Noah Slater wrote: > > The second name for this is "double standards". > > The standards are only double if you lump yours in with theirs.
Are you sure? #211765 and #368560 are RC bugs, which means that by Debian's standards such software cannot be in Debian, because they promised so in the SC. Pay attention to the dates when they were reported, and how the latter is resolved. Compare that with #495935 where it took a few days for the maintainer to (unwillingly) "fix" it. If that's no double standard and you can't see the contradiction, I really don't have anything to add. > Cannot Debian teach users about freedom, simply because they also > provide means for installing non-free software? Yes, they cannot. It's like someone convincing you that alcohol is very bad for your health and at the same time drinking and offering you the very same alcohol. It is self-defeating. > I run Debian on all of my systems and never install non-free software. If you use Debian's stock kernel, or X/Mesa, you have installed non-free software. > have no wireless access, install a non-free driver, or buy a new > laptop. That is your personal decision, it has little to do with what we're talking about. Wireless is only convenience, so you have chosen the convenience, like many others. It doesn't make you a bad guy, it just weakens your "I am a free software supporter" statement. > "You support non-free software, you are the enemy." Please, I did not say that Debian or you are the enemy. I only correct people when they say that Debian defends users' freedom. Sure, they do more than many other distros (mostly by separating non-free while unfortunately still distributing it), but it is wrong to claim that software freedom is their top priority. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
