Re: Why are these packages in Debian?
I won't answer individually today (08/04/2003). You are too numerous!
I will begin by some minor answers (if you didn't answer the topic, you can
go directly to the ==== line, about 60 lines underneath):
>> But they are very easy to retrieve and save with every web browser.
> And then forgotten in a random directory.
I never lose documents. It's just a question of organization.
> Google for anarchism. And, by the way, I searched for king james bible
> too, but neither of the first ~10 hits offered a downloadable version,
> only online browsing, which I'm not interested in.
The fourth (www.cforc.com/kjv) does.
> So, please be so kind, and accept that your opinion is not generally
> accepted, and move on to something constructive.
Why is it a problem that my opinion is not generally accepted? You do so:
open-source software, all the more so Linux, and especially Debian are
unfortunately still in the minority.
> Hooligan's simulation?
> ice@wasteland:~$ apt-cache show dopewars
I didn't know it before and I find it really stupid. But I understand
your argument about non-censorship. I agree with them, you know. Although
I certainly don't want this package to be censored, now that it is in, I
would like to say that I'm a bit disappointed that developpers, package
managers and so on use their talents to do such software. But it's their
business, not mine.
> If you are going to continue your crusade to remove non-software
> packages, do start paying attention to all of the wallpaper, fortune
> datafiles, sound data, periodical publication archives, and various other
> things that have been around for years.
I would like to understand why you are so aggressive with me ("crusade"
is aggressive). I'm not leading a crusade against non-software packages.
I just want us to speak in a quiet and friendly manner and you to convince
me, or me to convince you, about the utility of the three packages I've
spoken before in Debian. It's all. Please say it if my attitude isn't
courteous enough, but I really don't think so.
> Hmm, you seem to be using some strange new definition of xenophobia.
> Xenophobia is simply the fear of strangers, or fear of the strange.
Excuse me. An error in my dictionnary. I wanted to say "racism" instead.
>> I typed "king james bible" in Google and hit "I'm feeling lucky". I was
>> browsing the text 1 second later...
> Not long ago slashdot had a story about how easy it was to redefine a
> term acording to google. Granted it would probally take a bit longer
> to redefine 'king james bible'
I don't understand your argument: we aren't discussing about Google. In
addition, Google wasn't insert into this debate by me.
Now I will answer to important and often-used arguments:
"A package is easier to manage than individual file. The Debian packaging
system is really good. Many people don't have a 24/7 Internet connection."
You are right, and I never disputed that. I also find this way of managing
files to install very handy.
> By the way, why does it hurt to have non-technical documents in an
> operating system? If non-technical documents are banned, the same should
> be done for other non-technical stuff, like games. I'm sure you wouldn't
> like that.
Ok, I will try to be clearer. I think games are useful because they are
software. Wallpapers, sound datas and documentations too, because they help
using software. But the Bible or the anarchism's presentation book don't.
By the way, Richard Stallman thought too games are helpful to an operating
system. I quote: "Even games are included in the task list--and have been
since the beginning. Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too. But
compatibility was not an issue for games, so we did not follow the list of
games that Unix had. Instead, we listed a spectrum of different kinds of
games that users might like." (from The GNU Project, on www.gnu.org).
"The data section will soon be available."
That night, before to get your answers, I was thinking about this debate.
I never heard of the data section project or the Gutenberg project before,
but I had the idea to suggest you the creation of a "Debian library" or a
"Open-source library". I am really happy to see that people thought to this
before, and began great projects. I totally approve the Gutenberg project,
it is difficult to think else, but I also think that the data section is a
great project. It will have the advantages of having such documents in
Debian packages, but without the drawbacks (I still think they have nothing
to do in the doc section, because they are no technical documentation, and
because the numbers of books will quickly become considerable if you don't
want to privilege some users, so it will become very mixed up and it won't
be handy anymore). But I repeat that the presence of the Bible in the data
section doesn't shocks me, now that I have understand that you don't
privilege this religion to others. It is even useful, as many people said.
In conclusion, you didn't convince me, but I better understand your package
approval's policy. I learned a lot about your open-source philosophy, about
the Gutenberg project (I never heard of it before, although I spend many
time on the web and particularly on the "open-source" web). The Debian
Social Contract is still my model in open-source philosophy, and I learned
a lot in english discussing like this!
You see, we can agree with each other!