On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 17:12 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > On 06/10/08 23:04 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed: > > > On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 15:34 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > > >> I don't see the 5(?) installation CD isos there. For many who have no DVD > >> capability or limited space for downloading huge files, that's close to or > >> fully useless. There's still the "open" testing (factory) issue. Until > >> after > >> 9.3, it wasn't exactly open, just free for ftp installers or DVD > >> downloaders. > > > "I don't see any rpms for my favourite distro anywhere on ftp.gnu.org. > > For many who won't know how to compile software, that's close to or > > fully useless. For this reason, GNU/FSF does not provide open software, > > just free for experienced users, because they don't provide me with > > everything I need for my own particular needs." > > > Kind of a silly argument there, don't you think? > > I have no idea, because I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
I should have thought that was obvious. The point is that just because the format for distribution isn't exactly suited to your personal needs, that's not a sufficient criterion for saying it isn't open Some people said it wasn't open back when there were no ISOs, that there must be ISOs for it to be a usable distro. Others started complaining when there was only ISOs. No matter what you do, someone will complain because it's not 100% to their taste It might not be suitable, perhaps not even usable, bot kindly don't say it isn't open, because it devalues the meaning of the word --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
