[PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON LIST MAIL] On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:04:39PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: I'll say that again since you ignored it. [PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON LIST MAIL] > [snip] > > > Hmm. So removing these packages from non-free will make it impossible for > > Debian to be used as a platform for Java, E-commerce, or web browsing with > > Netscape? > > > > What exactly is it that Debian users absolutely will not be able to do with > > a Debian system if the General Resolution is passed? > > Write latex documents using WYSIWYG. In other words use lyx. Sorry but quite a > lot of people still use latex instead of the lat^Hmest and greatest software Package: lyx Priority: optional Section: contrib/text lyx is in contrib, not non-free. lyx will remain in the Debian archives. > Use a few PCMCIA GUI frontends that happen to depend on bxforms. If they are DFSG-free, they can stay in contrib. > Use anything working on/with Java This would come as a big surprise to the guys I work with. They've been doing Java development on Debian boxes for months, and it would be a big bummer to have to tell them they can't anymore. Somehow this General Resolution will make it so that Debian boxes magically no longer work with Java. Imagine that. > Use any NVIDIA hardware as the drivers happen to be binary only These drivers are presently packaged for Debian? Where do people get it now? If Debian removes non-free from our archives and bug tracking system, will NVidia decide to stop making these drivers? > Use any Lucent soft modem hardware as it happens to have some binary only > components. This software is presently packaged for Debian? Where do people get it now? If Debian removes non-free from our archives and bug tracking system, will Lucent decide to stop making this stuff available? > Use... Ad naseum... It appears you do not understand the General Resolution at all. > I personally do not give a fsck about java, but Branden would you be so kind > to port lyx to a different toolkit before advocating what you are advocating > for. Would you please be so kind as to attempt to comprehend the General Resolution before sending me a laundry list in private mail? > Being the developer responsible for Xwindows it is in your area. It's not called "Xwindows". man X. I am not responsible for every piece of X-related software in existnce. > And of course convince the upstream developers that they use a different > toolkit. Upstream developers can do whatever they please and this General Resolution imposes nothing on them. -- G. Branden Robinson | <joeyh> oh my, it's a UP P III. Debian GNU/Linux | <doogie> dos it. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | * joeyh runs dselect roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | <Overfiend> that ought to be sufficient :)
Attachment:
pgpYhYEzbUCPb.pgp
Description: PGP signature