Slashdot Mirror
Will Debian Remove 'Non-Free'?
An anonymous reader writes "A Debian General Resolution for removing the non-free section from Debian archives is being discussed by Debian Folks and the debate is turning into a flamefest. The proposal is aimed to clarify the position of Debian toward Free Software and the fact that non-free is not (and has never been) a part of the Debian System. But this would exclude packages such as Netscape, the JDK or pine of the Debian archives and opponents argue that the proposal breaks the section 5 of the Debian Social Contract. Here's where it started." Since I'm not a Debian Maintainer (hey, but a few of my old apps are in there, can I vote? ;) I've only got an opinion. I think Debian users should be able to install things like Netscape and Pine too, but I think they should be told the implications. The reality tho, is that if it gets yanked from non-free, other servers will pick it up. Maybe that is the hint that the non-free section is different from Debian's goal. Some people use Debian because it's better, not because it's the most free.
I peeked into that Debian list yesterday.
We can't let them get ahead of us! We must have the same flamefest here!
I'm assuming that, in part, is why it's been made a topic for us to discuss (***) here.
I, for the record, use Slackware and NetBSD, not Debian.
*** Flame fests bring in banner revenue, even if a bunch of ranting, bickering, and people just talking at one another does nothing productive.
So for me, this isn't any great shakes; but I guess purists who want the thing configured 100% debianly will be a shade miffed.
GodboltBlog
i use debian on my server because of the power of dselect and dpkg, and because the logo looks cool :). but face it, linux almost certainly wouldn't be here today if Netscape hadn't ported. don't lie to yourselves and say that there was an alternative. pine is a great email package, and Java is necessary today. getting rid of them out of the standard Debian distribution is just a nuisance-most people will install at least one of those three anyway, so why make them download it out of a quasi-political stance?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
Debian is a non-profit trying to promote free software. They are only providing non-free software as a convenience. They should stop providing if at least one of two conditions are met:
1) The user's need reduces. For instance, as free packages replace non-free ones (Mozilla for Netscape, let's say). If the user wants the non-free alternative, let them get it themselves.
2) If the task of providing becomes too onerous. For instance, disk space. There must be GIGABYTES of non-free Linux software out there, even if you only count the items that have debian packages.
Remember, Debian IS running a charity here. Why should a charity promote (in the money-making sense) other people's software?
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
- For netscape there's Mozilla
- For pine, well, use another email client.
- For JDK, there's kaffe (it's coming along nicely)
- For Motif, there's Lesstif
One of the things that seperates Debian from the other distros is that it's dedicated to having Open Source software, unlike commercial distros which have no fear of packaging non-free software.Visit
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
...or does the Debian logo look just a bit too much like the Transmeta logo?
On topic, who cares? If someone wants to run something on their box, they'll do it, regardless of whether or not Debian has a package available for them. The minute Debian stops putting the non-free packages on their site, someone else will start to carry them. Whoop-de-do.
I've found that package managers are nothing but a big PITA for my home box. I would imagine that if I were maintaining a large number of identical boxen a package manager would be handy. But for my home tinkering, give me tarballs.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
Actually, I started using Linux because of it is Free. I had heard about the OS, and read a little about Linux. The more I looked at it, the more fascinated I was. When I started the process of picking a distro for my first install, I read up about the various offerings; the one I selected was Debian, because of its non-commercial and adamantly Free nature.
;)
.debs around for software that I might need for some reason or another. Hell, I use WinNT at work; I certainly can imagine grabbing a non-free package at some point.
.debs they work on.
Debian also lets me gloat about wonderful features such as apt-get, so its not just philosophically better
Should they host non-free? Actually, as a first time Linux user, I had no trouble making the distinction in their current format. In part, this may be because I was attracted to Debian because of its philosophy; I understood the distinction and left non-free off of my system. I wouldn't complain if they decided to host the non-free repository on another server. But I would hope that there is still a source of
Make the distinction clear. Make it an extra line to type in apt-sources. Host the stuff on another machine. But give maintainers somewhere to host the non-free
Come on guys, stop acting like some petty Stallmanesque psychonauts, and start thinking about what's best for your users, and hence for Debian, because without users, you are as nothing. Reject the amendment, and include KDE in Debian. Maybe then we won't all think of you as a group of pointless obsessives on some illogical crusade against proprietary software.
ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,ø`ø
Linux has many different distros, all trying to gain mind-share. Sameness VS the market leader won't help you grow, and odds are you will shrink.
So, Debian is trying something to be DIFFERENT. They are going to appeal to the 'free source' crowd. They are going to try to say 'our distro is most free'. Remember, at one time there was a rumor/mention that the Debian group was going to take the BSD kernel and wrap the code they wrap about the Linux Kernel.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Think about it and he's right. In fact, if we do away with the commercial software, even if gaps are left behind, we are better off becuase (hopefully, heh) someone will fill the gaps. As he mentioned, there is already a free alternative to the major components in the system.
I'm not against commercialism (oops, don't want to be flamed...) rather, I would prefer to get the code with the product. Maybe expunge all binary-only and source-so-obfusticated-it-may-as-well-<b>be</b>-b
What do we have to lose? Binary only packages.
What do we have to gain? More open software, more code, more free beer.
Hey hey!
Off topic Matrix humor;
I need the code....
I need to recompile my kernel...
And you have to tell me how...
You're going to tell me, or you're going to grep
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
And here we see the hypocrasy spelt out - it is obvious that posting a story about a flamefest is inviting the flamefest to spread onto /. Personally I think that is a good thing - but perhaps Rob & Co should decide whether heated debate is or isn't desired on /.
--
It will be a floppy distro after release
.I wonder how this will affect Storm Linux or other Debian-based distros?
seanmeister
As poor www.debian.org is having to take a bit longer under the load, how about
Social contract uk Germany South Africa Japan Brazil
The Start uk Germany South Africa Japan Brazil
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I've also learnt that the Debian maintainer hireachy is democratically elected, so wouldn't it be an obvious choice to let the International community of Debian users vote on this issue?
But personally, I see the removal of non-free and contrib as being a setback for the Debian movement in that it could possibly remove an incentive for disillusioned users of other distributions from becoming future Debian users.
IMHO, The separation of the "non-free" and "contrib" trees from "main" is surely a clear distinction for ideologically bound Debian users seeking to fanatically follow the Debian Social Contract. As long as Debian continues to separate non-free and contrib from the main tree, Debian GNU/Linux will always be ideologically superior to moralists, and I will be one of those who'll always recognise that irrefutable fact.
It would be a great shame if Debian does not respect the wishes of it's user base. So please, let the users speak...
----
You shall now notice I'm wearing asbestos underwear. I shall now proudly endure the flames for the Debian cause and what I believe in! = P
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
Netscape -> Mozilla
Pine -> Mutt
JDK -> Kaffe
What was the problem again?
Rich.
Free software is widely promoted as primarily about being freedom of choice and freedom of what to do with the software. However it seems that they are taking away the freedom to choose whether you wish to install the non-free software. Of course this would be a very different game if it included commercial software requiring mandatory payment, but the inclusion of free-beer type software is a choice, and hence freedom, that users would demand. It is unfortunately not the case that there are always free alternatives that are corporate-environment quality to some programs. For example web designers cannot be expected to create professional web pages with only w3m or current gtk/qt browsers.
The choice to install non free-software serves as an indication to newbies that there is much interest in Linux for all forms of software, which is great for convincing corporate types. Of course we wish they didnt need convincing with non-free software, however compromises must be made.
As long as it is clearly indicated what the problems with using non-free software are, then the choice to install them as part of the distribution should be available.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
Why is it that everyone who refers to the strawman linux "zealot" sound a bit zealous themselves?
There is actually a very pragmatic reason for only including "free software": it reduces the risk of tripping over a restrictive license. I'm sure the debian guys and gals would be very careful about what to include in the distribution, but what happens when the publishers change the redistribution rights? What was suddenly a staple application in one release of debian could suddenly be gone in the next, greatly inconviencing users. Now, what would you have debian do in this situation? Screw it's users by leaving the software out, or screw it's users by bending to the will of a commerical software publisher?
If all of the non-free .debs are removed from debian and put somewhere else, the ability to improve those programs, through the reporting of bugs via the debian BTS, will severely diminish the overall quality, usability, and integration with Debian.
Yes the packages will be available elsewhere, but their ability to interoperate within debian, I fear, will diminish.
The example of KDE (hosted at kde.tdyc.com) is probably a good example of how an independant repository for .debs should exist. It runs the debian BTS also, so that there is a good mechanism for reporting and following up on bug reports. It also has several mailing lists for users, developers and announcements. These things allow the seperate Debian KDE site to keep itself better integrated with the rest of Debian.
The only way that I, as a Debian user, would want to see non-free seperated out, is if it were done in such a way that the non-free packages weren't simply dropped, but phased out onto a seperate non-Debian site that included its own instance of the BTS, and ran a set of mailing lists.
