Hi James, Not sure but I suspect that the problem is not mentioning, but _encouraging_ the use of non-free software.
Yes, I see the point here. For some situations is simply not reliable to use _just_ free software, but sometimes there is no need to have some pieces of non-free software. The processing and Flash problem are easy to solve because it is just a matter of time to see reliable options. But other pieces are harder to solve. 2010/9/28 James Harkins <[email protected]>: > Just to clarify my earlier comment -- I'm generally sympathetic to the > concerns motivating free software (this is part of the reason why I'm > switching to Linux after using Mac for a couple of decades now). > > But when free software advocates insist that the documentation -- > documentation, not code -- must not help users install non-free components, > then I have to get off the train. Where's the boundary? "Sorry, your > distribution can no longer be considered free because you have a web forum > and some user mentioned once how to install flash"? I don't know if it's > really that restrictive, but if it is, that's left the realm of common > sense. > > The other thing that bugs me about this is the use of a broad word -- "free" > -- for a specific idea from the FSF. When everybody has a different idea of > "free," that conversation isn't going very far. > > So, generally sympathetic to the FSF's goals, yes, but also skeptical. > James > > > -- > James Harkins /// dewdrop world > [email protected] > http://www.dewdrop-world.net > > "Come said the Muse, > Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted, > Sing me the universal." -- Whitman > > blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words > audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio > more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks > > --- > [email protected] > http://identi.ca/group/puredyne > irc://irc.goto10.org/puredyne > --- [email protected] http://identi.ca/group/puredyne irc://irc.goto10.org/puredyne
