Svante Signell wrote: > On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 22:57 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > > Debian regularly removes old buggy packages that few people use. Are you > > saying that is wrong, and for the sake of freedom people should be given > > the ability to keep installing them even if few actually want to? If > > not, what makes kFreeBSD special so that it is more about "real > > freedom"? > > Both kFreeBSD and Hurd have contributed to multiple upstreams suddenly > realizing they are creating buggy and non-portable software. This is a > very important issue wrt software quality, and should be counted as one > major reason to continue to support non-linux systems.
I think this is the broken window fallacy. No doubt some related changes involved improving upstream code, but then about any other changes could have done the same. In general, finding things that could be improved is very easy and does not justify significant effort unless it's for specific things like bad security bugs. And you didn't answer the question of what this has to do with *freedom* at all. > Additionally, Debian is about software freedom, not about lock-in of > customers as for commercial vendors. Debian is promoting software > freedom, if they stopped doing that then the whole idea of Debian would > be lost (and should be discontinued, letting RedHat, Ubuntu, et al take > over the whole (Linux) market). This again raises the same question. What does software freedom have to do with kFreeBSD or Hurd? You imply that dropping Hurd would make things less free. Why would it do that more significantly than dropping some obsolete package nobody uses? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1370126988.3628.322.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
