On 3/28/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly: > > I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use > > patterns > > -- not just at the command line, but in overall terms. > > > > And a related question is: what free software effort would be > > harmed by putting ndiswrapper in config?
> Err, wrong question. End users benefit from having this > interface to networking drivers around; it gives them more freedom in > dealing with hardware they might not have a choice about. How was that the wrong question? Shouldn't we make a distinction between short term benefits and long term benefits? Shouldn't we be focusing on development issues here? If the only issue was short-term end-user benefits, everything in non-free could go in main. > Helping users make use of hardware they are saddled with adds > to the quality of implementation; and since users come high on our > list of things to care about, we should not be looking at "is some > free software effort damaged if we move things out of debian, even if > users selecting just debian (like, CD based users in areas with poor > network connectivity) have to jump through hoops" But what what distinguishes ndiswrapper from anything else in contrib? > Also, you need to look at how many future efforts you are > encouraging -- or discouraging -- by your treetment of this freely > licensed module wrapping tool chain. I agree on this point. > If ndiswrapper is not in my universe, I may never get around > to writing fee windows drivers that could also be used on Linux :) I don't understand this one. Why wouldn't "Contrib" be in your universe? -- Raul
