** On Jun 15, Ben Armstrong scribbled: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, cRAig Sanders wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 08:40:51PM +0000, Ben Armstrong wrote: > > > i do believe there has to be *focus* though. we decide what we're > > > good at, and then focus on that. > > > > that is precisely the point of the whole flamewar. we *have* a focus, > > we've had one for years - providing the best and most free operating > > system possible. > > > > what is happening now is that a small group of extremists are trying > > to hijack the project's focus and exclude everyone and everything that > > offends their personal morality. > > If it were only so simple. But I think the problem is that it's not > just about the extremists. There are moderates like myself who would > like to see *something* done to clarify Debian's position about non- For God's sake, didn't you read the entire thread? Are you subscribed to debian-project? If so, then read the two proposals to that effect, or care to take a look at the today's Debian Weekly - there are pointers to postings that propose to do *something* reasonable. At least one of those proposals got (at least verbally) accepted by Goerzen. Read it and only then write your comments, we don't need another flamewar. [snip] > > > But I fail to see how "the marketplace" in the "age of the Internet" > > > would be any different. Must your entire system be installable off a > > > single set of CDs? > > > > his argument didn't depend on CDs. the point was that having to hunt > > for various packages, retrieving them from multiple sources of variable > > quality and unknown adherence to policy standards will be enough to > > drive people away to some more convenient distribution. > > This "having to hunt" business ... I don't see it. Especially with all It has been explained several times during this flame war. Go back and read the mails, there's no point in repeating all the argumets all over again. [snip] > > > I think by now people are used to obtaining software from a variety > > > of sources, and so this argument that "people won't use Debian if it > > > doesn't contain non-free" (and it doesn't anyway ... that's just an > > > illusion) just doesn't hold water. > > > > for users of other dists that is true. debian users are much more used > > to the idea of debian being a fairly "complete" operating system, where > > they can find pretty nearly everything they might need or want from the > > one trusted, high-quality source. > > Does the existence of a non-Debian entity which adds non-free to Debian > really threaten to weaken either trust or quality? What if Debian spun Once again, please read the previous posts. [snip] > > that, in fact, is the source of many new debian developers - they find > > something that nobody has packaged yet, package it themselves, and > > apply to become a maintainer so that their work becomes part of the > > distribution. that's the custom in debian, and one of the factors that > > helps us to have a very high quality system. > > If Debian doesn't prohibit developers from also participating in such a > venture as I have described, then I don't see how this would change after > the split. All that would change is that Debian could finally say > "contains 100% free software" and then refer people to this But the Debian *distribution* contains 100% free software!! It's also have been said thousands of times during the last few days - non-free is not a part of the Debian distribution! I hope that settles it - it's not the issue that's being debated upon. regards, marek
Attachment:
pgp2oxmAaSGxf.pgp
Description: PGP signature