On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:09:14PM -0800, D. Starner scribbled: > > > 1) It encourages free alternatives to be written. > > Everytime I see some smartass writing that, I wish they would actually > > damned code that alternative. Then and ONLY then they have the right to > > remove anything. > > If I upload AutoCAD, will you oppose removing it? Part of what makes the If there is no alternative? No, I wouldn't oppose it then. I would be glad there was AutoCAD in Debian, since then I could put Debian on my sister's machine (which needs AutoCAD, 3DMax and ArchiCAD, none of which exist under Linux OSes) > community successful is that attitude; there's a lot of people who write > free software who wrote shareware for Windows, simply because the community > expects free software. See, the whole expectations thing is the problem - too many people expect or demand and too few actually do something. Take a really critical look at all the free software around - the crap/value ratio is scaringly high. There are loads of unfinished, half-finished or simply bad projects, many of them duplicating the efforts of the others. As much as I am in favor of free software, as much as I believe in it, as much as I love it I have to admit that there is an awful lot of wasted energy, effort in the community, which results in a lot of crappy, non-competitive software being produced. Look for instance at KOffice, OpenOffice and AbiWord. They all duplicate their efforts - just imagine what could happen if they all worked together. Another example, media players - rhythmbox, xmms, bmp, a few dozens of better or worse frontends to the console ones, mplayer forked because of a silly discussion. Let's go farther - the X Window issue. We have, at this moment, 3 versions of X11 around - X.org's, the fdo's kdrive one, and xfree86 - now isn't it a waste of valuable energy and human resources? This fragmentation of efforts is what leads to a situation in which there are no real alternatives to AutoCAD, ArchiCAD or 3DMax on the free side of the software world (I do realize that there are programs that perform some of the functions of the above applications, but trust me - neither my sister or other architects/graphicians would switch to them right now). And removing any drivers/firmware from the OS kernel doesn't help that situation. This is just silly. I do agree that we should run all free software, but let's be realistic - we cannot offer replacements to all the software that is needed at this moment. That's why a sensible compromise is a must, and stiffly sticking to the DFSG or ideals won't do much good if people turn their backs on us (and rightly so). > > > > 2) It encourages original vendors to open their source to the community if > > > they deem it appropriate. > > prove it - give some examples > > Ever heard of QT? Guess? More examples? > > just do the stuff we should do at debian - > > maintain and create good software? > > Then write and pass an amendment removing the DFSG entirely. We maintain > and create good _free_ software at Debian until that amendment passes. Waste of time writing such amendment and note that I didn't say DFSG was wrong, not at all. It's people who blindly believe in _anything_ who are wrong. Just think about how things are done in the courts - the judges and the jury have the right to _interpret_ the law, this is to protect the defendants from the threat of doing them unjustice by taking the law blindly. NO law, NO rule can apply to all cases it _attempts_ to address. Flexibility is really a great virtue. regards, marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature