Re: Debian? Not true GNU/Linux?? Say it isn't so!
On Thursday 03 April 2008, Chris Walters wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> | On Thursday 03 April 2008, Chris Walters wrote:
> |> Ron Johnson wrote:
> |> | On 04/03/08 15:39, Ivan Savcic wrote:
> |> |> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Ron Johnson
> |> |> <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> |>
> |> <snip>
> |>
> |> |>> That smells of elitism. (Not that I mind...)
> |> |>
> |> |> No, it's just you can't have all. It's a matter of compromise.
> |> |> A "pick two" game, if you wish. And Debian simply can't please
> |> |> everyone. The point is, why be bothered by that? Debian set
> |> |> it's goals and a corresponding target group was gathered around
> |> |> them. And a good one, if you ask me.
> |> |
> |> | Because it's "elitist" to not want to please all the people all
> |> | the time...
> |>
> |> No, it is elitist to say, "Debian is the only good distribution,
> |> the only truly GNU/Linux distribution worth having. All others
> |> are for the uneducated masses, who don't care about being right.
> |> We are smarter and better than they are, because we choose Debian
> |> - all hail the mighty Debian!"
> |
> | According to St. IGNUcious himself (aka RMS), at a talk I saw him
> | give last Thursday, Debian isn't a true GNU/Linux distro because it
> | includes non-free software.
> |
> | I'm not saying I agree with him on this, but it is his opinion that
> | there are only a few truly free distros out there. He named them
> | and I've forgotten them, but they were not any names I recognized
> | or had heard of before and I'm familiar with at least the top 25-50
> | names.
> |
> | Hal
>
> You can see them listed on the gnu.org website (the supposedly only
> true GNU/Linux distributions). To be on that list, you have to only
> offer pure open source GPL'ed software, yada yada. I didn't
> recognize any of them, either and I periodically look at DistroWatch
> to see if there are any new ones that will allow me to rule the
> world! lol.
Yeah, I figured they'd be listed on the GNU website -- that I didn't
bother to check and see what the distros were is an indication of just
how important I thought it was. While I love open source, and think it
offers much closed source does not, I wouldn't go anywhere near as far
as RMS would in saying closed source is unethical. I also have to
wonder if he would have the same stance if, when he started that
crusade, he weren't at a university, but had to make a living and pay
the bills and pay for junior's food by programming at a company that
made money on software.
> Seriously, that is a bit too open source purist for most people, as
> most people want choices - I'd bet that the majority of the users of
> those other distros (all two of them), download and use non-free
> software.
I did think of asking him about distros such as Debian and *buntu that
don't include non-free but have "unofficial" ways of having it added
after the fact, but decided there was no point to it.
Hal
Reply to: