Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:21:32 -0500, Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.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
> 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
> 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 <email@example.com> <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