Re: Some more reality..
On 13 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 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
Am I really? You said:
1. Non-free software is no longer an essential or standard part of a
Whereas at one time, most everyone used non-free software such as
Netscape for web browsing, acroread for PDF reading, or xv for graphic
viewing, there are quality free replacements for all of these
programs. Therefore, the rationale of "we need non-free for usable
standard system" no longer applies.
That is the point I think is fairly baseless. You can enumerate
replacements for all the software you use, but that certainly doesn't
cover everyone, and it doesn't reflect the statistics that show the usage
of non-free hasn't really changed.
Now, you could define 'standard system' in some odd way that manages to
exclude all of non-free which would make your statement fairly true..