Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
No desktop should be shoved down anyone's throat, regardless of how that
is rationalised.
Ubuntu being pro-active on Freedom (resourced distribution) probably
answers this best though.
That being their choice.
Oh sorry, I thought freedom was all about *my* choice. :)
It is, most definately. But how does that project package choice differ
from that made by any other distro, or cut across your choice not to
have it?
The way you said it, "pro-active on freedom" is good only if I choose
gnome, that being the only thing on offer. Sounds like journalism in
China to me (as long as I *choose* to write what the government wants,
...).
Kubuntu in some ways is moving faster, but I am not an expert on that
(or a lawyer).
Gnome and FSFreedom are quite linked, are they not? That's how I read Ubuntu's selection
of Gnome - to meet the Ubuntu ethos most closely: "Ubuntu is Free Software, and
available to you free of charge [forever]" http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu
Btw I don't see Ubuntu being more pro-active on freedom than anyone
else. I do see that they must have a stellar deficit, but that's a
different topic (although no doubt has a huge effect on its popularity).
Now you'll have seen why I used the capital F.
Economics is of course hugely influential, and I read on the site last
year Canonical's stated aim to be one the top three Linux distros
(alongside Suse & Redhat, iirc?). Clearly they are getting there, but I
haven't seen that quote again prominently. No, I don't trust marketese
particularly either.
Kubuntu's there should you want it.
Now that's a different distro IMHO.
And you didn't mention it in your Freedom (upper case here) plug either.
It could still go either way, perhaps. - Depends what the market tells
BDFL i reckon.
But this is another thread heading for the killfile... :)
Or the GNUz list, should people prefer:
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/gnuz
Surely it's not that provocative though! Caution noted. :)
--
Rik
