On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:07 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: >There is a big practical difference between making a free system >suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a >non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are >different. > >People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is >unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them >about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching >operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a >non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. > >Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a >free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when >doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and >bad for your freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows >don't say this, I'll make sure to add it. >
I was an IBM OS/2 instructor at the time when IBM could accurately boast that OS/2 was "A better windows than Windows". All the work to achieve that was seen as an investment in the future of OS/2 because people could use OS/2 and keep all their old windows apps running. The result was that the writers of applications mostly never targeted OS/2 and so there was never a real reason to switch to it. The result was that OS/2 virtually ceased to exist, whilst windows thrived. The applications ran on windows - there was no need to use another platform. And you honestly believe that a few obscure applications ported to windows from gnuland will convert windows users to your "one true way" OS which doesn't even exist? I don't believe you would, logically, but then I've seen very little logic in any of your arguments and a lot of disengenuous crap. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, in his famous treatise: Reason in Common Sense. I came to OpenBSD from Linux ( after the lingering death of OS/2 I became a Linux Instructor at IBM) mostly due to the continuous hassles with crap code. I'm afraid I prefer to disregard the "Many eyes make all bugs shallow" mantra because there are not enough eyes that know anything. So OpenBSD's insistence on code quality and its rigourous adherence to its standards does it for me. So does it matter that you (to quote the recording of you that started this thread)said "I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free programs. And as a result I can't recommend any of them." ? No. Since that we have discovered that you cannot recommend any other OS either. Well, maybe two if you overlook some incovenient truths.... So if you cannot finish your own OS, when will we see the RMS gnu/linux distro, lily-white and virginal? Version 0.0 codename Titanic Struggle? Thanks for all the laughs. Time for beddie-byes old feller. Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
