On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:50:27PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software, > > > I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who > > > want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems, > > > this can be seen as a severe drawback. > > > > > > > Just a few questions then: > > > > - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP > > without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd > > lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to > > troll here, and I've been working with people who make > > a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be > > seen as a severe drawback ? > > No, they are using more Free Software than before. The opposit is a > drawback, IMHO, because more people is using proprietary software. >
So basically, as long as you can adapt your rules conveniently its ok ? According to this new rule, how comes it is a drawback to provide users with the freedom to install proprietary applications if it makes them use more free software (i.e: users installing OpenBSD because they know they will be able to achieve some task vs. people installing Windows because they are unable to achieve the same task under OpenBSD) ? If we don't provide some proprietary app, wouldn't we discourage use of a free system by forcing users to chose another system ? Or are the FSF rules bending again so that its ok for you but not for us ? > > - What makes you think you are smarter than anybody just > > because you don't install proprietary software ? > > Not smarter, at least smart enough on this subject not to do that. > > > and impose my choices on them. Do you see what I mean? > > I do, but you didn't see what I meant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough for > you. > That's probably because I am not smart enough, I am not 100% pure. -- Gilles Chehade
