On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:14:54 +0000, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> wrote:
>> Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure
>> sucks up time and energy of maintainers on work that doesn't
>> benefit free software;
> Support for non-free already does this, although we disagree about
> how much.
Frankly, if I am scramblig for resources to be able to provide
toe and angband to my users (one of whom is my wife), I'll have even
less time for policy and devotee and anything else I may do for
Debian in the future.
One sideed example? Sure. But it represents a possibility you
seem not to have considered, or, in my opinion, dismissed too casually.
>> and reducing the available support for our users who need non-free
>> software makes their lives more painful, or encourages them to
>> switch to a different distribution.
> Or it may encourage them to move to free software, making their
> lives easier, especially if we provide good migration help as
> suggested by some current non-free users.
Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
http).
manoj
--
Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss
the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.
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
