zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> skrev: (6 januari 2019 13:09:33 CET) >Dear Mike, > >Thank you to raise this concern here. >I was aware of this thread and I do not fully agree with the arguments. >:-) >I am doing 3 comments. > > >First, from my point of view, we need to distinguish between the >"puller" and the "pusher". >And correct me if I am wrong, but one does not need an account to pull >a Docker from DockerHub. Therefore, I do not see the issue from the >puller side. >Because if we apply the argument, do the GPL licensed softwares on >GitHub respect the freedom of the user? > >The issue is about the "pusher" i.e. the GNU Guix project. And yes, >the GNU Guix has to accept to run non-free softwares to be able to >push on DockerHub. Is it acceptable? > > >Hence, my second comment is about the _how_ to distribute. Currently, >there is no free alternative to publish Docker image; even if docker >provides a mechanism to pull from elsewhere than DockerHub. >It is an issue about money and man power. It will be a pity to not >spread enough free software political ideas because the movement lacks >resources. And it is not about be hypocritical, I guess. > >If I may, I quote the paper from the Guix maintainers---correct me if >I am wrong. >https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02822 last paragraph from section 5 ><< >Proprietary software. >GNU Guix does not provide proprietary software packages. >Unfortunately, proprietary software is still relatively common in HPC, >be it linear algebra libraries or GPU support. Yet, we see it as a >strength more than a limitation. Often, these “black boxes” inherently >limit reproducibility—how is one going to reproduce a software >environment without permission to run the software in the first place? >What if the software depends on the ability to “call home” to function >at all? More importantly, we view reproducible software environments >and reproducible science as a tool towards improved and shared >knowledge; developers who deny the freedom to study and modify their >code work against this goal. >>>> > >Here, my personal opinion. Today, people think that the Science crisis >about reproducibility will be tackled by Docker and containers. On one >hand, I am here because I think it is wrong and it is not the path to >go. On the other hand, I need to pragmatic: people in labs have built >infrastructures using Docker or equivalent; they wont be convinced >easily to switch and so I think I want to ease the switch in playing >directly in their ground. > > >Last, I do not understand how to apply the argument against pushing to >DockerHub to the Windows port of Emacs. >Somehow, GNU has to run non-free softwares to provide this port. At >least to launch some tests. > >My personal opinion is that it is good. Because this spreads the >message about freedom, this helps people to be aware of the movement, >this should be a first step in liberating users. > > >Thank you if you have comments and/or if you have arguments that >explain me where it is wrong. > > >All the best, >simon
+1 I never used docker. It would probably have helped me when I set up my now broken accounting software (odoo 9) before I knew about dolibarr and before guix had containers. (It broke some time ago when I upgraded arch :/ Shared libraries are a stability risk and pain in the long run) According to the Swedish state I have to make sure my accounting software is working 7 years after the end of each year. This is to my surprise really hard with software like odoo. I would have upgraded long ago would it have been straightforward by the developers (odooization as i call it is a problem, they make money on making odoo a fast changing maze that has really poor documentation, cryptic errors and no free upgrade scripts necessitating a whole industry of paid supporters.) -- Sent from my p≡p for Android.
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
