Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:15:21PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You tell 'em! Users of non-free software have a RIGHT to receive this
> software through Debian whenever it's legally possible, and our mirror
> operators have an obligation to carry whatever we want to have them
> carry; besides, surely no one has ever donated resources to Debian
> because of philosophical affiliations, so why would they care? How
> dare these developers muddle our finely-tuned pragmatic system by
> bringing up ideology? How dare they make decisions that could force
> our users to use free alternatives to their beloved non-free tools?
yeah, and it's completely unreasonable that debian has perl modules when
some mirror operators don't use perl, they use python. and why have
both KDE *and* gnome, when everyone knows that only one of them is worth
installing. and get rid of all that C and C++ development crap, lisp is
the way to go.
life is so much simpler when you take away choice.
> Bah.
and humbug.
nobody's forcing you or me or anyone else to use non-free software.
that's a personal choice.
i personally choose not to use non-free software(*). i don't expect
others to make the same choices as me and i certainly have no wish to
force others to make the same choices or to remove their ability to make
different choices.
(*) some of my users still insist on using crap like pine no matter how
much i encourage them to switch to mutt. most have seen the benefits
and have switched, some are intransigent. fine, that's their choice.
pine will stay installed for them as long as it keeps working. if some
future upgrade breaks it, i probably won't bother to fix it.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: