Luis> I've been snooping on this list and thread for quite some
Luis> time, but this one finally made me need to respond.
Welcome, Luis.
Luis> On 4 May 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software is
>> free. Neither are all protocols. Sometimes, some communication
>> protocols gain popularity with the masses that have no free
>> implementations.
>>
Luis> "Sometimes, some *operating system* standards gain
Luis> popularity with the masses that have no free
Luis> implementation."
Luis> I for one don't think that's a sufficient reason to use that
Luis> OS- do you?
What're the reasons for not using that store-bought OS to which you
refer? It's not the monetary price of it is it? Are the issues
related to engineering philosopy and source code availability +
modifiableness, or to economic philosopy and marketting challenges?
>> Imagine when a group of people say "Hey, call us using
>> foo-grubble, and we can have a neat game". And we have to say,
>> sorry, no can do, I use linux, and I am unable to do that.
>>
Luis> "Imagine when a group of people say "Hey, *I'll send you the
Luis> doc in Word98 format.*" And we have to say, sorry, no can
Luis> do, I use linux, and I am unable to do that."
Imagine everyone spending the time it takes to really learn to use
LaTeX markup or an SGML.
Luis> I imagine that, and have it happen to me every day. So what?
Luis> I knew that was a problem when I switched to Linux, and I
Luis> deal.
Ooohhh... a dealer. Cool. 8-) Psst... Ya got any good Java, man?
>> At that point, the impression is that we are running a less
>> capable system.
>>
Luis> Well, in some ways we *are* running a less capable
Luis> system. Practically speaking, if we don't force people to
Luis> write alternatives, we will never have a more capable
Luis> system.
dpkg-autocodegen --force-alternatives pennyless-studenti.dtc [1]
I'm thinking of re-reading the GNU Manifesto and
.../src/xemacs-21.2/etc/MOTIVATION again...
Luis> If stamping a product "non-free" will motivate people to
Luis> write a replacement, then this is a necessary
Luis> step. Certainly, saying it is completely free (which it
Luis> obviously is not) will not do much to motivate that
Luis> development.
"motivate that development" means what? I need to put food on my
plate, and would love to afford college tuition and rent. It would
be nice to have a few days and a few dollars to play also... and to
attract a mate with. (They like men who put food on the table.)
>> When some one creates a client side of that protocol, using
>> totally free software, and empowers our users with the ability
>> to particiapte; that is a good thing. We have added capability
>> to our system.
>>
Luis> Again, I think I speak for many of us in saying that
Luis> capability is NOT the only important thing. If that were the
Luis> case, many of us would be using Office on our MS98
Luis> systems. Like it or not, by choosing Linux we are choosing
Luis> reduced functionality, which may or may not improve with
Luis> time.
Blah. Will improve as those of us who are committed to sitting on
our penguin egg (while reading) learn to code great applications.
Let's hope that the folks at Microsoft and other software companies
who've written some very good libraries and applications will see the
light and hand it down to us without forcing an NDA for every Byte.
It would be kind of neat to see serious MS library and application
sources on public FTP servers... Someday I might be able to see for
myself and answer the questions about whether, for instance, OLE is a
better engineered approach to whatever it does than brand X
openbuzzword.
>> Of course, it would be nice if we had free server software
>> too. That shall come with time. But turning away free software
>> cause it talks to non free software on *ANOTHER MACHINE*, hurts
>> the free software community.
>>
Luis> "That shall come with time" is a very passive attitude. I'd
Luis> venture to say that very little that this movement has
Luis> achieved has come because someone said "oh, we'll just use
Luis> the non-free version- someone else will fix it later."
You're right Luis. It's more of a take off the watch and push the
buttons / turn the pages kind of thing. It's a <<"I'd send a patch
if I could, but you know the system better than I do; please show me
what you did to fix it.", said the baby gnu.>> situation.
Luis> Rather, someone said "Even though this works "right", it is
Luis> *wrong* in a deeper sense. I will fix that problem by doing
Luis> it myself." That is how things get done in Free
Luis> Software. Being satisfied just because something is
Luis> "functional" is what hurts the community, and that is what
Luis> we are doing if packages like this go in main.
You'll do that yourself because you've studied the problem in depth
--- read all the available code and research --- and have the
experience and knowledge it will require to actually sit down at a
computer and type the magic `dpgk-autogencode --force-alternatives'
commands. If you only know part of it, or don't know how it will
behave on brand X hardware, rough it in and hand it over to another
craftsman... (such is what I've learned building software packages
and toying with CVS sandboxes... After I get through "policy", I
promise to read at least another 10 pages or so of the "mobile book"
before I get some sleep.)
Luis> P.S. I fully support the maintainers who reject tik, and
Luis> hope that policy will be clarified so that the various ICQ
Luis> clients and word-format converters can be moved out of main.
What was `tik'? I forgot where I put my watch. I think I got the
`tok' part still...
[1] .dtc stands for Debian Tuition Control. Anybody else want some?
<grin> 8-{)>>
