On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > >> which has a distribution called "raspbian", not "debian"? > > As the initiator of the Debian derivatives census, I strongly object > to your dismissal of Raspbian in particular and Debian derivatives in > general.
that's fine... but please really, create a separate mailing list for that derivative. i'm really not interested in hearing about > Debian needs our derivatives as much as they need us. We > should embrace derivatives, cultivate them, bring them closer to > Debian and encourage their developers to get involved in Debian. We > should not be hostile and antagonistic toward them, reject them and > alienate them, that is very counter-productive and especially bad for > Debian. well, this is a rare instance - a very rare one - where a product that has such incredible promise and success also comes with some highly insiduous business practices attached, that, unfortunately, pretty much zero percent of individuals who actually purchase that product are aware of those insidious practices. so there's a couple of choices here, and unfortunately they're diametrically opposed. a) tolerate insidious business practices that include illegal and unlawful mis-selling amongst other things b) don't tolerate such practices. those are the two diametrically-opposed options but you have to be *aware* of those options, and so there is a third category into which almost 100% of people who purchase this product fall: total ignorance of the insidious business practices. would you agree with that assessment? my feeling is that debian needs to support and be associated with illegal and insidious business practices like it needs a hole in the head. would you agree with that assessment? you may not. you may feel that it is perfectly acceptable, and, that like many people who have purchased this insidious product, feel that the "gains" outweigh the "down-sides". the price is amazing: gain. the large community support is amazing: gain. you may even feel that being forced to pay for proprietary CODECs is also a gain! you may also feel that broadcom has a perfect right to "protect its intellectual enslavement rights", and if you are such a person you may therefore be wondering why the hell i am even raising this issue. as someone who is working REALLY HARD and spending considerable time and PERSONAL FUNDS to bring people on this list some hardware and even processors that are unencumbered by DRM and have full free software stacks for *ALL* hardware components right down to the boot loader i'm a little disappointed to be receiving criticism for software freedom advocacy. for the person who raised the issue here initially, i spent about 3/4 of an hour doing some research for them to find them alternative hardware that has good community support, that would better meet their needs.... ... and i'm being criticised for then saying to the people who *continued* the discussion and implicit advocacy and support of insidious business practices, to please take their discussion elsewhere?? definite "wtf" moment going on here. so does that make things any clearer? does this need to be discussed further, or cleared up in any way? l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capweedxvwrznysiq33s5jq2simer6mpuscppwdnlixksfd9...@mail.gmail.com
