Re: Debian/GNU Freebsd
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 01:36:40AM -0500, ijr@po.cwru.edu wrote:
> > Redhat is not a Free Software distribution nor is it an "Open Source"
> > distribution. Much of what they distribute we consider non-free and if
> > the Open Source Definition is essentially equivalent to the Debian Free
> > Software Guidelines, well...
>
> So the fact that Redhat pays people to develop GPL'd and LGPL'd software full
> time is utterly meaningless? Okay, so what you said.. "Much of what they
> distribute we consider non-free." What percentage constitutes "much"? 30%?
> 40%? Can you point me to a list showing that over 25% of the software
> distributed by RH would qualify as non-free in debian? Let's just count the
> _main_ installation CD for RH5.2, if you include the other disks, you might as
> well include non-free and contrib as part of the Debian.
>
> Meaningless RH bashing makes me ill.
I'm sorry, I don't have a 5.2 cdrom and if I did I don't have a drive to
put it in. However, based on my exploration of their ftp site (no not
contrib packages) I would say a fair percentage, at least 10% probably
more. I'm not in the mood to count packages right now, you're welcome to
if you feel that strongly about it.
That there is any non-free software on Redhat's CDs makes them a bad
thing to be considered the "default Linux" IMO. Too many new users
coming in and trying to find otu what "Free Software" is all about, only
to have the idea reinforced in their heads that things such as Netscape
and WP8 are "Free". Redhat is guilty of furthering that notion, though
as Phillip pointed out, there are far worse corporations if you want an
example of Bad Things corporations will do (and have done already) with
Linux.
--
"There are 3 things to remember about being a Starship Captain:
Keep your shirt tucked in, go down with the ship, and never,
ever abandon a member of your crew."
-- Kathryn Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager
Reply to: