I cut the distribution down, but probably not enough. Others please feel free to cut even more. Perhaps the first mail should have gone to "announce" and follow-ups to "approach". I can't tell Brian's intent.
Brian sent me private mail asking why I was against this. If he's unclear, I think others are unclear, hence this clarification. I didn't say OSH was a good or bad thing. At the moment, I'm neither for it or against it. I just said that more than 1/2 of the justifications appear unrelated to OSH. They can either happen or not independent of OSH existing. Waiting to work on the important ones in this list because of a mis-conception that OSH must happen first would be a very bad thing. I don't think anyone should be selling OSH as the cure for cancer. The first reason listed is a big one. In my mind, it is 99.44% of any reason for doing this. In all honesty, it may be a big enough reason by itself. #2 is probably important to a lot of folk. Its just not important to me. I'm a capitalist, not a "free as in speech" fanatic. No judgment implied. Few, if any, of the other issues require OSH to allow them to be addressed. A couple of them might be easier in an OSH context. None of these seemed important (IMHO). I probably do have a bias that I think the cost of producing a distro (even an unsupported one) is higher than I think many believe. That predisposes me to think at the moment there are better things to work on - like replacing those nasty "closed" bits, some of which has to happen before OSH can happen. That is a predisposition as to "when", not "if". At the moment, I really am neutral on "if". Clear? - jek3
