Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:21:31PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Has it? Except for a few isolated grumblings about autobuilding and
> > migration of software to testing, I don't see (and haven't seen) a
> > real problem. If I'm missing this "constant source of trouble,"
> > please point it out to me.
> It has. We have gotten egg on our faces more than once when we're unable to
> fix security problems.
I only remember majordomo being removed for not being patchable, from the
last five years or so. And when it happened, we certainly didn't get an egg
on our faces -- we tried to fix it, saw that we couldn't, and advised the
users of an alternate solution.
> We've had problems with keeping architectures in sync.
Which reflected on non-free packages propagation into stable and that only.
This is a problem that has a technical solution, too.
> Trouble with users misunderstanding what is a part of Debian and what
So let's explain it better, not remove a useful facility just because we
suck at documentation.
> Trouble with people asserting that Debian has somehow "blessed" the
> programs in non-free.
I honestly don't think mindless trolls should influence what we do.
> Endless licensing problems (here's pine yet again), etc.
And the solution for pine is to not ship it at all, and get even more people
wondering WTF is it?
> They also have the benefit of not having rampant confusion about just what
> is part of the kernel and what isn't. Oh wait :-)
Where is this rampant confusion you're talking about? I really can't say
I've noticed it in an amount that can be described as large, even.
> Because no DirecTV subscriber is going to somehow assume that QVC is
> a part of CNN.
No, but they may well assume that both are part of DirecTV (if I assume
correctly what DirecTV is, and its relation to CNN). Would you really think
that the solution for that problem is to remove QVC from the set of channels
available to users?
2. That which causes joy or happiness.