Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 03:49:50PM -0400, Andrew Whitlock wrote: > > > A typical newbie won't start with Debian > > > >While that is probably true, I don't think that should be the basis for > > Debian's mode of operation. Debian needs new users and it needs to be > > designed to appeal to new users while still maintaining the qualities that > > separate it from the other GNU/Linux distributions. > > I'm a newbie, I started with Debian ^_^ 'Grats. I switched after 2.5 yrs. of RH a decade of prior on again / off again Unix experience. > For what it's worth, I've had to install non-.deb packages in /usr/local, > and to tell the truth I like having it installed "properly" with dpkg. I > just subbed last night and this thread has kinda been a downer for me, > although I intend to stick with the distribution (it's great!). There seem > to be varying opinions as to the implications of the motion. My novice mind > sees slower upgrade paths and more junk in /usr/local, but others seem to > not see it that way... > > As a newbie to Debian and proud owner of a mere 56Kbps connection, I'd have > to say I much prefer stuff on the distribution CDs ^_^;; It's not clear to > me at this juncture whether the motion really means the non-free will be > pulled from the distribution altogether, but it seems logical. I cheat and have two phone lines, but I installed and maintain my home system over 56k dialup. I'm typing this from work via ssh to same box. If you can cron your updates, a slow link becomes much more manageable, interactive browsing is the only real downer. > ...and hello, I'm new ;-) Sorry for the largely opinionated content. Initiation to the Church of IMVAO: Repeat after me: I am in touch with my inner opinion. I am comfortable with my inner opinion. I am entitled to my inner opinion. There is nothing humble about it. In My Very Arrogant Opinion Your opinion? You're entitled to your stupid opinion > Andrew W. -- Karsten M. Self http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc. http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 pgpQcNummWnXN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
servicom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Of course, when talking about newbies - a lot will probably be coming from >window$ so can't really survive unless they have a fancy graphical >installer/package manager (like gnorpm). Hmm, gnome-apt? :) Usable, though it still needs a lot of improvement from what I can tell. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who/what is GR (was: Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...)
Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Who or what is "GR"? GR stands for General Resolution, ie. the process Debian goes through before making a vote on something.
Who/what is GR (was: Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...)
Who or what is "GR"? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hmm. A little worrisome: http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy http://www.anonymizer.com/snoop.cgi )
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
Eric Hagglund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But it does cost money to put the non-free stuff on servers Really, I don't think that's the issue. "Resources" have been mentioned, but I think the idea is more of developers' time [1]; non-free is about one-tenth the size of main, and changes relatively rarely, so economies of scale make it not really worth worrying about in that regard. The supporters of the resolution see it as a matter of principle instead. [1] I disagree, but that's a side issue ;) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
> I don't know about you, but I never got a non-free cd with my official > Debian cd's. Non-free has never been a part of official Debian releases > AFAIK. > The problem friends lies in the fact that if support is withdrawn from the developers, MANY users will be left without any idea about what to do: The thing is simple, they will not know how to put the things in the right place, nor how to fix dependencies or conflicts. This is the meat of the problem for users. So, I propose that (developers, are you listening?) some kind of tool be developed for that matter. Otherwise, many will just start using alien, and then may be switch. I know that the feeling is that it is really not important, that many users leave, but, in reality, isn't the purpose of all this to facilitate the life of people and make it easier for them to have good working software in a sea of financial sharks?
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
"eric a . Farris" wrote: > > i think that'll be the kicker. those of use with (slow|no) connection > at home will pay a price, either through long download times, or having > to find/burn our own non-free CD. i would hope that, if non-free (and i > assume contrib must follow) is pulled that it would be relatively easy > to make a non-free CD, even if it's suddenly "Unofficial" Debian. > I don't know about you, but I never got a non-free cd with my official Debian cd's. Non-free has never been a part of official Debian releases AFAIK. I paid a 3rd party seperately for a CD-R containing the non-free deb's. Before that I just downloaded a few over my 33.6k dialup. My official Slink cd's contain only main and contrib. The non-free section is only connected with the official Debian via its online distribution (ie debian ftp sites and mirrors) and the bug tracking system, both of which would be affected by this GR. The debs themselves would still be free to exist - just not on the debian servers. Matthew
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:48:29PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > (i.e., Netscape). The idea is that CD vendors can go through the licenses > and decide for themselves what to include. So far as I know none have done > so. Steve McIntyre puts some extra stuff on his CDs - the slink set I got from him had at least Netscape and WP on them. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpP7JcESlYXY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
> > A typical newbie won't start with Debian An important factor is the question of which package management system is the best. In my experience, Debian's is the best when used with dselect/apt, etc. All the deps are sorted out and I think this could be considered a real boon for a newbie. Of course, when talking about newbies - a lot will probably be coming from window$ so can't really survive unless they have a fancy graphical installer/package manager (like gnorpm). Cheers, Jason.
