On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:34:45PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > According to YOU, it is okay to have emacs and gcc run on a proprietary > > > system as it allows more people to run free software. How is it that it > > > is wrong to allow more people to run a free system by giving them links > > > to proprietary software if it encourages them to keep their free system > > > instead of switching to a proprietary one ? > > > > 1) ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ isn't "links" > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ only contains software that can legally > be redistributed, not to mention that it is a repository for > software that a user *explicitely* installs, not something that > is part of the OS.
Yes. But even if it's legally redistributable, the question remains wether it's free software or not. Fortunately OpenBSD is Free Software. Unfortunately it recommends and distributes proprietary software on it's servers (and it wasn't because some user wrote some text on a wiki page). > > 2) using more free software is better than not running it at all > > 3) incentivating usage of non-free software on free software operating > > systems doesn't incentivate the creation of free software replacements > > this is a word play. I know people who used OpenBSD for a while > and stopped using it because a proprietary application they > depended on was not available; and i know people who would use > Linux/OpenBSD/whatever if emacs/gcc were not available and made > so easy to use on Windows, because gcc is centric to their > business and emacs integrates it so well. Now THIS is wordplay and pure speculation. If GCC wasn't available or made so easy to use, they'd merely use another one. The reason they don't use a Free Software operating system as nothing to do with the availability of GCC. Mostly its some stupid reason like managemente dictates usage of tool X which only works on Windows, for instance. > If the proprietary application was available, the lost openbsd > users would be using *far more* free applications than the ones > that are currently using emacs/gcc on Windows. Only if they were using it like those sissy pseudo-fans of Free Software which changed to Apple MacOS X just because it's "unix" (erms...) and pretty, and works and has the apps. That is: they'd use it without any soul. > > 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables > > running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as > > such de-incentivates the creation of replacements. > > 4.1) but it's free software and its authors have their own independence. > > I don't follow the wine project and I don't know how well it works, > but getting Windows applications to run under a free system looks > very productive to me. It means that I can remove Windows from my > workstation without preventing my girlfriend from doing her work > or changing her habits. And as a strange side-effect, she would be > using a free system and many other free utilities. There needs to be "soul" into the decision, or else it's just like choosing clothing. Does she use OpenBSD because she wants to use a Free Software operating system? If so, what have you done to help her get rid of her dependency on proprietary software? Will she keep using it if (let's hope not) you ever break up? > > > By providing emacs and gcc for windows you encourage people to run just > > > a few free applications with proprietary system and (many) tools, while > > > we just give people the freedom to install a proprietary application on > > > top of a free system with free tools. > > > > Look, OpenBSD is aggressive enough that people who "need" such non-free > > software likely won't even run it on OpenBSD, so what you're saying is > > that to the convenience of a few people who don't care for freedom of > > all users, you distribute non-free software. > > I have not said such a thing and you are playing words again to prove > some point. If an OpenBSD user needs a package for work and does not > find it, he will switch to another system because he needs his work done. Maybe for the desktop case, but then you have a whole sleuth of problems which users have a harder time dealing with than some software (like hardware support which in part because of NDA development *puah* supports a few more hardware). > The packages in our ftp are packages we are legally allowed to distribute > and are not part of the system. Users need to explicitely install them if > they want so. > > Now, please, I suggest you get familiar with the goals and policy pages > because you tend to mix OpenBSD goals with the ones from the FSF. Nopes, for what I read they're mostly the same, and these clear cut proprietary cases are hysterically extreme points of view. > > > > Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude that in afterthought I > > > > shouldn't even "honour" you with a reply. > > > > > > I try hard to keep my emails insult-free, saying that they are rude for > > > helping you avoid embarassing questions is what makes you a troll. Just > > > like your friend Stallman, you play on words and act like a victim if a > > > person points at the flaws in your reasonning, grow up. > > > > No, I am a victim and your (generically, not specifically you) attitude > > actually makes my relation with OpenBSD very frustrating. > > It saddens me, but your (that's you and mr Stallman) attitude is very > irritating. I would suggest, for the benefit of all, that you both leave > as it would lessen your frustration and my irritation ... All I can speak for, is for myself: if I use OpenBSD because I like its feature set, and if I deploy it as I can... that's the kind of user you want to go away? I'd say you're better off cancelling the project, if it depended on you. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