If that could be done, then I think that seperated non-free allows for Debian to keep their philosophy intact, and not hurt their users in the process.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
why go through the arse of downloading all this extra stuff, when Mandrake gives you everything you need?
But if Debian gave all the extra stuff then you still might as well download Mandrake. It loses its uniqueness. Debian doesn't need many supporters. It just needs enough.
The Stallmanesque psychonauts are sufficient in number to ensure that Debian is still worthwhile.
In A. it is stated that there will be `areas in our archive' (== non-free?):
While B. says these areas will be removed:
Are these `new areas' to contain only helper-stuff and not the non-free software itself, is that it? Any examples of such `stuff'?
Jan
Am I breaking any license if I install a non free package on debian?
Am I breaking any license if I put debian and some non free packages on the same CD?
Am I breaking any licenses if I modify the debian setup in such a way that it accessess and installs the non free packages?
If the answer to all of the above questions is NO, then please explain to me what this discussion is about. If the answer is YES, please explain.
Jilles
Yesterday I got moderator privelages: today I have moderated. Now I will revoke that moderation in order to post.
Debian is something of a bedrock amongst the free software and opensource camps. It is the most consciously, self-aware and organised project of its kind, anywhere. It exists solely for what it perceives as the greater good. Money is not the aim - the aim is to uphold principles.
Much like the roman Res Publica of old, the Debian project enjoys a sophisticated governmental structure. In a sense, Debian is the wise old head of distributions, moving at a stately pace across both technological and ideological landscapes. It brings a strength and enduring quality that other projects could well lack. Quite simply, Debian will not die because of commercial whim nor lack of interest.
I think that we, the wider programming and user community, should look on this tolerantly. For Debian, this proposal is quite radical: an amendment to the Social Contract on which stands all of the actions. This is like a US statesman proposing an amendment to the Bill of Rights in nature, a fundamental reform or change to a very important document.
But, ultimately, Debian will decide. I do not think it is our place to judge them, whichever way they may turn. The fact is that Debian examplifies a non-anarchic model in a community where benevolent dictatorial anarchy (if you can use such a term!) is revered. It has long been run by wiser hackers than the most of us, and will be run by wiser hackers long after the frothing mob of Slashdot has passed.
Consider also the outcomes.
Debian will probably come under a lot of fire if it choses this path, by some fire-branding types in the same mould as the person proposing the Resolution. It would hurt the "image" of Debian as the most free of the free. On the other hand, I do not believe that Debian, taken as a whole, would care what people think of it. Nor will pragmatists who admire Debian for its technical excellence.
Internally it will cause continuing friction between camps. Certainly, a rejection at this stage would make later proposals even more bitterly contested ("We've rejected this already!"). In the most extreme circumstance, the pro-camp may fork Debian. I do not expect this to happen, however.
Debian will come under some fire for this path, but not so much. The pragmatists in the hacker world seem to be less voiciferous than the ideologists. Linus will rise above it all in his usual zen-like serenity.
Internally, I expect pressures will be less intense than the "no" option. It is far harder to undo such a thing than it is to do it, hence the pressure to undo will be less than the pressure would have been to do. And, obviously, the matter won't come up again in that "to do" form.
Whatever happens, I'll be watching with interest. For while this is a Debian matter, Debian is one of the strongest corps of the Freedomware community. What happens to them will have spill-over consequences for others.
be well;
JC.
--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
The 'contrib' section of debian is for any package that itself is totally free, but depends on a non-free package. Lyx is such a package. If the non-free libs required by lyx are not supplied, then while lyx could still be in contrib, it would be useless. Even worse, it couldn't be tested so how would you report any bugs against it? The user would have to get the non-free forms lib tarball from its' homepage and then install lyx from the debian archive.
Also in contrib are installers for non-free packages such as staroffice (isn't that free now?) and netscape. These packages require you to first get the non-free tarball into a temp dir and then run the installer package. This at least sets up the non-free program into the debian dir structure correctly and points various menus at it (such as in gnome). Other contrib packages are various wrappers around seti@home. At least seti@home is a good cause, even if the software is not open source...we should support the on going work here. (Yeah I would like to find a message from some little green men).
I hope they will continue to have these contrib packages in the archive, even though they do require non-free software. Mozilla does not replace netscape (it still sucks).
BTW did you know you can run Internet Explorer on linux under wine? YUCK!
I used Slackware (not sure if I used SLS), RedHat, then Debian. For me, the big attraction to Debian is the packaging system.
The second thing is that it's got nearly everything packaged and available via the standard system... this is a big plus and lessens the time it takes to admin (especially for workstations) and thus my frustration levels. All I have to do is a quick 'apt-cache search ' (sometimes with some grep'ing) and then an 'apt-get install '.
I have a lot of confidence in the system and most of the time it lives up to it (when I used RedHat I typically gave a 50/50 chance of updates breaking something... don't get me wrong I loved RedHat when I used it).
Removing non-free will make my life more difficult and thus I'm am against it. I don't care about the Free != FreeAsInBeer concept nearly as much as getting something that gets things done and well (which the 'Free' concept can help).
Brian Macy
I'm curious :)
be well;
JC.
--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
Hey troll, try to produce a counter-example to this axiom: a great piece of software with source code available is better than the same software without. In other words, good+open > good+closed.
I don't think anyone here would contend that being open guarantees quality. We've all seen the crap published on freshmeat. Of course, we've also seen that profit motive does not guarantee quality either, and in some cases, discourages it.
I've been using Debian for 2.5 years. It is my prefered distro due to the package management system. Not because of anything political. If Debian drops Non-Free then there are immediately going to be several spin off distros offering this. I doubt any of them will maintain a Non-Free area as well as Debian can.
Well if it comes to this I think I'll start a new company Linux Two. For $20 you the user will have access to my download page which will link to debian's servers and display detailed documentation for alien
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
This really, truely is nothing new. I have been involved in the debian project on and off for a couple of years now....
This debate surfaces about once every 6 months to a year. Sometimes more often, sometimes less.
Personally, I think non-free should stay. Its nice to have, even if its not used by everyone. I think I only have 2 packages on my system out of non-free, (netscape and um...realplayer?)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Eh, Helix GNOME is way better then KDE, IMO.
Besides which, KDE is not distributable purely based on their license, which makes it a violation to distribute it linked with QT.
It is, after all the users that justify the existence of Debian and to deny that is the mark of a zealot. Whilst the arguments are sound - nobody is going to prevent users from downloading, using or compiling proprietary software but, unfortunately even in the Linux world, users are beginning to possess the same mentality as Windows users - "Why should I have to download, compile, install it all on my own and read the vast amount of documentation on how to integrate it with Debian, when Mandrake, RedHat, Microsoft do all that for me?".
And therein lies the problem. From a political standpoint, it most definitely *should* be available for anyone out there in a apt package ready to be easily installed into an otherwise free Debian system. It will have to be a matter of sane compromise: 95% of Debian users won't be able to create packages for their software and sadly, most software requires some serious tweaking for it to fit into Debian.
Unfortunately for all, Debian seems recently to have taken major steps away from sanity and towards free software zealot status. You'd be forgiven for thinking, based on the actions of many of its adherents recently, that Debian was a religion rather than a damn fine OS. Just remember that zealotry is the enemy of reason.
ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,ø`ø
If the Debian group doesn't want to promote commercial software through their charitable organization, so be it. They exist to support Free Software, not to offer every choice available under the sun.
To take your argument seriously, they'd be including Windows with their next distribution as a matter of freedom of choice. :P
You know what to do with the HELLO.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
Some people use Debian because its better, not because its the most free.
And those people will convert to a Debian-based distribution that includes Netscape etc.
Let Debian do what they want; there's room for all sides here.
--
Deal with today. It can be distributed just fine today so distribute it today. If the application is really so important then it makes even more sense to be distributing it to your users. After all, how "free" can Debian be if it is restricting me based on a misguided notion that the maintainers know better than I do? I thought that was what closed source was all about, not open source.
I can see two good resolutions:
I like the approach that Mandrake used in making crypto and security packages available in their distro. You went ahead with the standard install of packages as you would expect. After the standard packages were installed and networking setup, the installation program prompted the user with a screen asking if they would like to install crypto/security packages from a remote server. The prompt would explain the legal ramifications of installing crypto packages in countries not allowing the importing of crypto.
This could be heavily borrowed on Debian. During the standard install, a prompt is issued explaing that the user can choose to install non-free packages at this time from a remote server. The prompt would have a condensed free software manifesto explaining the disadvantages of commercial applications and list free software alternatives to those commercial apps.
By doing this the Debian "distro" remains free but doesn't limit the freedom of the user in choosing the packages they wish to install initially.
--- Linux... a college project gone horribly right
It really seems like somebody just has their head up their ass, and wants to change some wording of how Debian's non-free stuff works. I am a user of Debian, and I depend on some non-free packages. So I'd be pretty pissed myself if I had to go out of my way to get them, when the entire reason I'm using Debian is NOT because it is free, but because it is BETTER , mainly through apt and dpkg.
Read the intial proposal, and some of the responses. The proposal seems like it wants to basically clarify the stance of Debian on non-free by completely upheaving the current system. However, the end result is that nothing will change. All it will do is make it "look" slightly different.
This just seems painfully stupid, and I can only hope that the more rational people in power at Debian will see this.
Sure, I appreciate when softare is distributed free of charge, but I also recognize that it can coexist with other software. In the competitive marketplace, there are some commercial packages (or packages that are offered free, but with limited licenses) that are superior to their free counterparts (if there are any). Bundling this software with Debian helps increase the value of the OS and, as long as it is made clear which packages can be distributed freely or compiled into GPL programs, etc. than there are no problems with the inclusion of said software.
I think that the OSS community has taken the position that software *should* be free, and there is an ethical imperative to use free software (courtesy of RMS). However, I believe that there is an ethical imperative to use the *best* software for a given task, so as to support the innovators, whether they release the software free or not.
The fact is that free software would not exist without commercial sofware. Throughout history, the greatest artistic products were developed by people who could be confident in their survival because of their financial position. If people capable of developing quality software were forced to work three jobs in order to eek out a living, they would not have the time or energy to devote to free software. Since the software industry has produced hundreds of thousands of developers that are capable of living a comfortable lifestyle, they can offer their time to develop free software of high quality.
Both free and commercial software have their place. It is best to offer users the option of using the best software for the task they want completed, whether commercial or free, as long as they are aware which is which. Debian current distribution style is good. Leave it alone.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Don't give up freedom for comfort!
Keep it pure and don't be swayed from your goals. The Debian team is doing a hell of a job and don't want to see them "taint" their GNU/Linux distro with non-free and/or commerical software.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
No, we have not. The topic is still up for discussion on debian-devel.
What about these people who wish to test out Debian with Nvidia GeForce cards (which are pretty much going to become the default). Should we say to them "no, you cannot use our Linux", or should we say to them "yes, you can, but notice how unbelievably flakey they are, and what a bunch of arseholes nvidia are and don't buy another card from them ever" (sorry, personal rant)I don't have a GeForce, but I have a TNT2. As you might know, nVidia has released some kind of junky binary-only driver for XF86 4.0 for this card. I got so angry when I first heard about this. It is my right as an nVidia customer to use the card in whatever operating system I use. I can not do that, since their buggy driver don't even work with DRI. Why can't they just do like any normal company (3dfx for example) and release the specifications?
Oh well, end of rant...
>Is it just me or does the Debian logo look just a
;-)
>bit too much like the Transmeta logo?
Sure does, but being that Debian's logo has been around longer than Transmeta, I would say it's the other way around.
Back to topic...
To me this whole non-free issue is just the case
of somebody being lazzy to go out and get what
they want!
Suck it up and enjoy a GREAT FREE Dist!
Blair
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
The more I see the antics of the Debian folks, the more it seems that they're pretty much just a shill for the prohibitively uncompromising antics of the Free Software Foundation. If Debian wants to simply be a distribution of 'The GNU System' then they should simply do so and get it over with.
... and we know what happens to people who stand in the middle of a road.
The HURD kernel kinda-sorta works at this point. Debian should remove Linux from their distribution and replace it with HURD. Then they should only include software that has been specifically blessed by St. iGNUcius.
It's either that, or it's time to get off the high horse and include things that make Linux a useful operating system. They can start by putting KDE on the disc (the fact that they currently refuse to do so is the primary reason why many people choose other distributions). As it stands now they're kind of middle-of-the-road about this stuff
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I definitely recommend trying Debian, and I also recommend trying FreeBSD (just to get a different perspective about what's out there in the free *nix world). I used to be a tarball guy too, but now it's cd /usr/ports/mail/leafnode ; vi Makefile ; make && make install
so much easier, I love not having to worry about what ftp site has the file I need.
----------------------------
Uhm, I have an Nvidia GeForce card, and I run Debian. The Nvidida drivers will *never* be available from Debian servers, unless Nvidia changes their license. (current license forbids redistribution) So this doesn't affect you at all. On a related note, I *do* have the latest Nvidia drivers installed. Just because they aren't on ftp.debian.org doesn't mean they can't be used with a Debian box. I think this is a common misconception about the effects of this proposal.
Since my moderation of this post DOWN doesn't seem to have registered, I'll blow all my moderation in this thread by pointing out that this isn't Bruce Perens. If Taco and Co. really want to bitchslap someone for abusing the system, this guy should be the guy... it's not creative, it's certainly not very funny, and it is badly misleading. It is one thing to lie in posts (sig 11, you listening?) but it is another altogether to lie about your identity in the hopes of confusing or defaming others.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
However, it has nothing to do with the free/open-source/non-free issue. We've switched to Debian simply because it's better for our needs. Please note that I didn't say better for everyone . For our purposes it's an easier load, bugs get fixed faster, packages are easier to build and distribute, etc.
If they pull the non-free stuff from the servers, we'll simply pull down the appropriate .rpm from another site and either convert and store them locally, or we'll pull down the .debs from another server. As far as I can tell it won't really make much difference one way or the other to us.
Some people use Debian because it's better, not because it's the most free.
Then again, we could say that about any one of a number of operating systems, but if the name doesn't start with 'L' they and their makers get trashed by "the community" (as defined by the first hundred rabid SlashDot posts.)
Imagine, the notion that you'd use a system that works best for your situation, regardless of the "free-ness" of it all. What'll they think of next?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Once again, we see Free Software supporters acting like zealots, putting some ill-founded political principle in favour of the needs and desires of their users.
-hypocritical mode on-
You are quite right. Whatever you need and want should be first and foremost in the minds of Debian. After all, they are here to make a profit, and making a profit requires satisfying users without concern for whatever ethics may have brought you, as a sys admin, to make debian packages in the first place.
Believe me, I expect to find Netscape, KDE, Pine et al. as part of my linux distro. And if it's not there, then why go through the arse of downloading all this extra stuff, when Mandrake gives you everything you need?
Well, of course, right again. Why not package everything you can ? Who cares about freedom anyway ? When you find that bug in netscape that locks it up on pages with Java, and you submit it back to netscape, you can expect that bug fixed immediately. Or at least within the normal turnaround time of commercial software.
--hypocticial mode off--
Which is to say nearly never. And when you find that there is some subtle bug that you know you can fix and contribute back to the authors, please write them and ask them for their source so you can help them by helping yourself.
Come on guys, stop acting like some petty Stallmanesque psychonauts, and start thinking about what's best for your users, and hence for Debian, because without users, you are as nothing.
Debian would exist if only for the sake of its packagers. Of course it is much larger than that. Their packages take care of all the little details that sys admins would otherwise need to do. The cron jobs are nicely done. The initscripts are very clean. Security is tight. And I am comparing Debian to other non-Debian distributions. Debian exists to provide the kind of distribution that its packages want to provide. And maybe that is "free". Maybe it is "open source". But the primary goal of the distribution is not its user base.
Debian also can act as the basis for commercial distributions, such as Corel. Any non-free programs can be provided - just by someone else.
So get used to it. Some packagers of software want to produce software the way they think software should be. And they KNOW that will provide substantial benefit to the software industry. And that is good enough for them. Not everything and everybody needs to cater directly to the user base. And if that makes the Debian packagers zealots in your mind, so be it. They have good software to build. And they do a very good job at it.
This is really an absolutely redundant, pedant discussion. Just add in the description of the installation packs "GPL", "com", etc. so the users can decide themselves upon install.
OK, Debian may have the most principle minded following and the majority of the big 10 or so distros may consist of rocket scientists but still we are not Linux-obsessed. After all it is just a tool.
Captain Iglo
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
There are several packages that I'll miss if non-free was removed. I'll miss the Sun Java parts, the and a loot of software dealin with GIF images, RSA, IDEA encryption, and some other things that are crippels by US laws. There are a loot of other program that I consider as free as the GPL that are in the non-free section. The limitations are somewhat differente from those in the GPL licence but not that different.
I does not like even more diversion of where to get packagres from my Debian system. To have non-free and contrib (Contrib has to removed as well as it can't depend on something that doesn't exists, or?) would still make Debian a loot less usefull for a loot of persons. Alomost all code i have from non-free are almost like the BSD copyright but expressed in one persosne own words. Maybe makingint not DSGF free and as no-one yet has tried to figure out if that lience too are DSGF-Free it's so far non-free.
/ Balp
However, my main idea remains the same. Debian is a community, not a corporation. Therefore isn't it most appropriate for the community to decide Debian's course?
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
Do you want to be able to load GIF's in GIMP?
