On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:09:44 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:29:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>> > That is somewhat uncomfortable; and besides, non-free is there
>> > for convenience until we have a completely free operating system.
>>
>> Yep, and non-free packages can be removed once they have a free
>> replacement.
> There are already things in non-free that have free replacements.
> Nethack is free, and yet that doesn't stop us from shipping all
> sorts of other Rogue-style games in non-free.
If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your
level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the
proposal is less appealing by the moment. This is like sayting that
we already had a file transfer mechanism in uuco, and thus uucp is a
replacement for http and every other file tranfer protocol that has
been subsequently invented.
Your viewpoint would be better sereved if you did not press
your case to the stretching point, where you did not give the
impression that things that are not true replacements shall be
trumpeted as replacements just to get rid of the non-fre srtucture,
whether or not the users of the non-free programs are ill served or
not. At the very least, this is dishonest.
manoj
--
If you took all the students that felt asleep in class and laid them
end to end, they'd be a lot more comfortable. "Graffiti in the Big
Ten"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
