quantumgravity said:
> Young adults (at least in germany) mainly stay in touch by using whatsapp
or
> skype; if you don't use it, it's really a HUGE loss.
These are extremely popular in the U.S. too, but we haven't abandoned
traditional phone networks and most of us haven't abandoned email.
I don't think I'm exaggerating.
Young adults (at least in germany) mainly stay in touch by using whatsapp or
skype; if you don't use it, it's really a HUGE loss.
Especially when it comes to contacts somewhere far away, these two provide a
way of doing almost real-life conversations, whereas yo
Commitment to Correct Mistakes (from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html)
"Most distribution development teams don't have the resources to exhaustively
check that their distribution meet all these criteria. Neither do we. So we
expect distros to occasiona
In my opinion, the FSF decision was a smart move in helping and enhancing
H-NODE.
Yet, lets hope this stays in order with a simple task of reporting
database-hardware compatibility of devian vs FREE SOFTWARE USERS and not
complicated with other soreness of betrayall, bitcheness,and foul-m
I think you're exaggerating the downsides of not using proprietary software.
Libre software lags behind proprietary software, but not to the extent you
suggest. Leaving proprietary software doesn't mean "leaving the digital
society", it just means leaving (or not joining in the first place) c
Please tell me, where is this place you're talking about?
Frequent additions? Actively developed? Feature rich?
The average user has one - exactly one - distribution which you can remotely
call suitable for him, and that's trisquel. We all know how even this one is
suffering from a lack of ma
El 16/09/14 a las 00:04, Tiberiu C. Turbureanu escibió:
> On 16.09.2014 06:09, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
The fsf is trying to dig a tunnel through solid rock and
doesn't advance one tiny inch. They have to realise that their
method won't work in a hundred years.
>> The reason we h
On 16.09.2014 06:09, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
>>> The fsf is trying to dig a tunnel through solid rock and
>>> doesn't advance one tiny inch. They have to realise that their
>>> method won't work in a hundred years.
> The reason we have not advanced an inch is not because of the FSF.
> It is be
El 15/09/14 a las 16:38, shiret...@web.de escibió:
> I can't see why the debian operating system (which is by default fully
> free)
It is as free by default as CodePlex is.
> should become less freedom friendly just by providing a way for those
> persons to do as they wish.
One thing is to l
El 15/09/14 a las 13:32, shiret...@web.de escibió:
> Just like you're not fine if you include a proprietary ppa in trisquel.
Exactly.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
600 8579
Se encuentra muchos hombres que hablan de libertad, pero muy pocos cuya vida no
se haya consagrado, principalmente,
"If a person wants to install non free software, she finds lots of ways on
the internet to do so."
Exactly, so there's no need for the Debian Project to do so.
"I don't see any practicle difference if it is offered and documented by
debian instead of somebody else."
As you say, people can
If a person wants to install non free software, she finds lots of ways on the
internet to do so.
I don't see any practicle difference if it is offered by debian instead of
somebody else.
The truth is: most people won't stop using every piece of proprietary
software even if they are educated
The problem with Debian's non-free repository isn't that it exists, it's that
the official Debian documentation gives instructions for how to enable it and
otherwise refers to it. In other words, the non-free repository is not
separated from Debian thoroughly enough.
Just like you're not fine if you include a proprietary ppa in trisquel.
El 13/09/14 a las 19:08, tegskywal...@hotmail.com escibió:
> By default, the Debian kernel contains no non-free blobs and if you
> disable the non-free (and maybe contrib) repos, you are getting a
> totally free distribution.
>
> I understand that the repos are there to be enabled, but if you do n
By default, the Debian kernel contains no non-free blobs and if you disable
the non-free (and maybe contrib) repos, you are getting a totally free
distribution.
I understand that the repos are there to be enabled, but if you do not
include them, then you should be fine. I think most of you
On 13.09.2014 13:04, shiret...@web.de wrote:
> "Either it's free or it isn't. "
FSF still doesn't endorse the distribution called Debian just because it
collaborates with the group behind that distribution, called Debian.
> That's a silly statement in our current digital situation.
"A program is
"Either it's free or it isn't. "
That's a silly statement in our current digital situation.
Almost no one here runs a computer with -literally- 100% free software.
Even Gluglug and the Lemote contain some non-free firmware as far as I know
(harddrive or stuff like that).
According to you, we sh
This is excellent news regardless.
To give an example: I think the FSF is wrong to endorse non-libre cultural
licenses for "opinion" works. I don't refuse to cooperate with the FSF on the
common goal of advocating libre software because of this difference of
opinion.
You're sounding like an extreme religious fundamentalist. The FSF isn't
"betraying the cause". The FSF is uniting with Debian on a common goal. This
is a *good* and *important* thing. To insist that someone be fully in
agreement with you, or perfect, before accepting help from them? That's
On 12.09.2014 23:37, 5...@verizon.net wrote:
> If Debian produces a distribution that cannot be endorsed (for whatever
> reason), FSF is betraying the cause by collaborating on the H-node
> project. Debian should be shamed (and shunned) until they get it ALL
> right. It's not doing anything right u
He (riftyful) wrote,
"In my opinion, completely free distribution is always the best option, but I
would still pick a partially free distribution over, say, Windows. It's not
100% free, but it's something, and that something is important, too."
'Partially free' is his choice of words and he
He is not rationalizing "partially free". He is saying that a same group can
be named and shames for what it does wrong and receive kudos for what it does
right. I agree with him. Debian is not free but it does many good things.
It's not about that.
FSF doesn't endorse Debian the distribution because of the documentation
which recommends nonfree software and because of the official nonfree
and contrib repositories.
But FSF is known to work (collaborate) with Debian the
community/group/organization so that Debian the dist
If a distribution (including it's organizing philosophy, access to
proprietary resources etc.) isn't absolutely 100% free, it is entirely
inconsistent with the guiding principles of free software and we shouldn't be
using it or engage in any collaboration with it developers. Period.
I would like to disagree.
Just because Debian is not a FSF endorsed doesn't mean it cannot help FSF
with doing the right thing. Even if Microsoft helped FSF identify free
sowtware compatible hardware, it would still be a good thing. Yes, it does
not make Microsoft a good company, but that s
Sorry, but if "...FSF does not include Debian on this list because the Debian
project provides a repository of nonfree software..." FSF shouldn't be
collaborating with an organization when it cannot (for very good reason)
endorse the distribution.
Good news! I think we free software movement members should often remember to
emphasize the similarities between different flavors like distros or
definitions of freedom. This way we won't get divided and conquered. While
appreciating the common ground however I will follow the FSF which I th
All free software enthusiasts should work together to spread principles of
freedom, not just when they affect computers, software, and the internet.
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-users-find-the-hardware-they-need
https://www.debian.org/News/2014/201409
30 matches
Mail list logo