Puts the onus on the FSF
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Jul 06, 2012 9:43 AM EDT |
This will, at least, put the onus on the FSF to explicitly state why Debian is not included. Personally, I thought not including contrib and non-free by default, then the binary blobs being moved out to non-free, would suffice. Oh well. At the very least it will be interesting to see where, after this effort has been at it long enough for a couple of iterations to have been accomplished, to see just what ends up being the final straw. |
| caitlyn Jul 06, 2012 6:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:This will, at least, put the onus on the FSF to explicitly state why Debian is not included.They do and have done on their website for about forever: Quoting:Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database. Source: http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html The FSF also publishes clear Guidelines for what makes an OS "Free" by their definition: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelin... So, no, the onus (if there actually is one) is squarely on Debian. |
| tracyanne Jul 06, 2012 6:41 PM EDT |
I guessQuoting:A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that are not committed to only including free software; even if they only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on. that is the sticking point. |
| BernardSwiss Jul 06, 2012 7:58 PM EDT |
I thought that Debian has struck a fairly reasonable balance. The extra steps required to access "third-party" proprietary software made the point, without being hostile to users' practical needs. I would call this approach "pragmatic, but not (merely) expedient". As far as I'm concerned, this worked rather well. It made the point, and educated users, without punishing users over ideological purity. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2012 8:21 PM EDT |
> I thought that Debian has struck a fairly reasonable balance. IMO, the difference is that Debian cares about their users needs. I won't say the FSF doesn't, but it's strictly a second tier concern. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2012 10:36 PM EDT |
@bs by way of @jd -- The problem, especially as regards the FSF, is that Debian struck a reasonable balance. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 07, 2012 1:57 AM EDT |
Debian doesn't enable contrib and non-free by default. That should be enough to satisfy. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 09, 2012 11:54 AM EDT |
"the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine." As an end user, I consider this a valuable bit of information. |
| caitlyn Jul 09, 2012 11:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:Debian doesn't enable contrib and non-free by default. That should be enough to satisfy.Nope. Nothing but ideological purity will do. Any distro that the FSF recommends is one I know by default is severely crippled in terms of hardware support. Thanks, but no thanks. My operating system choice is not a religion. It has to do the job or it's of no use to me. |
| Fettoosh Jul 10, 2012 9:43 AM EDT |
FSF has to practice what it preaches. Debian has to release a complete usable useful solution. I personally don't see why Debian should care whether they are or aren't on the FSF list. Does it make a difference? No. And who cares? Hardly any few. |
| helios Jul 10, 2012 9:50 AM EDT |
To be honest here, all it took was one car ride with RMS to knock the stars out of my eyes. I thought I had the privilege of shuttling him from hotel to speaking engagement here in Austin a few years back. What I ended up with was a smug and self-absorbed geek sitting next to me, refusing to engage in the simplest of conversations and rudely slamming the door while I was asking him what time he wanted to be picked up. I know RMS has his followers here but when you deal with the person and not the persona, the shiny paint gets chipped off fast. I haven't had a thing to do with the FSF since. Oh yeah, and what Caitlyn said... |
| caitlyn Jul 10, 2012 10:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:FSF has to practice what it preaches. Debian has to release a complete usable useful solution. That's my point. The two seem to be mutually incompatible. Quoting:I personally don't see why Debian should care whether they are or aren't on the FSF list. That is a small but loud minority who often make FOSS look bad. These are the people who, when you try to sanely answer interoperability questions on a business website discussion forum, ask why Microsoft has any right to exist. They are not helpful and often make the community as a whole look like a bunch of loons. Quoting:What I ended up with was a smug and self-absorbed geek sitting next to me, refusing to engage in the simplest of conversations and rudely slamming the door while I was asking him what time he wanted to be picked up.I have not had the "pleasure" of meeting RMS but based on what I've read I'm not surprised. |
| Fettoosh Jul 10, 2012 10:06 AM EDT |
I don't know the guy and I don't intend to make an effort. But sometimes it takes more than a first meeting to really know someone. On the other hand, rude or not, I do respect the guy for what he did and continue to do. |
| helios Jul 10, 2012 10:30 AM EDT |
Fettoosh, I agree with you but when someone slams a car door in your face while you are leaning over to try to talk to them....that first meeting is the only chance I'm taking to "know" them. |
| flufferbeer Jul 10, 2012 10:32 AM EDT |
@Fettoosh, > On the other hand, rude or not, I do respect the guy for what he did and continue to do. Same for me too. There are too many less-accomplished commentators (even here) who are all-too-quick too condemn the guy for his strong and principled stances for FSF, while remaining mostly UNprincipled themselves. 2c |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2012 11:17 AM EDT |
> I do respect the guy for what he did and continue to do. I respect what he did and continues to do. And that reflects well on him. Is that enough to make me respect him? No. |
| Fettoosh Jul 10, 2012 1:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is that enough to make me respect him? No. It is a personal perspective but sound like throwing out the baby with the bath water. |
| gus3 Jul 10, 2012 6:21 PM EDT |
@helios, is it fair to say Glenn Beck treated you better than Richard Stallman? |
| helios Jul 10, 2012 6:28 PM EDT |
@ gus...it is more than fair, it is accurate. |
| dinotrac Jul 11, 2012 1:40 AM EDT |
Ah Ken, there you go, measuring RMS by the standards applied to mere humans. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 11, 2012 10:23 AM EDT |
"measuring RMS by the standards applied to mere humans." Chortle |
| gus3 Jul 11, 2012 4:33 PM EDT |
Well, he *is* a Doctor. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!