[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PINE Debian Package



> That is what the non-free portion of the distribution is for. BTW, if
> Microsoft produced Word for Linux, I would probably buy it.

Geez you sound like an agitator.

> > It could give "bad reputation" on the eyes of those who think that Debian
> > is just "one more Linux distribution". But considering that Debian is 100%
> > free, I don't see any bad reputation on the Debian side, really.
> 
> The way it has always been understod was that the "main" portion of the
> distribution would always be 100% free.  Non-free stuff goes in non-free
> and stuff that is free but depends on non-free stuff goes in contrib. If
> Debian wants to make non-free a source-only archive, it is going to
> greatly increase my costs for installing systems because I happen to be a
> fan of quite a few things in there.

I assume they only intend to do this wherethe law requires it.

> Yes, our fault.  If any distribution of software takes a political stand
> and alienates half of its users or makes the distribution more difficult
> to use or more difficult to configure and it looses a significant number
> of its users and fails to attract new users at the rate it did before, it
> soon fades into insignificance. Choosing it simply because it is
> politically correct is not going to happen except for a few zelots. I

You underestimate our numbers.

> thought the rise and fall of world socialism taught you that. You might

Don't get too caried away.

> provide a free application but if it sucks or if there is a better
> non-free one available, guess which one will get used. If you think making

Personally, I use GNU software over 'soft-free' software even when the GNU
stuff has a steeper learning curve and/or rougher/fewer features.  I've
found it to be worth it in the end, since the GNU stuff usually catches up
when it is not untimatly superior in the first place.  More importantly,
GNU software is less vulnerable to desertion or commercial assimilation
than things licensed other ways (look what happened to spice).  pico/pine
is a case-in-point.  They are poor programs really, and when the
University of Whatsit suddenly gets tired of maintining them, the last
versions will likely crumble to dust. 

> the non-free one more difficult to obtain will drive development toward
> the free application, you are making a flawed decision. People will simply
> expend more energey to get the better product and if they have to do it
> too often will call your product junk because it requires the expense of
> too much energy to get the good applications.

Well, not everyone feels this way, even if that was the the driving force
behind these decisions.

> > People should know that pine is not free. I would switch to mutt right now
> > but I'm already very used to pine, so everything I can do is to recommend
> > mutt over pine to my friends.
> 
> Everyone KNOWS Pine is not free. It has ALWAYS lived in non-free. Free is
> not the issue.  Pine is BETTER.  If a newbie asks me for advice on a good,
> easy to use, text-based mail reader I am NOT going to say "Use mutt,
> because it is free", I am going to say "Use Pine because it is easy". I
> would like to see many more COMMERCIAL apps for Linux too.  When someone
> comes out with a half-baked free replacement for StarOffice is Debian
> going to drop the StarOffice loader from the distro?  WHat about the nifty
> config for alien that knows how to install Applixware?  Will that go away
> too?  This crap of "My system is difficult to use, a horror to configure
> and klunky as hell, but I am a Good Communist and use only software
> approved by the Central Committee" will not fly far. Again, if free is to
> be a substitute for good, oh well.

There are good free licenses and bad ones.  Pine's license is apparently
one of the latter.  You have to try to follow both types.


Britton Kerin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: