On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:14:04PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: >> So I propose that anybody who likes goes back to support CYGWIN with >> dpkg and APT support, but under a neutral name. > I just don't get it. We support Windblows systems on several fronts in > Debian GNU/Linux. We deliver samba, who's only function is to provide > servers that Windblows recognizes. We deliver windows emulators so Linux > users can run proprietary M$ software on their otherwise free systems. :) I occasionally lend a hand to the Samba maintainer with that package, and I have written bits and pieces of code for inclusion in Samba. One of my own packages is FreeTDS, a database client library for connecting to MS SQL servers (and Sybase, also a proprietary database). The difference is, this kind of software running on Linux helps /supplant/ proprietary operating systems, for a net gain in freedom. Porting Debian to Win32 serves to /enhance/ a proprietary operating system; and it's an open question whether this actually results in a net gain in freedom. I'm aware there are /local/ gains in making cygwin available under Win32, which is why I don't disagree with the idea of porting dpkg to cygwin and basing a distribution on it; but I'm not confident that the /global/ effect is a positive one, so I can't endorse putting this on the same level with other Debian ports, or using the Debian name for it. > How is this any different from Debian providing support for free software > running on a proprietary OS? The provided software is free. Only the > target OS isn't. The result is that folks who couldn't use free software > before are now able to. Doesn't that "promote the use of free software"? The first thing that comes to people's minds when they think of 'Debian'[1] is "free operating system". Many people believe there is value in this connotation. A port of Debian to win32 is /not/ a free operating system, it's a collection of free software running on a proprietary operating system. Using the same "Debian" name for both things would dilute this connotation. Is that what we, as a community, would want? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer [1] After "group of idiosyncratic, cantankerous jerks", that is; but hey, that's what makes us so loveable.
Attachment:
pgpAhzeFT0Tcz.pgp
Description: PGP signature