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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:21:32 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> 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?  :)

	Are you implying that I sent that message in as project
 secretary, which would be inappropriate conduct?

> 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

	I know.  You tend to emphasize more on the free software part,
 and not the fact that users need to use non-free software part, which
 is the facet of Debian I think we are fast losing -- instead of
 trying to create the best, most useful, the universal operating
 system, we now wish to make ideologically pure toy systems -- whether
 or not real world applications would  work on it or not.

> this way mainly because the meaning of "replacement" is highly
> subjective, and bound to change from work to work.  It is also

	Generallyy, though, one asks the _users_ of tools what an
 adequate replacement is, not some idle bystander with an axe to
 grind. Users of netscape have found alternatives -- though people
 have noted that there are some who would have coinsidered gopher an
 adequatre replacement.

> 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.

	Yet again a failure of logic.  You make som amny illogical
 leaps in the midst of your polemics it is hard to even argue against
 them. I think you are wrong; Ididn't say you are alone.

Intellect annuls Fate. So far as a man thinks, he is free. Ralph Waldo
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: