Re:Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
>>>>>> " " == truename <zhaoway@yeah.net> writes:
>
> > [snip]
> >> I too would be forced to use another dist if the non-free
> >> software was no longer maintained by debian.
>
> > this is wrong. Redhat only have ONE cd as their well-organized
> > distro, other packages are added by others (even w/o a policy
> > for quality), while Debian, even the GR passed, could still
> > gives you more. (3rd parties could still give you the packages
> > you needed.)
>
> > So your point on anti-the-GR is meanless here. (BTW, i'm still
> > thinking about the GR, and get some enlightenments from both
> > side, and I appreciate it. But obviouslly here quite some
> > meaningless arguments against the GR here.)
>
>No, its not meaningless. If I have to collect my debs from all over
>the net instead of a central place I can go and use redhat or other
>distribution or just compile all from source to make sure it all
>fits. Having it all from one place and all compatible is one of the
>points to use Debian.
>
>Just look at all the problems rpm has from too many producers.
Oh, I have to admit maybe my English is so bad? heheh... 8)
I guess we're agree with each other. I mean, even the GR passed,
that doesn't make Debian a worse distro then RH, only that Debian
is (in some way) comes to a rpmfind.org, as bad/good as RH.
(Only techinicaly. I like RH then anyother RPM based distro.
And I like the company. 8)
So people think if the GR passed then they will abandon Debian,
I think they're wrong on this point. (But I still cannot say if
this GR itself is good or bad for advocating free software.)
Just it. No less, no more. 8)
Best regards,
zhaoway
___________________________________________________________________
ÐÂÏÊÈÈÀ±µÄ³±Á÷×ÊѶ£¬ÍøÒ×ÐÂÀ±Channel£º http://spicy.163.com
ÉÁ¿Í¾«Æ·£¬¾¡ÔÚÍøÒ×FLASHÕ¾£º http://desktop.163.com/flash
Reply to: