Re: Flame against non-free burning, time to think.

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 07:04:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There are more non-free packages in unstable now than there have ever
> been in any release.  It is, at the very least, suggestive.
> 
> What is your alternative explanation of the figures?

1. there has always been more non-free stuff in unstable than has ever
been in a stable release.  part of the release process is to cull
packages with release critical bugs.  when they get culled, they are cut
from the stable release but left in unstable.

2. there's a lot of deadwood in non-free.  stuff that nobody uses and/or
MAINTAINS any more but which hasn't been orphaned or removed.  if this
bothers you enough, then submit bug reports requesting the removal of
these packages.

both of these factors contribute to the (slightly higher) number of
packages in non-free.  the difference really is slight, only 30 or so
packages.

> > In any event, if more people really are interested in maintaining non-free
> > packages, that's an argument to keep non-free around rather than have
> > them waste their time setting up alternative infrastructure. The question
> > here isn't simply one of mechanism -- "do we drop non-free now, or let
> > it die?".
> 
> Where is the evidence that it will "die" at all?  It's been growing.

isn't that evidence that there's a need for this stuff which isn't being
met by free software?

you're trying to solve the wrong problem.  instead of wasting energy
trying to ban non-free software you should be expending that energy on
free alternatives.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch