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

Re: ANDROID

On 10/30/2013 08:10 AM, Celejar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:35:37 +1100
Charlie <ariestao@skymesh.com.au> wrote:


  On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:40:27 -0400 "Celejar celejar@gmail.com" sent
  this:

	>The point here is that the FSF, who you consider "the right
	kind of nuts", *discourages* you from using Debian.

Celejar

   Not me. That might be your interpretation, it isn't mine.

Not sure what you mean, but if you're claiming that the FSF doesn't
discourage one from using Debian, here's what it says:


Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems


We're often asked why we don't endorse a particular system—usually a
popular GNU/Linux distribution. The short answer to that question is
that they don't follow the free system distribution guidelines. But
since it isn't always obvious how a particular system fails to follow
the guidelines, this list gives more information about the problems of
certain well-known nonfree system distros. ...

Here is a list of some popular nonfree GNU/Linux distributions in
alphabetical order, with brief notes about how they fall short. ...

Debian GNU/Linux

Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free
software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the
official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of
nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part
of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the
project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these
nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database.

There is also a “contrib” repository; its packages are free, but some
of them exist to load separately distributed proprietary programs. This
too is not thoroughly separated from the main Debian distribution.

Previous releases of Debian included nonfree blobs with Linux, the
kernel. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011,
these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate
packages in the nonfree repository. However, the problem partly
remains: the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware
files for the peripherals on the machine.

http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

I would say that the repeated assertions of 'problems' with Debian and
the explanation that it doesn't "follow the guidelines" and "falls
short" constitutes discouragement.


Charlie

Celejar



I don't see why the Linux community needs their approval.

1. The FSF is not a standards body.
2. The FSF has NOTHING to offer as a result of their "approval."
3. Richard Stallman doesn't even like Linux, and the way he acts it could go 100% free (By his definition.) and he'd probably still make his claim it's hurting freedom. This is because Linux (And Linus and a lot of actual software engineers in this field.) have rendered him irrelevant. Why the Debian developers care so much what RMS thinks is beyond me. You can use the GPL WITHOUT being an FSF zealot. 4. The FSF is irrelevant to the development of Linux itself. Linux isn't even a GNU-based project. It simply makes use of the GNU toolchain (And even that's not a requirement.)
It's not like, say, the Open Group who can actually certify a system as an official Unix implementation or anything, or the ISO, which can actually define some official compliance. All the FSF offers is their opinion of what open source should be.
I prefer the Linus Torvalds philosophy: Open source produces generally superior code. But there are plenty of cases where you might prefer or even NEED a blob because the FOSS alternative to what you need, now read this next word very carefully: SUCKS.
Give gNewSense a whirl if you don't believe me on how obsessing over being 100% free can make a system a pain to use. And good luck getting all your hardware to work properly without some binary blob somewhere. This is why I view the "we must be free" nonsense as exactly that. I want to use my machine, not "liberate" it.
Reply to: