On 10/30/2013 01:19 PM, Conrad Nelson wrote: > On 10/30/2013 08:10 AM, Celejar wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:35:37 +1100 >> Charlie <aries...@skymesh.com.au> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:40:27 -0400 "Celejar cele...@gmail.com" sent >>> this: >>> >>> >The point here is that the FSF, who you consider "the right >>> kind of nuts", *discourages* you from using Debian. >>>> Celejar >>> Not me. That might be your interpretation, it isn't mine. >> Not sure what you mean, but if you're claiming that the FSF doesn't >> discourage one from using Debian, here's what it says: >> >>> Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems >>> >>> >>> We're often asked why we don't endorse a particular system—usually a >>> popular GNU/Linux distribution. The short answer to that question is >>> that they don't follow the free system distribution guidelines. But >>> since it isn't always obvious how a particular system fails to follow >>> the guidelines, this list gives more information about the problems of >>> certain well-known nonfree system distros. ... >>> >>> Here is a list of some popular nonfree GNU/Linux distributions in >>> alphabetical order, with brief notes about how they fall short. ... >>> >>> Debian GNU/Linux >>> >>> Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free >>> software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the >>> official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of >>> nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part >>> of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the >>> project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these >>> nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database. >>> >>> There is also a “contrib” repository; its packages are free, but some >>> of them exist to load separately distributed proprietary programs. This >>> too is not thoroughly separated from the main Debian distribution. >>> >>> Previous releases of Debian included nonfree blobs with Linux, the >>> kernel. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011, >>> these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate >>> packages in the nonfree repository. However, the problem partly >>> remains: the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware >>> files for the peripherals on the machine. >> http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html >> >> I would say that the repeated assertions of 'problems' with Debian and >> the explanation that it doesn't "follow the guidelines" and "falls >> short" constitutes discouragement. >> >>> Charlie >> Celejar >> >> > I don't see why the Linux community needs their approval. > > 1. The FSF is not a standards body. > 2. The FSF has NOTHING to offer as a result of their "approval." > 3. Richard Stallman doesn't even like Linux, and the way he acts it > could go 100% free (By his definition.) and he'd probably still make his > claim it's hurting freedom. This is because Linux (And Linus and a lot > of actual software engineers in this field.) have rendered him > irrelevant. Why the Debian developers care so much what RMS thinks is > beyond me. You can use the GPL WITHOUT being an FSF zealot. > 4. The FSF is irrelevant to the development of Linux itself. Linux isn't > even a GNU-based project. It simply makes use of the GNU toolchain (And > even that's not a requirement.) > > It's not like, say, the Open Group who can actually certify a system as > an official Unix implementation or anything, or the ISO, which can > actually define some official compliance. All the FSF offers is their > opinion of what open source should be. > > I prefer the Linus Torvalds philosophy: Open source produces generally > superior code. But there are plenty of cases where you might prefer or > even NEED a blob because the FOSS alternative to what you need, now read > this next word very carefully: SUCKS. > > Give gNewSense a whirl if you don't believe me on how obsessing over > being 100% free can make a system a pain to use. And good luck getting > all your hardware to work properly without some binary blob somewhere. > This is why I view the "we must be free" nonsense as exactly that. I > want to use my machine, not "liberate" it. > > Finally someone with some sense! --doug
-- Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M.Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52715457.3070...@optonline.net
