Re: Some more reality..
Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> John has said that non-free has ceased to be useful based on the fact that
> he doesn't actually make use of it, and many others agreed with this
> assesement. So here is a slightly different perspective.
Jason, you are so badly distorting my position that it seems to me to
be an out-and-out lie. I never said that no non-free software had
utility (was "useful"). Nor did I say that it is not useful simply
because I did not use it. Nor, I think, did anyone else support my
position on those grounds, although plenty supported the opposition on
the grounds that they personally used it (equally unforgivable a
position to hold). The fact that your entire analysis is based on
this faulty premise renders it rather meaningless.
> I have gone back and counted the number of packages in the non-free
> sections in debian, if John is right then really there should be about as
> much non-free software now as there was years ago.
Whether I am right or not has nothing to do with your numbers. My
argument is not about numbers.
> So, I'd really like to seem something stronger than anecdotal 'I do not
> ever use non-free' from the people supporting the resolution for this
> reason alone. In particular I'd like to see a little consideration for
Had you even cared to read the text accompanying my original proposal,
you would have noticed that the argument you would like to believe I
have advanced was not even among the original points I made.
Furthermore, I did not even mention this until somebody claimed I
could not honestly advance it because I use an Alpha.