Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free.
>
> What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a
> reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it
> has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it
> is a good thing for its eventual removal.
If I install package foo on my Alpha, and that package has known
security bugs and can be crashed easily, it's of decidedly low quality,
even if package foo on i386 has had fixes for all of the above for over
a year.
As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
irrelevant.
> > But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly
> > on trust.
>
> Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of
> lower quality.
Then that is your own personal decision. I have found multiple,
quality, trustworthy sites. For instance:
* Branden's experimental X
* Blackdown's JDK archive on Ibiblio
* Certain PowerPC X archives at different times
> > Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility
> > too.
> > They just need to add a "send-to" header to the control file
> > /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
>
> A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the
> maintainer.
Why? Adding one single file to the package, which takes about 30
seconds and must be done only once, is a huge burden?
> > I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is
> > usable as a tool for mass murder.
>
> Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ?
Do those actually have an operating system in the conventional sense?
> > To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is
> > practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as
> > far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in
> > countries that do not have those restrictions.
>
> Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is
> sent to the US governement.
Why should the US government be prevented from using Debian? And, more
to the point, even if the above does happen, what is the problem,
considering they could just as easily get it all from any one of dozens
of public mirrors?
> > > It can already, where is the problem.
> > If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing
> > non-free.
> Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it.
I disagree with that.
> > > to developing a free alternative.
> >
> > Just because you are a business doesn't mean that you have lots of money
>
> Well, in that case, you can go to the author of the piece of software
> you need, and reach an agreement with him. What is the problem with
> that.
I don't think that's particularly likely to happen.
> > to spare. For instance, someone that works part-time from home may not
> > be in a position to support these things. Also, it is not necessarily
>
> Crap. Most of the licence apply to redistribution, rarely to use. And
> anyway, those are really a minority of the non-free cases.
Do you have figures to back that up?
> > possible to buy rights to non-free software, or it may be prohibitively
> > expensive; or the original developers may be unreachable.
>
> Yeah, that is another problem.
>
> Still, what does it change for him that debian distribute non-free or
> not, nothing.
So where is the problem with removing non-free?
Reply to: