Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:09:58AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > > > In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves
> > > > > me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have
> > > > > some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software.
> > > > You restrict yourself to get some leisure. Don't complain that you are
> > > > restricted from doing something afterways when it doesn't work anymore
> > > > and you don't have leisure anymore.
> > > That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using
> > > an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel.
> > If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it
> > is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to
> > reinvent the wheel by the proprietary programs licenses.
> > > Even RMS used
> > > commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written.
> > You mean proprietary software. There is no conflict between the GPL
> > and commerciality (even if Microsoft is trying to implant another
> > opinion in people's mind). And yes, he did so because this was the
> > fastest way to achieve the goal of an entirely free operating system.
> > This goal has by now been achieved. You will not find RMS using vmware
> > for pure convenience.
> It is naive and short-sighted to think that because RMS takes a hardline
> moral stance wherever software use is concerned, anyone who doesn't
> behave in exactly the same manner is immoral.
Hu, I am neither sure if you really know how hard RMS' stance on this is,
nor who you believe thinks that way.
> How do you think Free
> Software advocacy happens?
I have never seen anyone being more active and more successful in free
software advocacy than the FSF and FSF europe. I prefer their advice
on how such advocacy works over yours.
This said, it might be to the advantage of free software if for
example you get a government to use a heterogenous solution with a
mixture of free software and non-free software, rather than a
homogenously non-free solution. It depends on the details.
However, the only small point I was trying to make is that Thorsten
implied in his mail that RMS would agree to use a non-free program
over working on a free replacement just because it is more convenient,
That this is simply not true is public knowledge (there are lots of
examples where he encouraged people to write free replacements for
proprietary programs) . I am somewhat surprised to see this simple
matter of fact used as a jumping board for your rants.
 Now, he _did_ use a non-free system to write gcc and emacs on, and
Thomas gave the right reasons for it, it would just be an too enormous
task not to do so. It was very ambitious a project already with doing
so. And the reason why the development of the core was delayed so
long is also known: Because writing the core of an operating system is
a very complex task.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com