+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 19:39 +0200]:
Anyway, if Debian decides that the form in which the FSF provides GNU software is not appropriate for inclusion in main, it should either start its own replacement documentation projects in order to make DFSG-compliant variants of GNU software, or move the software out of main. Everything else does not make sense.
Well I believe that there is still some hope that the FSF would provide documentation that debian would consider free. But failing that, I completely agree with you that other documentation should be provided.
Calling me a "sore loser" lashing out was intended to benon-offensive?
As I previously stated, I didn't intend to call you any names. I reiterate my previous apology that you found anything I have said offensive. I do notintend to offend.
I am afraid that I have my problems understanding the categorizations Debian developers employ.
I am not a debian developer. You should not consider any of the statements I make as statements made on the behalf of the debian project.
without docs. Do you actually believe that emacs without docs is not useful?Quite a number of commands don't work.
A large majority do.
I find it very useful and rarely consult the docs. Do you really believe that it helps nobody if it doesn't have docs?Yes. It is far too complex to properly use without documentation.
Well i must be using it improperly then. In any case, even with my aparant improper use, its still quite useful.
The documentation on customizing Emacs alone is essential.
It isn't essential to customize emacs, and therefore I can't understand how the docs on customizing emacs is essential. In any case, M-x customize seems to still be fully functional and easy to use without having to consult any documentation.
I can tell you for sure that this is also not true, it helps me immensely with or without documentation. I honestly don't believe that many people would think that debian would be better off without emacs.I was not talking about "without Emacs". I was talking about an Emacs split between main and non-free.
Yes, but your suggestion was to remove emacs from debian entirely, which would leave debian "without Emacs". I therefore assert that you were talking about "without Emacs".
Even if we for a moment assume the hypothesis that experienced Emacs users would be able to get along with an Emacs that has its documentation ripped out, those are not the most important clientele: they will compile their own Emacs (or XEmacs) anyway, since nobody can understand or work with the broken mess the Debian Emacs package policies provide.
If my choices are "compile emacs" or "install a package from main and a package from non-free", I'll take the latter. It sounds easier. I think most users would agree with me on that as well.
I think you'll be hard put to find any maintainer or developer of an Emacs or XEmacs application who would not rather use a self-compiled Emacs than the Debian contraptions.
I guess we'll see if that is true. I doubt it will be true.
So even if we stipulate that experts could get along without documentation, experts won't use Debian packages in the first place. The target audience are beginners and advanced users.
I think Debian's target audience would be more accurately characterized as "People that want to use a free operating system", than "beginners and advanced users". Debian has never really been an operating system targetting beginners.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature