The GPL is more than just the subversion of traditional copyright. A role such as this is satisfied sufficiently by a BSD-like license.
The GPL, as you know, goes furter by requiring that the full source be provided even for derivative works (upon distribution, of course). This is more than the subversion of traditional copyright.
The GPL actively attempts to enforce the satisfaction of a moral obligation (arising from a basic right possessed by all persons and perhaps by society collectively), which its creator and advocates consider to be the moral duty of certain beneficiaries of the simple subversion of traditional copyright.
I would think -- and of course this may not always be so -- that advocates of the GPL and GPL-like licenses on idealistic grounds (one of which I happen to be), would in fact be as equally upset by this violation as would they be by any other violation, and in any other context.
After all, according to such people (again, which I am one of), the failure in such a violation, the failure of most importance, is the failure to satisfy one's moral obligations; it is the failure to do what one ought to do.
Whereas an advocate of a BSD-like license, I suspect, would not be upset by such a violation (other than perhaps by the ommission of a copyright notice, were this the case).
Does this seem to be an accurate portrayl of both perspectives?
" Another Debain zealot who just doesn't get it. When, oh when will they quite trying to compete with the binary distro's and get back to their Open Source roots?"
Sure, by Slashdot standards, I can accept the label, "Debian zealot". That's fine.
But no, really, I do not understand your criticism.
The point is, the source is available and usable in a relatively straightforward and managed manner if you wish to use it.
You can pull the source packages from the same mirrors housing Debian binary repositories. Just add a deb-src repository to your/etc/apt/sources.list.
Compiling from source in cases where performance increases will be negligable or non-existant, or in cases where the compile-time options of the binary build are acceptable, does nothing for you.
Typing "make install", "emerge", "apt-get source", "apt-build", or what have you, does not in and of itself increase your freedoms; it does not make you a hacker or a freedom fighter; it does not stick it to the man.
In most cases, all that doing so does is use more CPU cycles, and make you wait that much longer to have the package up and running.
Don't get me wrong; I believe that it is very important to have access to the source of every package. However, given the present state of average personal computing power, nothing is lost in binary distribution, so long as the source is available in an (ideally) equally usable form.
You seem to be emphasizing "Source", as if to say that Debian (or even Redhat) go against these "roots" by not providing source; they do provide the source, and in the case of Debian, what I am saying is that I have found this source to be sufficiently accessible in those cases in which I need it.
And further, I am conceding that there is room for improvement in streamlining this process and making compile-time configuration more accessible for those relatively few cases in which it is needed; these improvements are already under way.
What particularly of what I have written are you objecting to? Are you saying that there is some sort of significant appreciation shown, or important insights gained just by the very act of building and installing from source? Unless you are suggesting that every user read the source, or be forced to go through every compile-time option whether or not he or she wishes to or needs to, I fail to see how this appreciation or insight is significant.
There are relatively few outstanding important bugs. However, I do not know how widely it is used, and so I understandably do not feel comfortable or qualified to recommend its use in a production environment.
I think that's fair enough, eh?
It is usable now (although you might want to read through the outstanding bug reports and current responses), but again, how stable is difficult to say without knowing how many users it has.
How is it in the interests of the people in any nation, that daily government operations and communication be dependent upon a private corporation?
When will we see a government -- a people -- that will stand up to large corporate interests and fund the development and deployment of an open source office suite and groupware servers and clients, of similar or higher quality than existing proprietary solutions, so that the daily operation of our government will not be dependent upon the business strategies of private corporations.
From your post, you seem to be interested in using Debian, right now, as an advanced personal/business user. Is that an accurate assessment?
There is a great wealth of quality documentation and reference information available in electronic form. I know that you would like a dead-tree book, but as a volunteer, non-profit distribution, I don't know that this is the Debian way.
As you say that you have already had a successful install, there's no need to go over that.
This is a very informative HOWTO. It describes apt, which is the basis for managing and maintaining your Debian system. Keep a link to it; when you first read through it you may not understand how or when certain scenarios arise, but depending upon your use, you will find these scenarios useful in the future.
As an experienced user, you shouldn't generally have any problems determining what in this document is applicable and what is not.
For any other system related questions, start by checking Debian Reference.
Should you run a testing/unstable system? Depending upon your use, it might be best to stay with stable. It might also be acceptable to use unofficial apt repositories for backports to woody (current Debian stable release) of software such as GNOME 2.2 and Mozilla Firebird, or even to just go ahead and include testing/unstable apt repositories.
It depends upon your use, as Debian can satisfy a great range of needs.
"[...] were surprised that there was a substantial group of users who actually wanted to compile Open Source rather than just install binaries."
Yes, there are also people on workstations who spend all of their time in X, and for some reason still want to boot into a virtual console and execute "startx". I hardly think we need to discuss the usual reasons for this, nor that it would be particularly flattering. If you are building on your own system all or even most of your packages from source, you are almost certainly wasting your time (which is, of course, yours to waste).
Myself, the existing Debian build system has proven adequate for the few cases in which I have needed to build an official package from source (to change compile options).
Of course you know that Debian GNU/Linux system allows you to build packages yourself, and provides a dependency resolving system for building packages from source.
Since you are complaining, I assume that you have actually used this system under Debian and found it to have limitations or other shortcomings such that it was inadequate for your needs.
For those not in the know, it is a fairly straightforward process to build a single package. Add a deb-src repository to your/etc/apt/sources.list. Then check the "apt-get" manpage for "source" and "build-dep".
It should be more than satisfactory for the generally very few cases in which there is some worthwhile advantage to be had in building from source (usu.
If not, there is always apt-build 0.8.5, which, once mature, should so far as I can see, satisfy every objection that these Gentoo users go on and on about; except of course the Debian Social Contract, which is not a "problem" I would ever want to see solved.
Go ahead, put apt-build on a non-production system and build your packages with your optimizing gcc flags to your heart's content.
I'm not going to try "apt-build world" yet, but it is there;)
Well, did you know Debian has more than 8000 actively maintained packages?
Have you ever run a system out of testing/unstable; within the last 6 months? If you haven't, you should also be cautious of pronouncing Debian to be hopelessly out-dated (not that you did, but that this is no doubt on your mind).
Is it still as big as it was?
No, it's bigger.
Should you care about the Debian Social Contract, even if you aren't into "that sort of thing"? Well, you should, but no, you don't have to, because the Debian project cares about it for you.
It is very simple to understand what your rights are with the system you have installed. Unless you go out of your way to indicate that you would like non-Free software or libraries as well, you do not have to ever worry about any surprises of non-Free software or libraries being installed behind your back.
2) Debian does have very recent software in unstable and testing. Of course this goal does not mean having just-released software in stable. Debian itself can do very little other than pass along bug reports if the upstream soure is buggy or dangerously unstable; this is not the fault of Debian. The point though, is that this software is available for those who want it, in a very reasonable amount of time. Debian has over 8000 actively maintained packages.
6) apt-get of course works just fine with a local repository, or from a cd distribution by using apt-cdrom to populate your package information list.
Yes, you are going to have to find some other way to get updates, but that would be the case with any distribution. Just get yourself a cd with the updated packages in repository form, apt-cdrom it, "apt-get upgrade", and all packages will be updated to the newest version (still staying in stable if you want).
Of course you can also purchase a cd set for testing and unstable.
Don't you agree that we have obligations to other members of society, obligations that arise to satisfy rights which these members of society have simply in virtue of being persons?
Is it not quite plausible then, that in some cases these obligations will include advancing and bettering society and its members if you may do so sufficiently, or so at sufficiently little cost or loss to yourself?
I do not know that it is at all so clear that an author has absolute rights concerning his or her work, of the sort that copyright law purports to satisfy in some limited form.
That should read that the original producer can not be required to provide a copy of the source, unless he distributes it, and then only if he choose distributes it under a GPL-like license.
Anyone can request the source, of course, but may have no guaruntee to it under the GPL.
Consider the following: 1. You are distributed a piece of software under the GPL. 2. You make modifications to this piece of software. 3. You redistribute the modified software under the terms of the GPL to Smith.
Under the GPL, your contractual obligation to provide the source or an offer to provide the source to Smith, arises only after (3).
At no point in the scenario above, do you under the terms of the GPL have any contractual obligation to distribute the source to Jones, because Jones has not been distributed a copy of the software in binary form.
Now, I realize that there is a limit to what may be done under the current copyright system. While, for example, a GPL-like license could be produced which would require that You, immediately following (2) in the above scenario, must provide a copy of your modified source to anyone who asks (at a fair material cost, and within a reasonable time frame), under current law we could not require that the original producer of the software (who distributed it to you), provide a copy of the modified source.
I object, again, because I think it is silly to say that we have alone an obligation, "To provide copy of the source and certain freedoms of modification and redistribution only to those to who we distribute a binary copy of some software."
This is not a good in and of itself. The reason that such an obligation exists, on my view, is because of a more general obligation to the bettermend and advancement of society, and all persons.
Since this is a story about RMS and his values and goals, I'd like to comment briefly on his values and goals.
I believe that share many of Stallman's political and ethical goals and committments, but I question his committment to the apparent grounds of his ideals in the case of non-software copyright issues.
RMS does not appear to believe that the right to Freely modify and redistribute "software" is an absolute right, and likewise does not believe that one's moral obligation to make "software" available in a form which is Free is an absolute right.
I agree. This is not an absolute right. It is a right which arises from more basic rights of all humans, and this obligation from obligations to satisfy these more basic human rights.
Stallman appears to ground our moral obligations regarding copyright, like myself, on the value that those rights which these obligations satisfy have to society at large.
Unfortunately, Stallman openly appears not to be consistent on these grounds concerning novels, music, video games scenarios, and certain embedded software.
That an "offer to obtain the source" of a piece of software be provided is not an obligation to those who can not benefit from obtaining the source code, but rather it is an obligation to society, that the source code be made available so that those who can benefit society by obtaining the source code, can obtain it. It must be offerred to every one, because the original software distributor has conflicting interests and can not be trusted to, and may not even be capable of, properly determining which individuals or institutions particularly can benefit society by obtaining the source, so as to provide it only to these individuals and institutions.
For this reason also, I disagree with Mr. Stallman. I believe it is unacceptable that source be provided only to those who are also distributed a binary or other copy of the application. All institutions and individuals must have the right to request and obtain a copy of the source -- whether or not they have been distributed another copy of the software -- again, at a fair price for the material cost of doing so, and within fair time constraints.
If you have written a piece of software, the source of which could benefit society were a copy of it obtained by some individual or institution, then you are without excuse for not providing this source at a fair material cost and within reasonable time constraints. Whether or not you actually distribute your software does not significantly affect your obligations to advance and better society, which you has a software creator have the full ability to do. It is because of society that you are alive, have prospered, and have had the sort of education and upbrining which you have had, and so in the sort of environment which you have been in. To say that these obligations to society only arise when you actually distribute software, is at the very least to give the appearance of inconsistent, arbitrary demands and goals. I can see no justification for them.
To the other matters which he is asked to comment on in the above interview:
Being able to modify a novel, to make it suitable for a more particular audience or culture, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to modify a musical composition, to make it better, more satisfying, or more targeted, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to correct, maintain, or modify embedded software is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
According to this Wired story on the distribution, Extremadura GNU/Linux is a Debian GNU/Linux install.
I'm calling you out, Richard Stallman. You claim that the GNU project website will not link to the Debian project because the Debian project provides for the description and download of non-Free Software. Yet, you can recommend a Debian install?
Most certainly Extremadura Linux contains the standard dpkg/apt facilities. Just like with a standard Debian install, a user must explicitly specify that he or she would like access to the seperate repository which contains non-Free Software, in order to access these repositories with the apt system. This is done either at install (in the case of a standard Debian GNU/Linux install), or after install by modifying the/etc/apt/sources.list configuration file.
The default of a Debian GNU/Linux install is to provide for the installation of only software which is Free Software.
Extremadura GNU/Linux no doubt provides in its package management system to describe non-Free Software, and to provide for the download and installation of non-Free Software. These are the same reasons that you have stated you will not link to the Debian project from the GNU project website.
Mr. Stallman, how dare you take a stab like this at the Debian project.
"If we're serious about getting linux much more widely adopted, linux needs a killer game that isn't available on windows..."
These games might be fun to some, and the developers might seem "cool" to some younger Slashdot readers, but let us stop fooling ourselves. What we are talking about when we speak of these games, is in nearly all cases, software which no more Free than is Microsoft Word.
It was for a time, and perhaps still is worthwhile to provide for Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop, and perhaps other widely valued proprietary software to run under Free systems or in Free environments, because when we do this, we do so knowing that it is a compromise only for a short while longer as we finish Free alternatives to these products, which shortly now will overtake them one by one.
With proprietary games, there is no such hope. We are not on the verge of replacing these propreitary software products. There is no indication that providing for these proprietary software products to run under our Free systems and in our Free environments will motivate or move these proprietary software producers to do anything but smile at their increased sales.
If proprietary game producers want their non-Free products to run under Free systems and in Free environments, they will get no help or support from this developer.
If they want it, they can pay for it. It would be an insult, but I realize we must sometimes bear such things as the consequences of and retribution for mistakes we have made in the past, mistakes which have made us dependent upon them and their money. Let it some day not be like this.
"I would rather have a quart of Free Software than a gallon of proprietary software."
Of the submitter's previously accepted stories, this one and this one mention BlackBerry.
While both do mention BlackBerry, both also mention competing products in a good light.
Submitter's other stories which have been accepted, stories on completely unrelated topics, are equally abundantly linked.
Judging by the submitter's past comments' moderation, the submitter does not need more karma.
I suspect what we have here is not an ad, but rather a story submitted by a user who has some exceptional interest in following handheld phone/data technologies.
as a wise man once said, "I would rather have software be developed at a slower pace, but have freedom in using all of it. I would rather have a quart of Free Software than a gallon of proprietary software."
I could agree that KDE is more technical than GNOME, and maybe that is what some people find to be most intuitive and usable.
I'm not saying that you don't find KDE to be more usable; you obviously do, and that I suppose is a perspective that I do not see things from.
I know that some people, consider GNOME 2.x to in many ways be a step backwards from GNOME 1.x, and I suspect that this might be for similar reasons.
My desktop, for example, is pretty much the default configuration, except that I use only a single panel -- which is on the top -- and 10 virtual desktops to navigate rather than using a taskbar; maybe that is something that others would consider to be very unusable and counter-intuitive; I don't know.
I suppose this might sound silly to some people, but in a desktop environment, I prefer the large buttons with text labels beneath them. I prefer the simple and usually sparse menus. I prefer not having an abundance of ways to do the same thing, especially when it is something new. I like what is being done with Epiphany, Totem, and Rhythmbox. I don't recall yet having a need to change any advanced preferences through gconf-editor.
Most of my work is done in Epiphany (recently, but Mozilla Firebird is nice too), an XTerm (gnome-terminal is too slow and seems to have a minor memory leak), and/or in EMACS, so maybe I use my desktop differently than others, too.
To be clear though, I'm not one of those people who say that developing two desktop environments is a "waste of time", either. Obviously -- and as I can see here -- some people have very different needs and intuitions than myself, and of course those people have every bit as much right to pursue satisfying those needs and expectations.
"I prefer KDE for the eye candy and better usability."
The situation hardly breaks down as: KDE: eye candy, usability GNOME: performance
I can't believe that you are serious. What do you consider usable? I don't understand.
How exactly is KDE more usable than GNOME 2.2 or 2.3? Yes, GNOME 2.2 currently lacks sufficiently mature programs for some functionality (cd burning, integrated smb network share manipulation), but the desktop itself, even as it stands now, is many, many times more usable than what I have seen of KDE.
If by "usable" you mean, "Forces me to fiddle with settings, settings that no non obsessive-compulsive person should ever want to change, just to use the environment in a comfortable manner", then no, GNOME 2.2+ is not "usable". Fortunately, this is hardly the definition of "usable".
I consider myself to be a very technical person, but being a technical person has nothing whatsoever to do with having the desire to obsessively fiddle with settings, or to fill my desktop with obscene amounts of clutter that does not contribute to usability. If Mac OS X were fully Free Software, I would run Mac OS X, because from what I have seen of it, it "just works". My X desktop should "just work". GNOME 2.2+ "just works" for most of what I do, and it is getting better and it will continue to get better.
If by "usable" you mean, "By default conveys a circus-like atmosphere of unlabelled icons, bright and shiny colors, and menus filled with more options and entries than a kernel compille," then no, GNOME 2.2+ is not "usable". Fortunately, this is hardly the definition of "usable".
"But it would be a huge improvement for Gnome to just improve usability."
This I absolutely do not understand. Have you used GNOME 2.2+? Do you realize that GNOME 2.x+ is about, perhaps foremost: usability?
Yes, Nautilus needs to mature, but how can you look at the visual assault of colors, the cluster-fsck of iitty-bitty icons and buttons and overflowing menus that is the default configuration of the Konqueror file-manager and tell me that KDE is more usable than GNOME 2.2+?
I just don't understand.
No, KDE is not for me. Maybe it is for you, but if so, then either you or your needs are so differnet from me and my own that I simply can not understand you.
"What's wrong with letting us know what movies to pirate off the kazalite?"
=)
Hah, a good one, my man!
Perhaps there is no shame in taking what is freely given to you. While I do not violate copyrights, I also do not have any hatred for those who do, and believe there may arise situations where we must do so.
When you do so in the privacy of your own home, alone, perhaps the implications for public endorsement are much less pronounced.
To another point, I also do realize the potential hypocrisy of posting this from a computer, no doubt containing parts made in those very circumstances I have spoken out against.
To this I say:
This world is a filthy place; all who touch it receive a mark and a blemish upon themselves. But I exhort you, friends, let these marks and blemishes be scars of battle, not brands of complacency.
No, not, "Where to we stand on the matter of the MPAA?" Where do I stand and where do you stand on the matter of the MPAA?
I would urge everyone to, when then find themselves facing the dilema of whether or not to financially support the MPAA, to not just say, "Oh, isn't that funny; yesterday we hated them, and today we will support them," and shrug off the matter.
If you generally accept the business practices of the MPAA and member studios, peace be upon you, but I can offer you nothing further. If not:
Continuing financial support of these studios by purchasing admission tickets leaves room to send no message other than the message that you accept their content, that you accept their social practices, and that you accept their business practices. The ticket stub does not feature a check box reading, "While I am financially supporting the MPAA and member studios, I am profoundly disturbed by social and business practices," by which you can send any message other than than your consent, your acceptance, and your appreciation.
Films are not food, water, or shelter; they are not medicine needed for your dying significant other. If you find the social and business practices of the MPAA and member studios to be profoundly disturbing, then you have no excuse to continue to financially support these entities.
This is little different, in principle, than the situation with clothing and other apparel made by workers who are seriously physically, socially, and economically exploited. In both cases, seriouslly exploitive and morally reprehensible institutions and laws exist in the society in which these attitudes and practices exist and occur, and it is these very institutions and laws which explicitly enable and endorse these attitudes and practices.
Yet, there is more. Not only when you purchase admission tickets and personal media do you provide financial support to the MPAA and member studioes, but when you do so you also publically advocate the cultural acceptance of their social and business practices by openly expressing your consent, acceptance, and appreciation as you publically provide your financial support. Because you have no excuse, other members of society have reason to draw no other conclusion than this.
Please ask yourself, "Do I financially support and thereby publically endorse the MPAA by purchasing admission tickets because their content is superb and without doing so I would feel unfulfilled and suffer a serious degredation in the quality of my life, or do I financially support and thereby publically endorse these entities foremost because, although I find their social and business practices to be profoundly disturbing, going along with existing cultural norms prevalent in my social and peer groups is easier than changing them, or fighting them?"
I'm still waiting for the day that I can flip open my personal digital assistant in New Constantinople while trading the tungsten ore I just shipped in. I'm still waiting for the day that I can pick up a quick job at the information kiosk, to move a shipment of 'hot' books out of New Oxford, with 6 space pirates on my tail;)
I'm still waiting for the day that I can bring up on the display an analysis of the planetary bodies in the system held by the Stentor, while I ponder whether or not I should take them out, or take them up on their deal for a time traveled ship.
I'm still waiting for the day that I can double-cross those arrogant Broodmasters.
No, wait, computers have already given me all of these things.
The dissappointment with computers, is that these worlds never grew; I drifted away from them as they drifted away from me, and I can not visit them any more. I fear that even if I could, it would never be the same.
Being imersed in those worlds, through my little portal, was as compelling and real as I can imagine any "VR" system ever could be.
I want a structured, compelling world, where me and my imagination can visit for a time, maybe even take up residence, and meet a few good natured people while we're at it, people who may or may not have a corresponding manifestation is this present world;)
Nethack, perhaps in many respects, more than anything else, is a good ways there.
We do not need more technology; all that we need is more imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah! =^)
I thinki t not so funn when america intranational gang outlaws violate the trueth and brakke natural lAW.
haven while rain justace and nucular weapawn on them bastard.
But I think that something is lost.
The GPL is more than just the subversion of traditional copyright. A role such as this is satisfied sufficiently by a BSD-like license.
The GPL, as you know, goes furter by requiring that the full source be provided even for derivative works (upon distribution, of course). This is more than the subversion of traditional copyright.
The GPL actively attempts to enforce the satisfaction of a moral obligation (arising from a basic right possessed by all persons and perhaps by society collectively), which its creator and advocates consider to be the moral duty of certain beneficiaries of the simple subversion of traditional copyright.
I would think -- and of course this may not always be so -- that advocates of the GPL and GPL-like licenses on idealistic grounds (one of which I happen to be), would in fact be as equally upset by this violation as would they be by any other violation, and in any other context.
After all, according to such people (again, which I am one of), the failure in such a violation, the failure of most importance, is the failure to satisfy one's moral obligations; it is the failure to do what one ought to do.
Whereas an advocate of a BSD-like license, I suspect, would not be upset by such a violation (other than perhaps by the ommission of a copyright notice, were this the case).
Does this seem to be an accurate portrayl of both perspectives?
" Another Debain zealot who just doesn't get it. When, oh when will they quite trying to compete with the binary distro's and get back to their Open Source roots?"
/etc/apt/sources.list.
Sure, by Slashdot standards, I can accept the label, "Debian zealot". That's fine.
But no, really, I do not understand your criticism.
The point is, the source is available and usable in a relatively straightforward and managed manner if you wish to use it.
You can pull the source packages from the same mirrors housing Debian binary repositories. Just add a deb-src repository to your
Compiling from source in cases where performance increases will be negligable or non-existant, or in cases where the compile-time options of the binary build are acceptable, does nothing for you.
Typing "make install", "emerge", "apt-get source", "apt-build", or what have you, does not in and of itself increase your freedoms; it does not make you a hacker or a freedom fighter; it does not stick it to the man.
In most cases, all that doing so does is use more CPU cycles, and make you wait that much longer to have the package up and running.
Don't get me wrong; I believe that it is very important to have access to the source of every package. However, given the present state of average personal computing power, nothing is lost in binary distribution, so long as the source is available in an (ideally) equally usable form.
You seem to be emphasizing "Source", as if to say that Debian (or even Redhat) go against these "roots" by not providing source; they do provide the source, and in the case of Debian, what I am saying is that I have found this source to be sufficiently accessible in those cases in which I need it.
And further, I am conceding that there is room for improvement in streamlining this process and making compile-time configuration more accessible for those relatively few cases in which it is needed; these improvements are already under way.
What particularly of what I have written are you objecting to? Are you saying that there is some sort of significant appreciation shown, or important insights gained just by the very act of building and installing from source? Unless you are suggesting that every user read the source, or be forced to go through every compile-time option whether or not he or she wishes to or needs to, I fail to see how this appreciation or insight is significant.
Please explain.
There are relatively few outstanding important bugs. However, I do not know how widely it is used, and so I understandably do not feel comfortable or qualified to recommend its use in a production environment.
I think that's fair enough, eh?
It is usable now (although you might want to read through the outstanding bug reports and current responses), but again, how stable is difficult to say without knowing how many users it has.
WPS Office is, unless something has changed, as proprietary as is Microsoft Office.
And AVS for audio/video is patent/royalty encumbered.
How is it in the interests of the people in any nation, that daily government operations and communication be dependent upon a private corporation?
When will we see a government -- a people -- that will stand up to large corporate interests and fund the development and deployment of an open source office suite and groupware servers and clients, of similar or higher quality than existing proprietary solutions, so that the daily operation of our government will not be dependent upon the business strategies of private corporations.
Yes, I agree that this is a promising thing; one of the few exceptions.
From your post, you seem to be interested in using Debian, right now, as an advanced personal/business user. Is that an accurate assessment?
There is a great wealth of quality documentation and reference information available in electronic form. I know that you would like a dead-tree book, but as a volunteer, non-profit distribution, I don't know that this is the Debian way.
As you say that you have already had a successful install, there's no need to go over that.
First, you will want to read the APT HOWTO.
This is a very informative HOWTO. It describes apt, which is the basis for managing and maintaining your Debian system. Keep a link to it; when you first read through it you may not understand how or when certain scenarios arise, but depending upon your use, you will find these scenarios useful in the future.
Second, you will want to read Securing Debian Manual.
As an experienced user, you shouldn't generally have any problems determining what in this document is applicable and what is not.
For any other system related questions, start by checking Debian Reference.
Should you run a testing/unstable system? Depending upon your use, it might be best to stay with stable. It might also be acceptable to use unofficial apt repositories for backports to woody (current Debian stable release) of software such as GNOME 2.2 and Mozilla Firebird, or even to just go ahead and include testing/unstable apt repositories.
It depends upon your use, as Debian can satisfy a great range of needs.
"[...] were surprised that there was a substantial group of users who actually wanted to compile Open Source rather than just install binaries."
/etc/apt/sources.list. Then check the "apt-get" manpage for "source" and "build-dep".
;)
Yes, there are also people on workstations who spend all of their time in X, and for some reason still want to boot into a virtual console and execute "startx". I hardly think we need to discuss the usual reasons for this, nor that it would be particularly flattering. If you are building on your own system all or even most of your packages from source, you are almost certainly wasting your time (which is, of course, yours to waste).
Myself, the existing Debian build system has proven adequate for the few cases in which I have needed to build an official package from source (to change compile options).
Of course you know that Debian GNU/Linux system allows you to build packages yourself, and provides a dependency resolving system for building packages from source.
Since you are complaining, I assume that you have actually used this system under Debian and found it to have limitations or other shortcomings such that it was inadequate for your needs.
For those not in the know, it is a fairly straightforward process to build a single package. Add a deb-src repository to your
It should be more than satisfactory for the generally very few cases in which there is some worthwhile advantage to be had in building from source (usu.
If not, there is always apt-build 0.8.5, which, once mature, should so far as I can see, satisfy every objection that these Gentoo users go on and on about; except of course the Debian Social Contract, which is not a "problem" I would ever want to see solved.
Go ahead, put apt-build on a non-production system and build your packages with your optimizing gcc flags to your heart's content.
I'm not going to try "apt-build world" yet, but it is there
Well, did you know Debian has more than 8000 actively maintained packages?
Have you ever run a system out of testing/unstable; within the last 6 months? If you haven't, you should also be cautious of pronouncing Debian to be hopelessly out-dated (not that you did, but that this is no doubt on your mind).
Is it still as big as it was?
No, it's bigger.
Should you care about the Debian Social Contract, even if you aren't into "that sort of thing"? Well, you should, but no, you don't have to, because the Debian project cares about it for you.
It is very simple to understand what your rights are with the system you have installed. Unless you go out of your way to indicate that you would like non-Free software or libraries as well, you do not have to ever worry about any surprises of non-Free software or libraries being installed behind your back.
2) Debian does have very recent software in unstable and testing. Of course this goal does not mean having just-released software in stable. Debian itself can do very little other than pass along bug reports if the upstream soure is buggy or dangerously unstable; this is not the fault of Debian. The point though, is that this software is available for those who want it, in a very reasonable amount of time. Debian has over 8000 actively maintained packages.
6) apt-get of course works just fine with a local repository, or from a cd distribution by using apt-cdrom to populate your package information list.
Yes, you are going to have to find some other way to get updates, but that would be the case with any distribution. Just get yourself a cd with the updated packages in repository form, apt-cdrom it, "apt-get upgrade", and all packages will be updated to the newest version (still staying in stable if you want).
Of course you can also purchase a cd set for testing and unstable.
You are right; install once, and upgrade forever.
Wait, though.
Don't you agree that we have obligations to other members of society, obligations that arise to satisfy rights which these members of society have simply in virtue of being persons?
Is it not quite plausible then, that in some cases these obligations will include advancing and bettering society and its members if you may do so sufficiently, or so at sufficiently little cost or loss to yourself?
I do not know that it is at all so clear that an author has absolute rights concerning his or her work, of the sort that copyright law purports to satisfy in some limited form.
Oops.
That should read that the original producer can not be required to provide a copy of the source, unless he distributes it, and then only if he choose distributes it under a GPL-like license.
Anyone can request the source, of course, but may have no guaruntee to it under the GPL.
Consider the following:
1. You are distributed a piece of software under the GPL.
2. You make modifications to this piece of software.
3. You redistribute the modified software under the terms of the GPL to Smith.
Under the GPL, your contractual obligation to provide the source or an offer to provide the source to Smith, arises only after (3).
At no point in the scenario above, do you under the terms of the GPL have any contractual obligation to distribute the source to Jones, because Jones has not been distributed a copy of the software in binary form.
Now, I realize that there is a limit to what may be done under the current copyright system. While, for example, a GPL-like license could be produced which would require that You, immediately following (2) in the above scenario, must provide a copy of your modified source to anyone who asks (at a fair material cost, and within a reasonable time frame), under current law we could not require that the original producer of the software (who distributed it to you), provide a copy of the modified source.
I object, again, because I think it is silly to say that we have alone an obligation, "To provide copy of the source and certain freedoms of modification and redistribution only to those to who we distribute a binary copy of some software."
This is not a good in and of itself. The reason that such an obligation exists, on my view, is because of a more general obligation to the bettermend and advancement of society, and all persons.
Since this is a story about RMS and his values and goals, I'd like to comment briefly on his values and goals.
I believe that share many of Stallman's political and ethical goals and committments, but I question his committment to the apparent grounds of his ideals in the case of non-software copyright issues.
RMS does not appear to believe that the right to Freely modify and redistribute "software" is an absolute right, and likewise does not believe that one's moral obligation to make "software" available in a form which is Free is an absolute right.
I agree. This is not an absolute right. It is a right which arises from more basic rights of all humans, and this obligation from obligations to satisfy these more basic human rights.
Stallman appears to ground our moral obligations regarding copyright, like myself, on the value that those rights which these obligations satisfy have to society at large.
Unfortunately, Stallman openly appears not to be consistent on these grounds concerning novels, music, video games scenarios, and certain embedded software.
See this 1999 interview as a reference.
That an "offer to obtain the source" of a piece of software be provided is not an obligation to those who can not benefit from obtaining the source code, but rather it is an obligation to society, that the source code be made available so that those who can benefit society by obtaining the source code, can obtain it. It must be offerred to every one, because the original software distributor has conflicting interests and can not be trusted to, and may not even be capable of, properly determining which individuals or institutions particularly can benefit society by obtaining the source, so as to provide it only to these individuals and institutions.
For this reason also, I disagree with Mr. Stallman. I believe it is unacceptable that source be provided only to those who are also distributed a binary or other copy of the application. All institutions and individuals must have the right to request and obtain a copy of the source -- whether or not they have been distributed another copy of the software -- again, at a fair price for the material cost of doing so, and within fair time constraints.
If you have written a piece of software, the source of which could benefit society were a copy of it obtained by some individual or institution, then you are without excuse for not providing this source at a fair material cost and within reasonable time constraints. Whether or not you actually distribute your software does not significantly affect your obligations to advance and better society, which you has a software creator have the full ability to do. It is because of society that you are alive, have prospered, and have had the sort of education and upbrining which you have had, and so in the sort of environment which you have been in. To say that these obligations to society only arise when you actually distribute software, is at the very least to give the appearance of inconsistent, arbitrary demands and goals. I can see no justification for them.
To the other matters which he is asked to comment on in the above interview:
Being able to modify a novel, to make it suitable for a more particular audience or culture, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to modify a musical composition, to make it better, more satisfying, or more targeted, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to correct, maintain, or modify embedded software is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
According to this Wired story on the distribution, Extremadura GNU/Linux is a Debian GNU/Linux install.
/etc/apt/sources.list configuration file.
I'm calling you out, Richard Stallman. You claim that the GNU project website will not link to the Debian project because the Debian project provides for the description and download of non-Free Software. Yet, you can recommend a Debian install?
Most certainly Extremadura Linux contains the standard dpkg/apt facilities. Just like with a standard Debian install, a user must explicitly specify that he or she would like access to the seperate repository which contains non-Free Software, in order to access these repositories with the apt system. This is done either at install (in the case of a standard Debian GNU/Linux install), or after install by modifying the
The default of a Debian GNU/Linux install is to provide for the installation of only software which is Free Software.
Extremadura GNU/Linux no doubt provides in its package management system to describe non-Free Software, and to provide for the download and installation of non-Free Software. These are the same reasons that you have stated you will not link to the Debian project from the GNU project website.
Mr. Stallman, how dare you take a stab like this at the Debian project.
"If we're serious about getting linux much more widely adopted, linux needs a killer game that isn't available on windows..."
These games might be fun to some, and the developers might seem "cool" to some younger Slashdot readers, but let us stop fooling ourselves. What we are talking about when we speak of these games, is in nearly all cases, software which no more Free than is Microsoft Word.
It was for a time, and perhaps still is worthwhile to provide for Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop, and perhaps other widely valued proprietary software to run under Free systems or in Free environments, because when we do this, we do so knowing that it is a compromise only for a short while longer as we finish Free alternatives to these products, which shortly now will overtake them one by one.
With proprietary games, there is no such hope. We are not on the verge of replacing these propreitary software products. There is no indication that providing for these proprietary software products to run under our Free systems and in our Free environments will motivate or move these proprietary software producers to do anything but smile at their increased sales.
If proprietary game producers want their non-Free products to run under Free systems and in Free environments, they will get no help or support from this developer.
If they want it, they can pay for it. It would be an insult, but I realize we must sometimes bear such things as the consequences of and retribution for mistakes we have made in the past, mistakes which have made us dependent upon them and their money. Let it some day not be like this.
"I would rather have a quart of Free Software than a gallon of proprietary software."
Of the submitter's previously accepted stories, this one and this one mention BlackBerry.
While both do mention BlackBerry, both also mention competing products in a good light.
Submitter's other stories which have been accepted, stories on completely unrelated topics, are equally abundantly linked.
Judging by the submitter's past comments' moderation, the submitter does not need more karma.
I suspect what we have here is not an ad, but rather a story submitted by a user who has some exceptional interest in following handheld phone/data technologies.
they hack up your mission critical servers and convert them into public counter-strike servers.
Ask what you can do for Debian. ...and your good will will return to you.
as a wise man once said,
"I would rather have software be developed at a slower pace, but have freedom in using all of it. I would rather have a quart of Free Software than a gallon of proprietary software."
Yes, obviously I am not not in IT.
Well, that's definitely interesting.
I could agree that KDE is more technical than GNOME, and maybe that is what some people find to be most intuitive and usable.
I'm not saying that you don't find KDE to be more usable; you obviously do, and that I suppose is a perspective that I do not see things from.
I know that some people, consider GNOME 2.x to in many ways be a step backwards from GNOME 1.x, and I suspect that this might be for similar reasons.
My desktop, for example, is pretty much the default configuration, except that I use only a single panel -- which is on the top -- and 10 virtual desktops to navigate rather than using a taskbar; maybe that is something that others would consider to be very unusable and counter-intuitive; I don't know.
I suppose this might sound silly to some people, but in a desktop environment, I prefer the large buttons with text labels beneath them. I prefer the simple and usually sparse menus. I prefer not having an abundance of ways to do the same thing, especially when it is something new. I like what is being done with Epiphany, Totem, and Rhythmbox. I don't recall yet having a need to change any advanced preferences through gconf-editor.
Most of my work is done in Epiphany (recently, but Mozilla Firebird is nice too), an XTerm (gnome-terminal is too slow and seems to have a minor memory leak), and/or in EMACS, so maybe I use my desktop differently than others, too.
To be clear though, I'm not one of those people who say that developing two desktop environments is a "waste of time", either. Obviously -- and as I can see here -- some people have very different needs and intuitions than myself, and of course those people have every bit as much right to pursue satisfying those needs and expectations.
Thank you for the interesting comments.
"I prefer KDE for the eye candy and better usability."
The situation hardly breaks down as:
KDE: eye candy, usability
GNOME: performance
I can't believe that you are serious. What do you consider usable? I don't understand.
How exactly is KDE more usable than GNOME 2.2 or 2.3? Yes, GNOME 2.2 currently lacks sufficiently mature programs for some functionality (cd burning, integrated smb network share manipulation), but the desktop itself, even as it stands now, is many, many times more usable than what I have seen of KDE.
If by "usable" you mean, "Forces me to fiddle with settings, settings that no non obsessive-compulsive person should ever want to change, just to use the environment in a comfortable manner", then no, GNOME 2.2+ is not "usable". Fortunately, this is hardly the definition of "usable".
I consider myself to be a very technical person, but being a technical person has nothing whatsoever to do with having the desire to obsessively fiddle with settings, or to fill my desktop with obscene amounts of clutter that does not contribute to usability. If Mac OS X were fully Free Software, I would run Mac OS X, because from what I have seen of it, it "just works". My X desktop should "just work". GNOME 2.2+ "just works" for most of what I do, and it is getting better and it will continue to get better.
If by "usable" you mean, "By default conveys a circus-like atmosphere of unlabelled icons, bright and shiny colors, and menus filled with more options and entries than a kernel compille," then no, GNOME 2.2+ is not "usable". Fortunately, this is hardly the definition of "usable".
"But it would be a huge improvement for Gnome to just improve usability."
This I absolutely do not understand. Have you used GNOME 2.2+? Do you realize that GNOME 2.x+ is about, perhaps foremost: usability?
Yes, Nautilus needs to mature, but how can you look at the visual assault of colors, the cluster-fsck of iitty-bitty icons and buttons and overflowing menus that is the default configuration of the Konqueror file-manager and tell me that KDE is more usable than GNOME 2.2+?
I just don't understand.
No, KDE is not for me. Maybe it is for you, but if so, then either you or your needs are so differnet from me and my own that I simply can not understand you.
"What's wrong with letting us know what movies to pirate off the kazalite?"
=)
Hah, a good one, my man!
Perhaps there is no shame in taking what is freely given to you. While I do not violate copyrights, I also do not have any hatred for those who do, and believe there may arise situations where we must do so.
When you do so in the privacy of your own home, alone, perhaps the implications for public endorsement are much less pronounced.
To another point, I also do realize the potential hypocrisy of posting this from a computer, no doubt containing parts made in those very circumstances I have spoken out against.
To this I say:
This world is a filthy place; all who touch it receive a mark and a blemish upon themselves. But I exhort you, friends, let these marks and blemishes be scars of battle, not brands of complacency.
No, not, "Where to we stand on the matter of the MPAA?" Where do I stand and where do you stand on the matter of the MPAA?
I would urge everyone to, when then find themselves facing the dilema of whether or not to financially support the MPAA, to not just say, "Oh, isn't that funny; yesterday we hated them, and today we will support them," and shrug off the matter.
If you generally accept the business practices of the MPAA and member studios, peace be upon you, but I can offer you nothing further. If not:
Continuing financial support of these studios by purchasing admission tickets leaves room to send no message other than the message that you accept their content, that you accept their social practices, and that you accept their business practices. The ticket stub does not feature a check box reading, "While I am financially supporting the MPAA and member studios, I am profoundly disturbed by social and business practices," by which you can send any message other than than your consent, your acceptance, and your appreciation.
Films are not food, water, or shelter; they are not medicine needed for your dying significant other. If you find the social and business practices of the MPAA and member studios to be profoundly disturbing, then you have no excuse to continue to financially support these entities.
This is little different, in principle, than the situation with clothing and other apparel made by workers who are seriously physically, socially, and economically exploited. In both cases, seriouslly exploitive and morally reprehensible institutions and laws exist in the society in which these attitudes and practices exist and occur, and it is these very institutions and laws which explicitly enable and endorse these attitudes and practices.
Yet, there is more. Not only when you purchase admission tickets and personal media do you provide financial support to the MPAA and member studioes, but when you do so you also publically advocate the cultural acceptance of their social and business practices by openly expressing your consent, acceptance, and appreciation as you publically provide your financial support. Because you have no excuse, other members of society have reason to draw no other conclusion than this.
Please ask yourself, "Do I financially support and thereby publically endorse the MPAA by purchasing admission tickets because their content is superb and without doing so I would feel unfulfilled and suffer a serious degredation in the quality of my life, or do I financially support and thereby publically endorse these entities foremost because, although I find their social and business practices to be profoundly disturbing, going along with existing cultural norms prevalent in my social and peer groups is easier than changing them, or fighting them?"
I'm still waiting for the day that I can flip open my personal digital assistant in New Constantinople while trading the tungsten ore I just shipped in. I'm still waiting for the day that I can pick up a quick job at the information kiosk, to move a shipment of 'hot' books out of New Oxford, with 6 space pirates on my tail ;)
;)
I'm still waiting for the day that I can bring up on the display an analysis of the planetary bodies in the system held by the Stentor, while I ponder whether or not I should take them out, or take them up on their deal for a time traveled ship.
I'm still waiting for the day that I can double-cross those arrogant Broodmasters.
No, wait, computers have already given me all of these things.
The dissappointment with computers, is that these worlds never grew; I drifted away from them as they drifted away from me, and I can not visit them any more. I fear that even if I could, it would never be the same.
Being imersed in those worlds, through my little portal, was as compelling and real as I can imagine any "VR" system ever could be.
I want a structured, compelling world, where me and my imagination can visit for a time, maybe even take up residence, and meet a few good natured people while we're at it, people who may or may not have a corresponding manifestation is this present world
Nethack, perhaps in many respects, more than anything else, is a good ways there.
We do not need more technology; all that we need is more imagination.