Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 04:03:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> I suspect one reason we were so ready to embrace non-free packages as
> second-class citizens a few years ago was because we collectively feared
> that we would be rendered irrelevant if we didn't include them. In
> fact, some people in the discussion threads cited above felt that it was
> suicidal to omit non-free packages from the Official CDs. History has
> not borne out their fears.
>
> Indeed, time has revealed -- I think -- that non-free software is *less*
> relevant to Debian's purposes and success that perhaps even most of the
> optimists would have thought in 1997.
Definitely. I think I remember that in slink, Netscape was the only
choice of graphical web browser (aside from the likes of gzilla (ick!)
lynx et. al.), so it was an important package. Nowadays with the
plethora of fancy free browers in existence, Netscape is essentially
irrelevent (it's certainly no longer the best browser available by a
long way).
In the same way, gpg has replaced pgp, but there are still non-free
packages with no free equivalent, and non-free would still be useful
for these.
Can the popularity-contest show which non-free packages are not used?
Rather than removing non-free in one go, removing unused packages and
those that have usable free equivalents first would make the
transition less painful for users who depend on non-free.
--
Roger Leigh
"Liberty and Livelihood" - Support the Countryside Alliance
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 available on public keyservers
Reply to: