Christopher Nelson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 07:31:56PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > >> Christopher Nelson wrote: >> >>> I have no idea what post you're talking about since you didn't quote it. >>> >> I was referring to my only other post to this thread, namely >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. >> > > Okay, after some searching I found it (at: > http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20060421.170836.4a9c52cc.en.html > for the interested) and I'm afraid I cannot comment too much on it. I > also don't know how much useful response you would get here, even if the > post weren't buried in a thread such as this (I know the detail would be > way over my head). Maybe sending a similar message to the install team > (of which, by you sig in that message, I assume you are a member?) would > prompt more interest? > > I believe you misunderstand Joey's post. He's not asking for any help. He's just pointing out to Steve Lamb that Steve has ignored his previous post, which follows this timeline (as I recall it).
Steve Lamb was arguing that Debian should support hardware as best as possible, even if that means including non-free drivers. He was also essentially claiming that Debian's position of refusing to use non-open software is the antithesis of "open software", by removing the choice of using closed software. Joey, a Debian Developer (DD), essentially said that nothing is stopping Steve from developing an open solution for any particular piece of hardware. Joey continued on with an example of a closed driver for a certain NIC, which actually would be illegal for Debian to distribute. Note that it's not Debian that is not being "open"; it's the proprietary driver. Steve, in this thread, appears to care less about the principles of Free Software than he does the practical use of free software. Others have pointed out that the "Freedom" aspect of Debian is very important (as in "very!") to some of us Debianites; the implication being that Debian is for those who care about the philosophy of Freedom, and perhaps another distro would be more suitable for those who care about practicalities. Joey Hess (aka "see shy jo") seemed, to me, to be pointing out that Steve ignored this bit in favor of continuing to argue that Debian should be doing something for Steve's benefit which is neither legal nor in line with the Debian philosophy. Apologies to Joey and Steve if I've misrepresented you in any way. Curious on-lookers are encouraged to read the entire thread for themselves, which appears to start here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2006/04/msg02779.html -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
