On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 12:19 -0500, 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 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ After this long thread do you really think you rendered anyone irrelevant? I find it curious that you take such a pride at bashing someone who has stood over decades warning us to the dangers of proprietary software and who portrayed and acted on what he saw as a social threat
> 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. To defend someone who's not being attacked and whose "philosophy" is - in your interpretation - plain "utilitarianism" - something not very new, not very bright and which does not raise or care for autonomy. Computers are tools, but whose tool it is? Why would someone try to hide his works from those who are using it? I can only reason that those who do this kind of thing see some personal, individual utility in doing so. > > 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. > > -- André N. Batista GNUPG/PGP KEY: 6722CF80 -- 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/1383253779.6245.85.camel@tagesuhu-pc
