Evan Prodromou wrote:
"MB" == Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:MB> Does anyone remember what other (if any) non-free packages MB> were considered `big and important'? I wouldn't be surprised MB> if they've all gone the way of netscape. Wasn't the blackdown JDK in non-free at some point?
it *is* non-free
Anyways, my stupid opinion on the subject is this: the time when non-free was necessary to have a working GNU/Linux system is long past. We don't have to make a deal with that devil any more.
except, of course, if we want the big java things to work 100% ?!
even agreeing with this, Debian is an OS. everything (free or non-free) that must run *under* debian *is*, at any point, of interest, especially if there isn't a free alternative.So now we've got this rump non-free system, which complicates things significantly. Despite the fact that we say "non-free is not Debian" (the operating system), it's still part of Debian (the project, people, and infrastructure). Having Debian-the-project put time or effort into anything that isn't Debian-the-OS is wasteful.
This does not strike me as a respectful attitude towards other people's work.Now, here's the downsides I see: some of the packages in non-free have a long and venerable history, and the maintainers have put a lot of work into them. So, that's kind of a bummer, to kinda throw away that work. And, y'know, being told that the software you've worked on for 5 years isn't important is kind of insulting, too. So, to the DDs who have stuff in non-free: bummer, man.
the problem is *not* getting non-free software. the problem is getting *support* to non-free software (bts, mailing-lists, etc etc)As far as users not being able to get non-free software: that's not really likely. backports.org, apt-get.org, and other "third-party"apt repositories are a pretty clear indicator that folks will still be able to get their non-free software elsewhere. In fact, I bet if we contact one of those groups, we could transfer non-free and/or contrib intact.
~ESP
Massa