to find something
positive about it, and the best i can come up with is that it's merely
another example of sticking your head in the sand and pretending that
non-free doesn't exist.
even worse, it is an attempt to lie and hide the existence of non-free
software from users (most of whom should be smart enough to figure out
there's something stupid going on, anyway)
> I'm saying: apt makes getting non-free easy enough as it is. Let's not
> make it effortless,
this is one of the things that really pisses me off about this whole
what you are saying here is that you want to deliberately harm the
utility and convenience of debian by introducing hurdles for no other
reason than to satisfy your sense of morality. no technical reason, no
legal reason, just YOUR idea of what constitutes "moral" use of someone
aren't there enough intolerant fascists in the world interfering in
people's lives? what's the next step? burning books that describe
non-free software? lobby to outlaw non-free software? gaol for people
who talk about non-free? push for a War on (some) Software with a budget
as big as the War on (some) Drugs? civil forfeiture of any computer
found with non-free software installed?
before you say the above is exaggeration, think about this: that kind
of intolerance towards other people's business is exactly what leads to
those kinds of excesses if they are accepted or believed in by enough
why can't you rabid zealots just accept that other people have the right
to hold different beliefs and make different choices? it doesn't harm
you or affect you one bit if some person you've never even fucking met
runs some software that you don't happen to approve of.
> and placing it into default sources.list will do exactly that. If they
> want non-free, LET THEM LEARN HOW TO GET IT AND WILLFULLY ALTER THE
i can't say i care much what the default would be in this situation, but
noting the existence of non-free in both documenatation and examples is
all in all, except for the censorshop points noted above, i think it's
an OK compromise. still a dumb idea, but mostly harmless.