2012/10/4 Frank Griffin <f...@roadrunner.com>: > On 10/04/2012 11:29 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: >> >> Still the trust on a software filter is not the same as the trust in a >> visible separation. If you think there is no technical difference, this >> discussion is not just on technical of the issue. If I go into an empty room >> which is dark, everybody could tell me that the room is empty and I can't >> hurt myself by falling over some furniture - still I'd prefer the lights on. > > You're correct, and one of the points I'm trying to make is that while it is > reasonable to technically enable FOSS enthusiasts to install a FOSS-only > system easily, it is not reasonable to make things difficult for everyone > else simply to pander to FOSS political correctness. > > The same argument underlies the issue of an install process that caters to > both free and nonfree via a switch versus one that allows no nonfree > software on the install media or no nonfree repo to be considered by the > installer. In both cases, a FOSS enthusiast can have what he wants, but > I'm sure the enthusiast would be happier with the latter case, for all the > non-technical reasons you mention, including that it makes it more difficult > for others to do things of which he disapproves. > > If there's no technical difference between two approaches, we ought to pick > the one that works best for the greatest part of the user base.
Yes, that's why I prefer the separation of free and non-free repos. IMHO opinion it is easier to have non-free visually out of the way for the FOSS enthousiasts and it's just one click (actually 2 including non-free/updates) for the users who want it all. Furthermore there is another reason to keep the repos separated: it is Mageias written intention to support and advocate FOSS. Separating non-free and FOSS is a visible demonstration of this intention. Mixing both in the same repo is the opposite. -- wobo