Do you want to be able to view AVI and Quicktime animations?
And encrypted PDFs?
The GIF library is not-free, but it can never be! As it uses a patented algorithm.
Also, certain CODECs used in AVIs and QTime are proprietary.
PDF's encryption method can hardly be public, as this would break the scheme.
(Although in many countries, reverse engineering is allowed, so if there's no patent problem, it might be possible.)
The more I see the antics of the Debian folks, the more it seems that they're pretty much just a shill for the prohibitively uncompromising antics of the Free Software Foundation
... just yet.
Debian would be the first to admit that they are noncompromising. They have a social contract that they are quite proud of. Further, they do have close ties with the FSF. They are very open about all of this. It defines who they are.
Debian should remove Linux from their distribution and replace it with HURD.
Yeah, because Linux isn't free software, so it goes against their whole philosophy to use it. Infact, Debian's purity is obviously polluting the Linux kernel by being involved with it. Wait...Linux is GPL. Linux is not FSF, but it is definately free software. Incidentally, there is a version of Debian built around HURD, but it's not very usable yet. Still, use it if you like.
It's either that, or it's time to get off the high horse and include things that make Linux a useful operating system.
Why on earth would they do that? If they included proprietary packages, then Debian would be Just Another Linux Distro, as opposed to being the bastion of purity that they want to be. I don't think you truly understand what Debian is about. Further, the argument is that there is no longer a need to use non-free. Most everything there has been reimplemented in a free manner.
You may not be sympathetic to Debian's cause, but if you're not interested, then there is no reason that it should affect you. This little debate is internal to Debian. The rest only know about it because someone posted it to slashdot.
Personally, I think that Debian should deprecate non-free and remove the directory from us.debian.org . If it is only hosted on secondary servers, it emphasizes the fact that those packages are a not part of the main distribution. Then they can start removing packages at first feasibility. For instance, now that OpenSSH supports ssh2, there is no real reason to keep around the non-free version of ssh. However, I really don't think that Mozilla is up to replacing Netscape
I think that this change is very much in keeping with Debian's goals, but I also think it should be taken a bit slowly.
--Lenny
The proposal is basically to remove non-free from the debian archives, and remove references to 'non-free' in the Debian Social Contract.
The main points for the proposal are:
Against:
My opinion is that non-free and the social contract should remain as is. Free software will continue to be developed - one day it will not be necessary to debate this decision because all of the non-free software will have a better free alternative. It isn't the right time for this proposal at the moment.
In the meantime, it doesn't make sense to carry out this proposal because it only harms the users of Debian.
ObDisclaimer: I'm not a Debian developer, just a lowly Debian user.
--
"You take a distribution! Rename! Stamp CD's! IPO!"
- CmdrTaco, Geeks in Space, Episode 2 from 6:18 to 6:23.
"Chiswick! Fresh horses!"
There are also the ImageMagick utilities.
My other first post is car post.
A note to the Debian maintainers:
If you do this, you are jerks. What is the definition of free? I didn't think it was this nazi-esque holier than thou attitude on, "My software has a superior license, therefore we are not going to allow your software in our distribution or waste our time even considering its existance."
What happened to freedom of choice? I *refuse* to use an e-mail client other than Pine in Linux because it's just plain better than the rest of them. Give me a browser that can match Netscape in features and maybe I'll use it. Making this software harder for people to install will make your distribution less accessible and more unattractive to a lot of your potential base of new users.
And I will drop you too, Nazi punks.
~GoRK
Don't forget that may useful packages such as the MySQL server (what about the current KDE debs?) are in non-free because of licence issues.
I've used several distros over the years, mostly Slackware, RH & Debian (in no particular order apart from the random one generated by my twisted mind) and the bottom line has always been convenience. If the most recent version of a pericular distro in my CDROM library has what I want and ends up with an installation that does all I need without major gotchas then I'll use it. If I'm wanting to do down-and-dirty tweaks of the system that aint very standard then I'll likely use Slackware for its cleanness and resonably "generic-unix" nature, if I'm installing on a compaq box I'll likely use RH simply because in the past I've found its best at handling some of the proprietary hardware found in those boxes (particularly the NICs!!!!) I could go on and on quoting examples where one distro is more convenient for me in certain circumstances than another but whats the point?
If Debian change their policy on what to include where and that alters the characteristics of the distro then the circumstances I'll use it will be different, that doesnt mean it will suck or that it will blow the others out of the water, just that the places where I will find it best to use it will change. I'll still happily use it where it suits my needs and sing the praises of free software every chance I get.
This is not such a big fscking deal.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
- First reason I chose Debian was that it was free
- second was that the ftp-update was really easy and that when upgrading from one version to the next no full reinstall was needed
- third was that it was superior from other distributions. Not in size but in the quality of the packages and the package-system (.deb)
I follow the discussion about KDE for quite some time now and I am disappointed and really sad about the way they treat this matter. But I couldnt do much about it (I accepted debians policy). But when I think now about the inconveniences that loosing the non-free section would mean, I start to think about other distributions I could use. I know hardly anybody would care what I do but I guess there are many out there who think the way I do.I was always an advocate of the free-software movement but I'm getting angry about some that seem to see the matter (for me) too narrow-minded. I see the good things that the free-software movement has achieved - many free software packages that are only comercially sold for other OS's: so lets use them!!! Stop murmur around, use what we have already gotten and lets try to convince others to go that way too...
Gery
------------------------------
The answer is yes, me.
From the first time I installed debian I knew that non-free wasn't an official part of the distribution, but was included on the official cd's and the official servers for the convience of the end user.
/usr/opt, not /usr.
Then again, I read the histroy of Debian soon after installing it. Most new users probally don't.
If non-free isn't part of the distribution, make sure it's known. A dns entry and virtual ftp site isn't that hard to do.
It's not like you can remove that part of the distribution anyway, since it isn't part of the distribution.
Since this section isn't part of Debian's distribution, the policy for package maintainers should be --prefix=/usr/local or
Go ahead and pull non-free from the official cd's if you want. Places like Cheapbytes will put it back on.
All I really ask is that Debian devolpers don't force me off Debian and on to a Debian based distro (Storm, Corel) simply because they don't want to include non-free.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
As long as the non-free software stays in the non-free area then there should be no problems. I support and use Debian over all the other distros (personal choice) and it would really suck if they took *all* the non-free software away from the distro. I use GnuPG for an example, and that is not in the non-free section, but the RSA addon for it is (in the non-free section).
This is just another flame war, just like emacs vs vi, linux vs *bsd, windows vs linux, etc.
That is my 2 cents worth,
Scott
Scott
C{E,F,O,T}O
sboss dot net
email: scott@sboss.net
I am 39.0% slashdot pure
Scott
janitor
sdn website family
email: scott at sboss dot net
As for debian wanting to strongly support it's beliefs.. I'm all for that. But here's my outsider point of view.
.deb packages available for these things *is* a convenience.
I subscribe to the notion that free software/oss is fantastic. I really DO think it's the future.. however, there are packages that are non-free that I *require* to do my work. I don't have time to fuck around trying to get them to work. Part of what makes debian nice is it's package management.
I would be happy if non-free split off to a separate group.. but having the
IF they aren't there, I'm just going to do it manually and make a mess.
it is complete folly not to include KDE with debian -- there ARE NO non-free license issues with KDE -- this is FUD tactics a la microsoft. troll tech could GPL Qt and i'm sure the debian group would continue to dismiss it. 'fess up debian people....you just don't like it because it's not gnome.
and besides, anyone who honestly feels that gnome is better spends most of their time choosing gtk themes and arranging panels.
stability first, then pixmaps please....
1980's paradigm: If it's worth implementing once, it's worth implementing twice.
1990's paradigm: Ship the prototype!
2000's paradigm: Ship the idea!
--Larry Rosler
but also:
gnome paradigm: ship the pixmaps and graphic art! don't worry about all those GtkCritical's and anomolous behaviour!
kde paradigm: ok guys, everything works as we've documented, let's ship...
When I installed the new frozen version of Debian, it specifically asked me during installation if I want to install non-free software. The casual uses easily concludes that non-free software are part of Debian. I don't care what Debian says in public speaches, but I submit to you that it is easy to conclude that non-free software are part of Debian.
def will_bruce_quit(x):
return 1
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
You complete lunatic!
Keep it up!!
Why all the complaining about the cost of software? I myself have wished for special hells for MS programmers when some stupid feature pissed me off, but never about the cost. I'm an adult professional. Adult: I expect to pay for what I earn my living with and/or want to use. I don't whine because Daddy won't give me free room/board/toys. Professional: I work on projects that pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, runs to millions for total project costs and my primary tool costs 3 to 4 hundred bucks. That's free enough! For $2400.00 I can get every tool MS makes. I exchange free info and utilties etc. The tool cost is negligible.
I don't want software that's coming along nicely. I want software that works.
If it's free (speech or beer), all the better. But if it doesn't work, who cares?
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
Rock on, my brother. Fight the power.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
I've been reading most of the flamewar that has been raging on debian-devel. I can see points on both sides.
On one side you have people who like and appreciate all of the packages and integration of those packages on one system. I personally like being able to download and install whatever software as a package and have it work. It makes my life easier when dealing with a large number of servers. In fact I like apt / dselect in their power and ease of use. It makes me have to spend less time managing my linux boxes here at work, and let's me spend more time fighting with HP's swinstall and Sun's pkgadd commands. Neither are as slick as apt, or as convient to use.
On the other side of the debate is that Debian is a total non-profit entity, and funded mostly by Software in the Public Interest. I agree that free software is the best way to go. Although I'm spoiled by using Pine, Netscape, and several other non-free packages. This all boils down to that Debian should only be supporting free software only.
I see both points, both are valid. But I would hate to see the loss of integration, loss of some relitavely important (to some people) non-free packages, and harm it could possibly do to get new users to switch over to Debian as a distro.
I have to admit the more I have been using Debian, the more I agree with their path of free is the best way to go, and I've begun the transistion to using totally free software from non-free stuff. But I can't force my users, I can't force other Linux users to agree with this stance. Most of them like their software and don't want to play with a tarball and try to get it installed. And being the frazzled admin here at work, that's the last thing I need is more things to compile and try to stay on top of. If I wanted to compile everything, I'd be running Slackware.
Eventually I am planning on becomming a Debian developer. I just hope the current developers make the right decision, and keep everyone happy one way or another. I wish that the clear heads will prevail, and make the best decision regarding the future of the project. Either way that won't change the quality or insistence on standards that Debian has been known for. IMHO, this is what seperates Debian from any other linux distro.
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
Ouch. That hurt. I've been promoting Debian for a long time. If they really go through with this .. well, then *that* is the end of me liking debian.
:-)
.. That means .. removing netscape? (Where is the current alternative? Mozilla? is mozilla free enough?). There are.. tons. . of applications in non-free that is important for me, and others. It won't stay that way forever, but removing non-free *now* is a bad thing. Doing it in maybe 2 years time - THAT would be ok. But, don't remove it before we've got tools to replace it.
f*ck. I love apt. I love debian as a distribution. I've even come to love the installationsystem
But, removing non-free? Uh.. that means.. removing ssh (from non-us) ? (OK, openssh exists).
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Umm.. what makes you think that Debian removing Non-free from it's system will not cause as much friction in the camps of debian?
Debian packages exist because there is some maintainer who wants it and is willing to contribute his time to maintain that package. This goes for non-free packages too. Accepting this proposal would be rejecting and throwing out the work of these volunteers.
Non-free exists in Debian because of convinence and because there are people who want this. Debian first and formost is the peoples distribution. If someone wants it, it is giveable and some one is ready to support it, Debian will include it in the distro.
Non-free should not (does not?) effect the release schedule for debian. A release critical bug in non-free should not hold up a new Debian distro. But removing Non-free means ignoring the needs of many Debian users and the efforts of many Debian maintainers.
In all these posts on Slashdot, I have not seen one good reason for removing non-free!! People please realise that Debian exists because of the people who use it and maintain it. And anything that exists in Debian is because of someones need and someones effort. Nobody has the right to throw away any part of Debian. If no one is willing to maintain it, then it will go away automatically. But as long as the license allows it, and the need and effort exists, let the packages stay!!
cheers,
YAH00
I don't use the non-free packages, I suspect many Debian users don't use them. On the other hand I don't see that they hurt anything in the current form of distribution.
Its up to the user to decide, as it should be, this is the heart of what free software is all about.
John
For everyone who is screaming that Kaffe or Mozilla aren't ready yet, remember that this isn't going to take effect (if it passes) until Woody which gives Kaffe and Mozilla a good year+ (maybe?) to be ready for general consumption.
And, no matter what anybody else says, they are an ally of the FSF and if King Richard the Obnoxious proclaimeth that Only The Hurd Is Part Of GNU And Thou Shalt Removeth Thy Heathen Linux From Thine Distro, Debian will remove the Linux kernel from their distro.
Their loss since Debian, along with the FSF, will become completely irrelevant if that happens. They can do as they please, of course, but they also have to pay the consequences. Political correctness has its price and has no business in the computer world.
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
Okay, my company has standardized on Debian for all servers and many desktop machines. We support the Debian project through time, through participation, and through use. Debian is good specifically for its good packaging system, and its emphasis on open source software. However, many of the packages I like are non-free. This includes especially Netscape and Pine. Without the advantages of having these packages available via apt , my company would probably stop using Debian and quite possibly move on to BSD. Debian fulfills this neat need for an intelligent and very configurable system with convenient package management. RPM based systems are inconvenient and kludgy by comparison, and Slackware is absolutely archaic. Debian should, for the sake of the open source community, keep non-free in order that more people might use Linux! This is how Debian can best serve the community.
--Danka, who likes kids, but wouldn't want to eat one
This mob rule method of running a distro is clearly a failure. (oh sure, flame away) Too many chiefs, too much bitching and whining, and not enough real progress getting done... Last Oct. I was looking to install a 2.2 system. Oh wait, potato will soon be ready... Here we are in June, (8 months later) and the 2.2 kernel system is still not ready. 2.4 is just around the corner... pathetic. Yes, I know, "but apt rocks dude!" And yes, apt is a nice tool, but not unique to Debian. For a robust "updatable" tool look at how FreeBSD does their ports collection. Now that rocks. For me, I'm using Mandrake, which is clean, well put together, has a SMALL group of people making decisions and guiding the distro. It's not perfect, but at least I have hope of them staying current. YMMV
To be consistent with the policies, shouldn't Debian remove all non-(L)GPL?
Not just Netscape, but also X, perl, apache, guile etc etc.
Considering RMS considers Qt to be free, and Debian does not include it, then all other licenses considered free by GNU (except L/GPL of course) should also not be included.
I think such a distribution will be interesting, for no other reason to see if Free software can stand on its own. I know RedHat announced some time ago that they wanted to make a GNU (L/GPL?)only distribution, but I haven't heard anything since.
Je ne parle pas francais.
I tried to compile a dpkg.tar.gz package I fetched from debian.org, but it didn't have a configure script and I didn't feel like figuring out how to generate one, so I had to use stupid rpm to install Corel's beta draw.
Anyway, Debian is like an Old Lady's Fussy Society of the open source movement. I find it hard to believe that their 2.1 is still the current release: The latest release of Debian is 2.1. It was released on 9 March 1999 says their website. Being that this Debian uses Linux 2.0.36, I gotta laugh...
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
You got that right !
Come on, this is pure pedantic pointlessness.
Yes, the distinction between free and non-free is important. No, it does not matter if Debian, which is "free", includes "non-free" within the distro. Is Debian itself producing non-free software? No.
Remember, "Debian" is just a label, and IMHO should not be conceived of as nothing more than a convenient way to categorize things.
I would urge the maintainers to clearly document the non-free aspects of the distro, but to remove those aspects is impractical, because people want that software.
The alternative will be forcing people to jump through one more hoop in order to get their system in the state they want it in. This is not desired!
Ideals are a Good Thing, but only insomuch as they suit our practical interests. Remove non-free software as superior or at least comparable free alternatives become available for mass consumption.
This debate is as silly as bickering over whether there should be vi extensions for emacs. What is practical is what is best, even (I'd say especially) in the realm of ethics. Don't let your sense of righteousness blind you to what is practically right.
joel
nuff said...
oops... > i mean
As a Computer Scientist and professional system admin who uses debian at home, I hope i'm not responding to flamebait.
Your comment seem to be lecking consistancy. You complain about how long their is between debian stable releases and then you complain about gnomes lack of stability. The reason that there is so long between debian releases is so that it is stable and not broken.
I agree that Debian releases are to slow. The best times are during the early part of the frozen cycle, but i have found that as long as you don't force anything you can have a perfectly stable system with an unstable dist. With many of the Red-hat derived distributions being released every few months there is a definate lack of testing, that while not showing up often is still there.
Finally as someone who has just recently moved to gnome, I must say that it is completely stable and quite fast. It is very useful, and I have spent very little time with any themes. In my limited experence with KDE I have found it good, but there is no compelling reason to use it over gnome.
However if Debian removes the non-free, and i have to install Netscape with dpkg i will stop using debian because there is no advantage over a RPM based distribution.
As a Debian developer, here is my take on the resolution. These are my personal opinions and don't represent the project in any official way.
If the resolution is adopted the "non-free" section will not be removed until the release of "woody", which could be a year from now. The rationale behind this resolution (as stated by its author) is that free alternatives to the major components of the "non-free" section have progressed to the point (or rather will have progressed to the point by the time the resolution goes into effect) that "non-free" is no longer necessary. I shall avoid debating the validity of this claim. Instead, I reject this rationale because it does not apply to everything in the "non-free" section.
Debian has a very specific definition of what it considers to be free, called the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). (Your own personal definition of what is free may differ from this, but that is irrelevant.) Packages with licenses that do not conform to this definition are consigned to the "non-free" section and are not considered part of the Official Debian distribution proper. Nevertheless, we currently support this software with our ftp sites and our bug tracking system.
Keep in mind that "non-free" is not equivalent to closed source, proprietary, commercial, etc. A piece of software may be consigned to "non-free" simply because it does not allow its sources to be modified and redistributed, it may not be used for commercial use, it cannot be distributed in binary form, or other such restrictions. These are hardly the type of licenses that spring to mind when someone mentions a non-free license.
As long as I can remember (and I have been with the project for a long time), the necessary criteria for distributing a package on Debian's ftp server have been the following:
(1) Is someone willing to maintain the package?
(2) Can we legally distribute the software from our ftp site?
I still think that these are the best criteria.
The original intent of the Debian project in 1993 was to build a quality non-commercial distribution of Linux, and the project's most important priority was its users. The free software zealotry came later. I find it ironic that if this resolution passes (which I doubt it will), software will be excluded from being distributed by Debian (whose original goal was to be a non-commercial distribution) simply because its license prohibits commercial use.
Think about that.
- Brian Mays
Yeah, if you're still USING slink. That's the latest release of the 'stable' distribution, meaning that everything's been tested and works perfectly. I, on the other hand, don't Use slink.
I don't use potato, either. Shocker. I'm using the debian 'woody' distribution, And i also have the lines in my sources.list for helixGNOME and ljlane's Enlightenment/Eeyes/Eeyes2/Imlib/imlib2/EFM/et cetera packages.
I'd also like to point out that anyone with a good internet server and a little bit of knowledge could put together a Server That includes The necessary Debian PAckages files and directory hierarchy for a debian archive That INCLUDES KDE, or Netscape, or whatever. It's not THAT hard to do. If i had the Time OR the bandwidth, i'd do it for Anything i were to write. And it's also possible to Use StormLinux's sources.list lines in order to add KDE to your system.
get 0wned. irc.w30wnzj00.com
are you volunteering?
could you code up a free acrobat reader client?
how about SATAN, can you make a GPL one of those?
want to redocument mysql? or make a nes emulator?
what about majordomo? or xmame?
how about mpg123?
sorry, I don't buy that argument
Just my opinion, but if a distribution goes out of it's way to be "free", it should come with only free software. Make the users go out of their way to get the non-free software, that way they _know_ that what they're installing has a different license. This prevents them from breaking licenses by accident.
I suppose this is offtopic, but, Why does 'Open' or freesoftware movement have to exclude proprietary or paid for software? shoudn't this be about freedom of choice for the consumer? why must you oppose someone else's view when you express yours. Just because you believe your side is right doesn't mean the other side is wrong, they just have a different opinion. This is like an arguement between Chevy and Ford, which is better? it depends on your point of view and experience. developers should only care about what they are doing. make your own decision and don't worry about anyone else, let the consumer decide between 'open' or 'closed' and just concentrate on making your software better! quit arguing and just get it done!
I'd keep ranting, but i've got code to write. by the way, i don't get paid for my code, i get paid for my time spent solving problems for the company i work for.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
So Debian removes Non-Free software, even against its
charter. Thankfully, the group of Debian users that still believe the
Non-Free software component is important to the user-base, can write a
new Charter, fork the entire distro, and can largely still benefit from the
Free-only Debian's work.
I consider the Amish to be a bit smug though.
Its a lot easier to live withut technology in a fertile temperate area. Similarly, the Stallmanites typically have a source of income other than software.
This makes me -NOT- want to use Debian any more.
Yes, non-free software suck, blah, blah.
Yet there are people who prefer the non-free software. Having a non-free section in Debian
makes it more convenient for users to install it.
The Debian developers should come out of their closets and see that there is more to this world
than free software.
First of all, I respect RMS. Secondly, RMS likes Linux just fine. HURD was meant to be an innovative kernel with lots of nifty features, but he has stated that his *primary* goal was to have a Free Software kernel to use for GNU. The nifty-newness of HURD was always secondary. Since Linux fills the need of GNU's kernel, the development of HURD has essentially halted. HURD would be nice, but it isn't here. Linux is, and he is fairly content with it.
... the openness and cooperation is what RMS is trying to recreate in opposition to the commercial, proprietary trends that the industry has experienced since those early days.
RMS would not decided on using HURD for GNU until HURD was usable. GNU is a project to create *useful* free software. The code is not worth a damn if nobody uses it. He wants to give computer users a *valid* alternative to using proprietary code, and thus is pragmatic insofar as functionality. He is resolutely *not* pragmatic when it comes to licensing, to user's freedom.
However, if RMS went mad and asked Debian to remove Linux from the distribution, it wouldn't get him very far. A few might be loyal enough and short-sighted enough to obey. They would splinter off of Debian, and fold back into FSF. Meanwhile, Debian would continue, with a severed connection back to FSF, and less a few long-hairs.
I don't like RMS bashing. He is not someone I would take home to show Mom and Dad, but he is highly principled and one hell of a hacker. Infact, to many he is the Last True Hacker. He forms the link back to the old days at MIT AI labs. The spirit of AI labs
--Lenny
wterm happens to be my preferred terminal emulator, and for a long time I used it happily along with Debian potato. Then all of a sudden it was gone. Just gone. Because it ended up under "absolete", I had removed it before I realised what I was doing. I then had to download the .deb and install it manually, because it was removed from the distribution. When I asked the package maintainer what that was all about, he responded that the package was dropped from potato because it had a release critical bug that couldn't be fixed: it is a bit lossy when using the Cyrillic alphabet.
Now what's up with that? Sure, because it's free Debian will definitely have a huge user base in Eastern Europe, but why drop a perfectly good package just because it can't quite cope with their alphabet? Apparently, wterm has always had problems with the Cyrillic alphabet, so nobody who uses that alphabet uses wterm. So basically what they did by dropping it is depriving people who were happily using wterm without any problems of their favourite terminal emulator.
I see this whole issue of dropping non-free in the exact same light. People who DEFINITELY want Free! software will simply not put non-free in their sources.list so they're not confronted with Evil Non-Free Software. So why don't they do it a little different? They could, for example, supply non-free, but not put it in the sources.list by default, so that people who want to install non-free software will have to explicitly point dselect to it. That way you keep non-free available to those who want it, and keep it out of earshot of those who resent it.
Or is that just too logical a solution?
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Sounds great, but don't forget that the Debian definition of "free" excludes some code because it's *too* free. E.g., a classic "non-free" license is one that prohibits the inclusion of the package on any media for which *any* charge is incurred. Not even media charges. That means you can't get that package on a $2 disk, or bundled with your "Quick-Start Linux" book, or (arguably) even shrink-wrapped with the current issue of Linux Journal.
Other items in non-free include free software which must be distributed in source form only, or software whose "source" tarballs must be distributed unmodified. (That doesn't sound unreasonable, until you try to add packaging information. That's a modification of the tarballs!)
Another example? Crypto software which can finally be exported from US mirrors should still be "non-free" since it may be illegal to import and use in some countries. That breaks the DFSG (at least, in some people's views) because its discrimination on the basis of nationality if the license says you can't use the software where it's illegal to do so.
Finally, and arguably the biggest category, is software which is free for personal, non-commercial use but which requires a license for commercial use. E.g., the latest version of ghostscript or mysql. N.B., these packages often define "commercial use" very narrowly. It's important to acknowledge the restriction, but it generally doesn't affect the legal status of any system in question.
It's easy to see "non-free" and think "oh, that's software that you must pay for" but that's rarely the case - few Debian supporters want to use *that* type of non-free software. To me, this is nothing more than an ideological pissing contest similar to that seen between the GPL and BSD license camps -- a lot of heat and noise produced by zealots on both sides, with the vast majority of Debian maintainers and users baffled why the minor problems have been blown up into a crisis.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Just a note, you should try using the Linux version of netscape on FreeBSD. It's significantly more stable (posting from it now), and you get the (dis)advantage of being able to use Linux plug-ins ala Flash.
----------------------------
your comment seems to imply that non-free is already gone. it's not. it contains lots of tasty, but non-gpl packages.
As for the year and a generation behind remark, for what I work on, that works for me. I prefer software that works than the absolute sexiest distribution and what not. Some of us actually do work with our computers, and that work isn't just making an eleet theme for Enlightenment.
If you want everything to break, because none of the bugs are fixed yet, run Mandrake, they'll proudly give you things like X4.0 standard, which may or may not work reliably or quickly for you. And they'll continually refer to 'security levels' when a problem is reported, instead of actually checking and seeing that 'yes, there is a problem no matter what'.
I'm unimpressed by the latest and the greatest, I want to do work, I don't want to worry about whether or not Eterm accepts escape sequences in a manner identical to xterm or not. I upgrade to fix bugs, or to gain useful functionality. No other reason.
----------------------------
The truth is, qmail is probably the best mail transport system available. It's easy to adapt to everything from single-user dialup systems to massive Web-based free email systems ala Hotmail (I know, I've done both!), and it works well, and it's secure. (How many security alerts have you seen for sendmail recently?) But, since its creator, Dan Bernstein, will only allow it to be freely redistributed in source form, that disqualifies it for main or contrib, and it has to go in non-free.
Still, the Debian qmail-src and serialmail-src packages are a lot more convenient than building it yourself from the tarballs. If they give non-free the boot, I lose that convenience. And right now, that upsets me, because qmail is something I need to keep my mail running properly at home. I could just start compiling it from tarballs again, but, if I have to do enough of that, I might as well switch back to Mandrake...or go buy Corel and get most of what makes Debian a great technical distro...
<RANT> /etc/apt/sources.list if they want. But totally dumping non-free solely for the sake of ideology would be a signal that they're more interested in having a Politically Correct Distribution(TM) than a distribution that people will actually want to use.
They can put the non-free stuff on separate servers if they want. They can force me to manually add the necessary lines into
</RANT>
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Non-free is only a couple of hundred megs. Remember, non-free doesn't contain every single non-free piece of software out there, just the ones that someone (A Debian developer) felt were important enough to package.
Also, not everything in non-free is a product of some greedy corporation. There are lots of things in non-free that are only breaking one point of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and some are barely even doing that.) For example, software with full source code available, but only for non-commercial use.
The other main reason not to remove non-free is that lots of packages in contrib depend on things in non-free. If Debian were to remove non-free, then that would break lots of things in contrib.
All in all, this isn't the right time for this proposal, it should really be held off until there are acceptable replacements for the packages that people consider important.
--Adam
Just so people have an idea of what Debian's non-free tree looks like:
netscape, xanim, mysql, acroread, unzip, java jdk, tao, nedit, xmame, povray, xv, majordomo, pine, distributed.net's deal, solid sql, archie, big brother, cIRCus, cucipop, mrouted, rat, nntpcache, tin, trn, mpg123, glimpse, gpg (idea, rsa, rsaref modules), pgp, dqs, omniorb, ucbmpeg, cyrus imapd
Most of this I could probably live without, but MySQL, Cyrus IMAPd, netscape, acroread, mpg123 (used by a lot of other peices of sw), pgp (need backdwards compatibility, and majordomo (come on, even linux-kernel uses this) don't really have decent full-featured equivilents.
The question really comes down to how many resources do maintaining these non-free packages take? I would assume the bulk of the time is put upon the packager which volunteered to handle it anyway. The space requirements is only about half a gig and there really aren't that many packages.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
MySQL is not the only "free for use" DBMS out there. PostgreSQL, while slower, is actually much closer to SQL standards and just hit version 7.0
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Debian already provides a virtual rms, that periodically informs you of non free packages installed. Surely this is enough.
If Debian want to officially distance themselves from non-free, a market will spring up supplying debian distributions which include non-free. This will take business away from debian.
Perhaps Debian should supply two distinct products for each major release, and let the customers and users decide for themselves.
-- hjw http://puzl.info/
The whole point of getting rid of non-free is to move Debian closer to its goal of being a completely free distribution. Many people (both in Debian, and in Slashdot, and in other places) have brought up the fact that this move would basically compromise Debian's position as a viable distribution, as it would remove many packages that are quite usefull for which viable and free alternatives have not been developed.
Personally, I think that this move is a little bit ahead of its time. While many of these packages are in production, they aren't finished to a point where Debian would be weakened by their subsitution. Thus it would be in the best interest of the distribution (and its user base) to keep non-free and adopt a different plan. I see a couple of different options
Overall, I would say that a motion in the middle would be the best, as it would move them slower to their goal so as not to upset the user base, which would be in their best interest. And I must add the disclaimer, that I am a Debian user, but not a maintainer.
You see, as far as I am really concerned, I care very little about the 'political' stance that Debian is making on the free/non-free. The reason I use Debian is apt, and dpkg. The technical side is what I'm after.
.deb format (rpm's do this too, but .deb is in my opinion superior).
.rpm and .deb (either/or) packages, the end result is the same: removing programs is difficult, time-consuming, and often dangerous.
.deb's and .rpm's, instead of a pure tarball install).
.deb package from any tarball, it would be perfect.
The problem I see with removing the 'non-free' section is this: There are those of use who are not the most advanced of users. We do know how to do a straight install of a tarball, and a package, etc. BUT, we also know enough about a system to know that it's quite nice to be able to remove the package without violating dependancies, and forgetting files. That's what's so nice about the
I have a small idea how to make some Debian packages from source (deb-make and dpkg-buildpackage). But I am also aware that this isn't exactly the correct way to go about it. (For a 'correct' package. But I believe it satisfies my ability to 'remove' a package.
It's certainly easier than retaining ALL of the original tarballs, and doing a 'make uninstall'.
Removing the 'non-free' would hinder many users such as myself who aren't masters of creating debian packages- at least as long as we want to be able to 'remove' the packages and keep the files on our computer 'clean'. Finding links for 'apt' that contain non-free applications isn't exactly easy. If Debian at least maintained a list of apt servers, and what they carry, it would greatly improve things.
The big thing is I want to be able to easily UN-install any and every program from my computer. In the Windoze world, companies have made a small fortune on aftermarket 'un-installers'. And, I know why - Windoze doesn't do the best job of uninstalling programs.
Without an easy way to convert tarballs to
Installing a tarball isn't the problem (mostly - some deps can be a pain). Upgrading them isn't the problem (again, deps... but otherwise, just install over). It's *removing* a tarball from the system that is what makes packages so great (and why we use
Just my $0.02. If I could make a
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
This is what happens when religious ideology runs amok.
Why anyone would have a problem distributing free-beer software, when that software helps to improve the user base of your product, is beyond me.
I'm in favor of software being open source. I think that in many cases it is the best thing for all parties involved. But that doesn't make the open source model the only viable method for the creation of software or that all software should be open source. The people who create software can do what they want with it. The rest of us have no special rights to what they have created. It is theirs to do with as they please. Debian's attitude is that software is somehow special and belongs to everyone, regardless of who created it. I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
Their attitude is only going to be self destructive. It will decrease the number of new users who start out with debian and likely encourage current users to move to something else.
In the end debian will corner the market on linux users who care more about ideology than they do about real world concerns, like having the software you need to get your job done.
But it won't matter. If debian won't respond to market pressure, there are dozens of other companies and groups creating distributions who will.
The Debian project may be a non-profit organization, but they expect and hope that people will use their product. If they didn't they wouldn't be putting the effort into creating it. They can either give their customer's what they want, or go off and play some other game of their own that no one else cares about but them. Which one they do will be what determines their long term viability.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Even the freedom to use (and maintain) non-free is a freedom. The fact that there are still Debian developers who maintain packages in non-free goes to show that the time is not yet right.
Sure, SSH got freed, and that's a big win. But there are still a lot of packages in non-free that many of us *need*.
Frankly, I think this proposal does more harm than it does good. Eventually, there will be no need for this proposal, when there are good alternatives for non-free, developers will lose interest. That would be the time to close non-free.
As far as I can tell, it has not been demonstrated in any way that Debian is so strapped for resources that non-free needs to be removed. Remember that the maintainers of non-free packages do so out of their own free will. Quite likely they have a personal need for those packages, and will keep maintaining those debs even if the GR is passed. But you'd have to scour the net to find those packages. (KDE anyone?)
To maintain a separate archive and bug tracking system for non-free would consume *a lot* of time and expertise, which would be better spent on other things. Frankly, I fear it'd be a total mess as well.
I think we all would like this done eventually, but to do it now would be premature. We would eat our cake before it's baked.
"Doing it in maybe 2 years time - THAT would be ok. But, don't remove it before we've got tools to replace it."
That is EXACTLY their proposal. The move will affect the Woody distribution, which they estimate will be released in 2 years.
i use debian for a while not and i like it because it is simply the best distribution form a technical side and because it is most free. i also installed it for about 5 new uses who get along with it quite fine.
but they could not live without netscape and a lot of other things from non-free yet. (and there is not a replacement for every non-free thing yet. e.g: the gimp-nonfree to load/save GIF. there can not be a free version since the patent problem. but when people can not load/save GIF then gimp is mostly useles to them. and there are lots of other things like that.
so i think it should be decided on a case by case if to remove a packet or not. so in the long run we will be able to get rid of non-free but not completly today. if non-free is removed today then debian would be useless to about 80 or 90% of people. people who are not able to compile software themself since they are no programmers. so this uses only have the choice to use a complelty comercial distributin like suse or redhat or to use m$ windows. all in all it does not help the cause of free software much.
maybe debian developers could vote once every year which packets are allowed to be included in the non-free section. also i would suggest to add even more warnings that these packets are non free and where the problem is and that they might be removed from the diestributin in future versions. and maybe an email address of who is to blame (e.g. unisys in the GIF case) etc.. but we can not remove those packets yet.
greetings from vienna
mond.
I have never had Electric Eyes crash on me, even when loading multiple hundreds of images. I tend to start it from the cvommand line, so I can get all of my images in that manner. (Dialog box? What's that? :) Eye of Gnome is another purpotedly decent image viewer. I've never tried it, though.
--Phil (Where did I get all those images? One day, I found that the Doonesbury site had every Doonesbury strip ever written...)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
>And if you have non-free software, it is probably safe to assume that you have this non-free software because you need it.
l -0006/msg00215.html) mentions Mozilla would be ready by the time "woody" was release. Another confusing point is "Mozilla" is using the MPL (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html) which is NOT compatible with the GPL according to the FSF (see this link) (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
>
>So this all means two things:
>
>1. Despite what you say, your system is not 100% free software.
>2. You have failed to prove that there is a >substantial market for a 100% free system.
>
>Right?
Free? As in "beer" or "choice", I have not found where in this case Debian makes it crystal clear which they don't want to be party to. This link when put into context of this discussion makes their position even more confusing to me ( http://www.debian.org/intro/free ) To quote a line from that page:
"While free software is not totally free of constraints (only putting something in the public domain does that) it gives the user the flexibility to do what he needs in order to get work done. At the same time, it protects the rights of the author. Now that's freedom."
Kind of confusing!
It states ONLY PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN DOES THAT. There is a big distinction between GPL'd only software and Public Domain software isn't there?
The article that supposidly started this thread (http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-deve
Just my observation.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
It is my firm belief that as soon as the DOJ is finished with Microsoft, they should bring their artillery to bear on the monopolistic tyrants at Debian.
My favoured remedy would be for Debian to be broken into two, non-colluding entities. This structure could take a number of forms. Perhaps, one group could be spun out to stroke Stallman's nuts, while the other group sucks his cock. Another potential breakup could be DebianA doing the Stallman rimjobbing, while DebianB could possibly stuff Stallman's hairy scrotum into their mouth, and hum at a really low frequency.
thankyou
Why not support a company that are more open to providing drivers for alternative OSs? Were you stuck with a TNT?
when another company gets close to producing a video card as powerful as something from nVidia, tell me. i'm not prepared to accept second rate hardware in my system to satisfy the whims of a bunch of whiny irrelevant hippies.
the defendent is entering a plea of flamebait in the second degree, your honour - flaming, with sarcasm, but without premeditation.
i don't really have anyhing against debian -- as long as people aren't trying to ram this 'free-er and pure-er than thou'-type crap down my throat...which unfortunately seems to infect some debianites i have known and read.
you make the point (quite rightly) that RH and mandrake live on the bleeding edge as far as releasing the latest and greatest in their distros. i've been using mandrake(+ RH) now as an enthusiast and working programmer for a bit over 2 years now and have had no grief at all with mandrake. i consider it an advantage that mandrake provides the latest software - 9 times out of ten i want the later versions of the 2.2 kernel, KDE/gnome/wmaker, apache, mysql, perl, jikes etc... i guess i like hacking around the bleeding edge, but hey, i'm a programmer, not a sysadmin, and mandrake suits my style just fine... and if anyone tries to tell me i'm a linux weenie cause i like it that mandrake saves me some time by pre-configuring some stuff that i can tune later by hand then they can go finger @themselves...
In my limited experence with KDE I have found it good, but there is no compelling reason to use it over gnome.
i mostly agree... gnome has truly improved since its initial (pre-)release. i've used both K and G probably close to equally with 4 different windows managers and it's clearly been my experience that what KDE lacks in terms of visually-configurable widgets, it makes up for by not being as buggy as gnome, and by also providing a more complete desktop environment.
my australian $0.02... that's probably US$0.03 to you... ;-)
From a home user perspective, the Mandrake distribution is great. The next version will come with the next kernel, a nice KDE interface, etc., which is great for the home user. However I would never use mandrake to run a real server, much in the same way I wouln't use Corel linux. It is designed with ease of use in mind, rather than security and overall reliability.
However, I do use Debian on my servers, because I appreciate its great security and the length of testing that is done on each distribution to make sure it is secure and performs properly. It may not come with all the fancy features, but I know I can configure it to do what I need, and only what I need.
People often forget that linux is used professionally, where every little detail counts and things like Netscape are trivial. That's just my opinion.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
And it's GPL'ed!!!!
Do never forget to mention mutt.
You could go to Micros~1 (i.e. hell) for that.
Patola
Patola (Cláudio Sampaio) - Solvo IT
IBM CATE
SAIR GNU/Linux Certified
Patola (Claudio Sampaio)
Unix System Administrator
Will the apparatchiks at Debian take this movement to it's logical extreme? How about only supporting open-source hardware -- I'm sure the patents on Babbage's analytical engine has expired.
I don't quite buy into the GNU worldview that any software which isn't free is worthless and doesn't deserve to exist. There is some excellent commercial software out there, from simple games like Unreal up to insanely-expensive professional packages like Maya.
Nor do I buy into the idealistic OSI position that open-source software is superior to commercial software simply because the code is available.
However, I believe that the open-source development model is an effective way to write good software, and that I'm much more likely to find good free software for a particular task than good commercial software, and at a much better price.
I can understand wanting to "purify" the distribution by removing non-free. If non-free contained only fully-commercial apps, I'd be all for it. But, as many people have pointed out, it also contains lots of software that is only non-free in one tiny aspect. And to remove it would break many of the contrib packages. If Debian supports free software, why harm some of it by pulling its dependencies out from under it?
I think it's clear that there will always be somewhere to download non-free packages from. But if Debian gives up control of this archive, they'll make life more difficult for themselves when it comes time to fix up dependencies for a release. Debian should maintain control of the non-free section. They should make it more clear that non-free is not officially part of the distribution, and move the packages to non-free.debian.org or something like that. But don't just kill non-free. It's true that at some point those packages will no longer be necessary, but we'll know that's happened when none of them are actively maintained anymore.
Come on guys, stop acting like some petty Stallmanesque psychonauts, and start thinking about what's best for your users, and hence for Debian, because without users, you are as nothing. Reject the amendment, and include KDE in Debian. Maybe then we won't all think of you as a group of pointless obsessives on some illogical crusade against proprietary software.
Yeah, you losers, why don't you get with it and include MS Internet Explorer and the wonderful MS Office Assistant, he's so cute, and I miss him so!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
After all, it doesn't seem clear to me, what is the exact purpose of the proposal. Of course, it's about advocating free software, and encouraging users to use as many free software as possible.
I Think,we all agree upon that. What is controversial is the strategy of the proponent. As far as i understand it, he seems to enforce some coercion into debian: Using non-free software should be labeled a non-acceptable behavior.
Such an attitude implies one of the following assumptions:
- You don't need any non-free software
- Even if you need it, it is not acceptable to use it
Seveval postings here, seem to share the first assuptiomn: the claim is made, that for any non-free software, there is a free replacement available, that might not yet be as comfortable or stable, but completely sufficient for everyone's basic needs.
It is quite easy to propagate assumptions about other people's needs, when you haven't to do their work. But is much more difficult to judge, what is actually needed.
Form the viewpoint of a java-porgrammer (yes, i admit, i develop COMMERCIAL software for my employer, so anyone is invited to deny me the legitimity to participate in this debate), i can't agree to this at all. Standard in software developement in the multimedia/internet-industry are rapidly changing. Java-Servlets and JSP are quite new technologies, but they have quickly become some kind of de-facto-standard, that couldn't be easyly ignored. Kaffee is not yet an adequate alternative to the JDK, simply because it doesn't yet implement today's state of java technology.
The free software community has achieved quite a lot to be proud of, and in many regards, free software components could be regard as technically superior. But that is not yet true for all kinds of software. Software developmenent cycles in the free software community seem slow in impelemnting some aspects of evolving programming paradigms: Partuculary object orientation.
Most GNU people advocate plain C as the state of the art. C++ is considered evil, and Java is mostly ignored. Instead a philosphy is propagated, that states: "The best way to do object-oriented programming is to avoid using a programming language that supports it". The gnome project is built around this paradigm.
Of course, gnome is great software. But it doesn't prove, that its style of programming is suitable for everyone's needs. So, as long as we still have to live in an non-free software-world, even advocators of free software sometimes have to use non-free software. P.S.: What about wine? This emulator is mostly used to run non-free software in a free OS. So, even if wine is free itself, its purpose is not. Could it be included in purified free-only-distribution?