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 have not
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
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)
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
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
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
Just like you're not fine if you include a proprietary ppa in trisquel.
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.
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
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
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,
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 let
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 because
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 not
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
26 matches
Mail list logo
