Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:57:36PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:30:26 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yeah, and which is why those systems are lacking the stability of debian
> > boxes.
>
> As i can see their systems were not as stable as Debian woody because the
> system structure or the distributors decision to insert new and untested
> version of some programs or even of the kernel. But there system doesn't
> become more or less stable through spim.
Err, the unattended addition of random third party packages of varrying
quality is on of the cause of the unstability of .rpm based systems.
> > This is not true currently though. But most people chose to ignore the
> > issue of the bios, and the proprietary firmware in most of the hardware.
>
> But that many people ignore the issue of bios is not an argument that
> other people should ignore the issue of non-free in Debian.
Which issues ?
> >> special things which will not work with free software, but the most
> >> things works really god" than it's Debian and i think Debian should
> >> keep this role or expand it if possible.
>
> > And, is this not what we are doing ?
>
> Not completely. Because Debian also recommend and suggest non-free
> Software in there main System and promoting it on there homepage, as i
> mentioned in my first mail.
Ah ? I don't see on-free advertized on the front page, i may be blind
though, or otherwise havez missed that. Also, i am lead to believe that
as of the sarge release, non-free will no more be proposed to new
installs.
> >> power but a lot of people doesn't really need it. And if you need it,
> >> than you can go to the vendors homepage and take some drivers,
> >> therefore you don't need Debian.
> >
> > And once you have messed up your system, to whom you will come for help?
>
> I would ask myself, the vendor, or Debian and GNU/Linux user who also use
> this proprietary driver. But i wouldn't ask some DD's, at least not as
> there job as DD, because i would know that they are working for and with
> Free Software and not for and with proprietary software or drivers.
Well, you find their call for help on the debian user support lists,
which even if you don't respond to them, take a certain amount of time
only to read them, and distinguish them from other legitimate help
requests.
> > non-free is shuned by all debian developers, and it is a shame for a
> > given DD to maintain a package there.
>
> But maybe the developer of this software or the vendor of the hardware
> have no problem with non-free and so they complete satisfy that they "in
> Debian" and every Debian user can use there software/drivers.
Until it gets removed because we replaced it with a free alternative, or
for another reason.
> And they would work harder if they aren't in Debian at all, and the only
> way would be to free the software/driver.
Yeah, we can hope, but reality proves that they don't give a damn, and
the package will simply come in .rpm.
> I think thats a little bit the same like the kernel issue which you have
> mentioned before. Torvalds has allowed non-free driver modules in the
> kernel, so the hardware vendors know that GNU/Linux user can run there
> hardware and so they have an opportunity to sell there hardware to
> GNU/Linux user. They don't really worry about Free Software.
> If there was no opportunity like this i think this non-free driver culture
> wouldn't have developed, at least not in these dimension. And vendors like
> ATI and Matrox would today provide there specs like a few years before.
Or they will only provide windwos drivers, as nvidia did a few years
before.
> > time, and the willingness of the DD that the package is in non-free, and
> > upstream well knows that. It takes only a single mail from the
> > maintainer (or from the QA folk) to remove the package from non-free.
>
> But i think it shouldn't be just the decision of the maintainer. I think
And, nothing is stopping the technical comite to take this decision and
remove the package. Even you could, i think, appeal to the techincal
comitee if the maintainer is not active enough on a bug report asking
for a reasoned removal of the package. But i doubt you care enough for
that, but would be happy to be proved wrong.
> Debian should decide if a non-free package are on the Debian server or
> not. And if there is a free alternative than the non-free software have to
> deleted immediately from the Debian server whether or not the maintainer
> still wants this package. E.g. netscape was a long time in non-free even
> there was enough free alternatives, or look at mpg123 i think this program
> also shouldn't be on the Debian server because there are enough free
> alternatives mpg321, mp3blaster,...
Yes, so, i have no problem with that. The whole of the issue is to
remove the non-free area of our web archive totally.
> > An external non-free.org repository would have full legitimity, and
> > would not be under our control.
>
> But it wouldn't legitimated and labeled by Debian.
Naturally it would, at least it would be so in the imaginations of our
users.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: