On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your > level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the > proposal is less appealing by the moment. This is like sayting that > we already had a file transfer mechanism in uuco, and thus uucp is a > replacement for http and every other file tranfer protocol that has > been subsequently invented. > > Your viewpoint would be better sereved if you did not press > your case to the stretching point, where you did not give the > impression that things that are not true replacements shall be > trumpeted as replacements just to get rid of the non-fre srtucture, > whether or not the users of the non-free programs are ill served or > not. At the very least, this is dishonest. Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :) For what it's worth (probably not much to you, given the tone of your replies to my contributions to this discussion), I don't personally see the existence of replacements in main for software in non-free as bearing on the question of dropping non-free. I feel this way mainly because the meaning of "replacement" is highly subjective, and bound to change from work to work. It is also because I dislike arguments which use concepts like "necessary evil"; I don't think it buys us much to devalue non-free software on some principle, and then turn right around and say "but this is particular devalued thing is so important that we'll give it a pass". But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else. -- G. Branden Robinson | There's no trick to being a Debian GNU/Linux | humorist when you have the whole branden@debian.org | government working for you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Will Rogers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature