On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:30:26 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Yeah, and which is why those systems are lacking the stability of debian > boxes.
As i can see their systems were not as stable as Debian woody because the system structure or the distributors decision to insert new and untested version of some programs or even of the kernel. But there system doesn't become more or less stable through spim. >> and installed it. I would have no problem to do the same thing. I would >> never demand from Debian to provide non-free Software to me. I think Debian >> has it's own goals an philosophy and doesn't have to make some single >> person like me happy by providing some non-free software. >But what if we could with a real minor cost ? Probably a lesser cost than >what you needed. That's no argument for me. I have learned that at the end the only person who is responsible for me and my needs are I'm by my self. I see Debians job for distributing a 100% Free Operating System, not in offering me some special non-free software which i need in some special case. If i need this it's my job to find and install them, not Debians job. > This is not true currently though. But most people chose to ignore the > issue of the bios, and the proprietary firmware in most of the hardware. But that many people ignore the issue of bios is not an argument that other people should ignore the issue of non-free in Debian. >> special things which will not work with free software, but the most >> things works really god" than it's Debian and i think Debian should >> keep this role or expand it if possible. > And, is this not what we are doing ? Not completely. Because Debian also recommend and suggest non-free Software in there main System and promoting it on there homepage, as i mentioned in my first mail. >> power but a lot of people doesn't really need it. And if you need it, >> than you can go to the vendors homepage and take some drivers, >> therefore you don't need Debian. > > And once you have messed up your system, to whom you will come for help? I would ask myself, the vendor, or Debian and GNU/Linux user who also use this proprietary driver. But i wouldn't ask some DD's, at least not as there job as DD, because i would know that they are working for and with Free Software and not for and with proprietary software or drivers. > non-free is shuned by all debian developers, and it is a shame for a > given DD to maintain a package there. But maybe the developer of this software or the vendor of the hardware have no problem with non-free and so they complete satisfy that they "in Debian" and every Debian user can use there software/drivers. And they would work harder if they aren't in Debian at all, and the only way would be to free the software/driver. I think thats a little bit the same like the kernel issue which you have mentioned before. Torvalds has allowed non-free driver modules in the kernel, so the hardware vendors know that GNU/Linux user can run there hardware and so they have an opportunity to sell there hardware to GNU/Linux user. They don't really worry about Free Software. If there was no opportunity like this i think this non-free driver culture wouldn't have developed, at least not in these dimension. And vendors like ATI and Matrox would today provide there specs like a few years before. > time, and the willingness of the DD that the package is in non-free, and > upstream well knows that. It takes only a single mail from the > maintainer (or from the QA folk) to remove the package from non-free. But i think it shouldn't be just the decision of the maintainer. I think Debian should decide if a non-free package are on the Debian server or not. And if there is a free alternative than the non-free software have to deleted immediately from the Debian server whether or not the maintainer still wants this package. E.g. netscape was a long time in non-free even there was enough free alternatives, or look at mpg123 i think this program also shouldn't be on the Debian server because there are enough free alternatives mpg321, mp3blaster,... > An external non-free.org repository would have full legitimity, and > would not be under our control. But it wouldn't legitimated and labeled by Debian. Debian can not and shouldn't control what people doing outside from Debian, Debian can only control what people does inside Debian. Cheers! Markus