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
Nathan Norman writes: > Who makes a non-free CD now? That's the whole point of non-free; the > bits in there have license or patent issues that prevent distribution via > commercial media like CDs. That is only one of the reasons for putting stuff in non-free. Others are that modifications are forbidden and that only binaries are available (i.e., Netscape). The idea is that CD vendors can go through the licenses and decide for themselves what to include. So far as I know none have done so. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 04:08:59PM -0400, eric a . Farris wrote: > i think that'll be the kicker. those of use with (slow|no) connection > at home will pay a price, either through long download times, or having > to find/burn our own non-free CD. i would hope that, if non-free (and i > assume contrib must follow) is pulled that it would be relatively easy > to make a non-free CD, even if it's suddenly "Unofficial" Debian. Who makes a non-free CD now? That's the whole point of non-free; the bits in there have license or patent issues that prevent distribution via commercial media like CDs. Anyone selling a non-free CD is almost certainly violating laws. It's be cool if everyone would calm down and realise that this is simply a call for a vote; the resolution will likely fail but hopefully it will prompt people to think about what Debian really is (and I agree with those who feel that Debian is primarily here to promote free software; that's why I use it). -- Nathan Norman "Eschew Obfuscation" Network Engineer GPG Key ID 1024D/51F98BB7http://home.midco.net/~nnorman/ Key fingerprint = C5F4 A147 416C E0BF AB73 8BEF F0C8 255C 51F9 8BB7 pgpsUXpH2h4GT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
I wish I could get more information before throwing in my two cents, but here goes: I tend to agree with most of the comments here. I like working with Debian and think that the package managmenent tool is the best of the distributions that I've worked with. I also like the fact that as things now stand if I'm missing something, all I have to do is pop in the url or ftp address and the distro does the rest. I also have a lot of respect for the convictions of the the creators of Debian and their steadfast belief that (forgive my grievous oversimplification. My only rationale is that I'm trying to address the one issue) good code is something everyone should share. But it does cost money to put the non-free stuff on servers and as useful as these apps are, I can see the developer's point that these packages go against the unique niche/mission that this distribution is trying to fulfill. But I can't help thinking that there must be some room for compromise here. If the Debian developers don't want to support non-free software, I'm inclined to agree that that is their prerogative. Nonetheless, I don't see why the carrying of non-free files is an issue with respect to package management. If a 19 year old (no offense to the 19 year old) can come up with a program like the Napster that is currently turning the music industry and the judicial system upside down trying to figure out what to do, why can't the best and brightest of the Open Source Development community put something like this to better use and code an apt-search function into dpkg that uses similar technology to give end users access to the non-free apps they are used to having? If Debian went to some kind of file-sharing system like the Napster, they would only have to carry library header information on non-free files instead, no? --- Randy Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A typical newbie won't start with Debian > >While that is probably true, I don't think that > should be the basis for > Debian's mode of operation. Debian needs new users > and it needs to be > designed to appeal to new users while still > maintaining the qualities that > separate it from the other GNU/Linux distributions. > > -- > Regards, | Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org > - More software than > .| *any* distribution, rock solid > reliability, quality control, > Randy| seamless upgrades via ftp or CD-ROM, > strict filesystem layout, > | adherence to standards, and militantly > 100% FREE GNU/Linux! > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe > [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
On Jun 08 2000, eric a . Farris wrote: > but, i have been playing around a bit with the new Mandrake 7.1, and > it sure is sweet... I think that I have a question: is there any standard or recommended way to upgrade an RPM-based system in way more or less similar to Debian's apt-get? I (and some of my friends) depend on quite a considerable quantity of non-free packages. :-( If that RPM upgrade system is possible/easy/convenient, then it would be an alternative to Debian if this non-free thing gets in the way (let's hope it does not). I think that removing non-free from Debian is a bad move right now, especially since non-free software provides functionality that free software doesn't. In the future, when there are more alternatives, it may be reasonable (and even encouraged) to remove non-free from Debian. But I think that now is not the appropriate time. Thanks in advance for any help to my question, Roger... P.S.: When I wrote about non-free software providing functionality not present in free software, I was thinking mostly (but not exclusively) of basic tasks like browsing the web. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 03:49:50PM -0400, Andrew Whitlock wrote: > I'm a newbie, I started with Debian ^_^ greetings from another once-newbie that also started with Debian (four years ago). > As a newbie to Debian and proud owner of a mere 56Kbps connection, I'd have > to say I much prefer stuff on the distribution CDs ^_^;; It's not clear to > me at this juncture whether the motion really means the non-free will be > pulled from the distribution altogether, but it seems logical. i think that'll be the kicker. those of use with (slow|no) connection at home will pay a price, either through long download times, or having to find/burn our own non-free CD. i would hope that, if non-free (and i assume contrib must follow) is pulled that it would be relatively easy to make a non-free CD, even if it's suddenly "Unofficial" Debian. I'm blessed enough to be able to use Debian at work and am in a position to make it our "official Linux distro." if non-free gets pulled, a simple /etc/apt/sources.list entry would suffice where there's a fast internet connection (perhaps real Debian could even come configured that way), just like HelixCode did for their wonderful debs of GNOME. but, i have been playing around a bit with the new Mandrake 7.1, and it sure is sweet... -- eric a. Farris [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.bigfoot.com/~eafarris Systems Administrator Appalachian Laboratory, UMCES www.al.umces.edu If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... oh, wait, he does. "For a list of ways technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
> > A typical newbie won't start with Debian > >While that is probably true, I don't think that should be the basis for > Debian's mode of operation. Debian needs new users and it needs to be > designed to appeal to new users while still maintaining the qualities that > separate it from the other GNU/Linux distributions. I'm a newbie, I started with Debian ^_^ For what it's worth, I've had to install non-.deb packages in /usr/local, and to tell the truth I like having it installed "properly" with dpkg. I just subbed last night and this thread has kinda been a downer for me, although I intend to stick with the distribution (it's great!). There seem to be varying opinions as to the implications of the motion. My novice mind sees slower upgrade paths and more junk in /usr/local, but others seem to not see it that way... As a newbie to Debian and proud owner of a mere 56Kbps connection, I'd have to say I much prefer stuff on the distribution CDs ^_^;; It's not clear to me at this juncture whether the motion really means the non-free will be pulled from the distribution altogether, but it seems logical. ...and hello, I'm new ;-) Sorry for the largely opinionated content. Andrew W. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - "Dude" http://home.cwru.edu/~agw4/ '67 Kombi / '67 Westy "It's no problem." ** Georgia Mechanic, stargazer, wanderer.
RE: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
H - I elected debian after using slackware for four+ years, because its what Pitr runs :) http://www.userfriendly.org/ Seriously - I chose debian because it was recommended for servers. I didn't want a distribution that needs wishy-washy X-based tools to deal with packages. Does debian need a "x-based newbies" set of defaults? -- From: Randy Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 9 June 2000 7:18 AM To: I. Tura Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free... > A typical newbie won't start with Debian While that is probably true, I don't think that should be the basis for Debian's mode of operation. Debian needs new users and it needs to be designed to appeal to new users while still maintaining the qualities that separate it from the other GNU/Linux distributions. -- Regards, | Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org - More software than .| *any* distribution, rock solid reliability, quality control, Randy| seamless upgrades via ftp or CD-ROM, strict filesystem layout, | adherence to standards, and militantly 100% FREE GNU/Linux! -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
Re: My quite ordinary comment about Re: GR to remove non-free...
> A typical newbie won't start with Debian While that is probably true, I don't think that should be the basis for Debian's mode of operation. Debian needs new users and it needs to be designed to appeal to new users while still maintaining the qualities that separate it from the other GNU/Linux distributions. -- Regards, | Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org - More software than .| *any* distribution, rock solid reliability, quality control, Randy| seamless upgrades via ftp or CD-ROM, strict filesystem layout, | adherence to standards, and militantly 100% FREE GNU/Linux!
