Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #158154 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-22 05:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 58 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Deleting i386 packages Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-09-22 05:40 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Himanshu Shekhar <irm2015006@iiita.ac.in> - 2015-09-22 06:30 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 08:50 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages mudongliang <mudongliangabcd@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 09:50 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages mudongliang <mudongliangabcd@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:10 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:20 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-09-30 01:20 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-09-22 15:30 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:10 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-24 06:50 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 12:30 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-25 12:00 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 14:30 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 09:20 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-09-27 10:50 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 12:30 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-29 07:00 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-29 18:40 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-30 14:00 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-30 14:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again (was: Deleting i386 packages) Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 12:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 14:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 22:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-27 23:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-29 18:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-09-29 21:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-29 22:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-30 06:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Heracles <heracles@iprimus.com.au> - 2015-09-30 07:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-10-01 05:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 20:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 08:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 10:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-30 13:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-30 13:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 17:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-01 09:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-30 19:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-30 19:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-30 19:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 22:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 01:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again tomas@tuxteam.de - 2015-10-01 09:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 00:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-29 22:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-30 10:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 10:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 11:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-09-30 14:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-10-01 06:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 23:00 +0200
Re: Deleting i386 packages Mirko Parthey <mirko.parthey@web.de> - 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 19:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qetmx-3dp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158459 |
On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: /snip/ > > The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter. > > But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different. > The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other > about the user's rights. > > But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-) > > In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all > Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate > environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one > of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have > been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are > quite different. This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."* In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it. Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today. They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that. --doug * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs. dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous: _a free pass." All of these are certainly in common usage, but the idea of "free" applying to software that one may share seems to be unique to some Linux users. If you were to ask the average American what his first definition of "free" would be, I would bet that he'd say, "You don't have to pay for it."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 19:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qetwd-3ox-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158477 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2015-09-30 at 13:23, Doug wrote: > On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > /snip/ > >> The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter. >> >> But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more >> different. The one is about a more efficient software production >> model, the other about the user's rights. >> >> But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-) >> >> In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, >> and all Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a >> corporate environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read >> Bruce Perens, one of those who coined Open Source writing that in >> hindsight it may have been a mistake to realize that the people >> behind those flavors are quite different. > > This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."* > In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money > for it. That's one of several meanings, but yes, it's probably the most common default one. > Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is > NOT open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free > software which is not open source that probably most users of Linux > are using today. Eh? The full source of Firefox and Thunderbird is available; I've built both from source before (in one case quite recently), and have written patches which have gone upstream for at least one (and I think both). How do you conclude that Firefox and Thunderbird are not open source? > They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as > that. He didn't say that all free software is open source, nor even that all free software is Open Source. He said that all Free Software is Open Source. At least for the former of those two terms, the capitalization indicates that a specific term is being used, with a more specific meaning than might be understood from the generic meanings of the words involved. In this case, the more-specific meaning is probably the one given by the Free Software Foundation in its "Free Software Definition": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Generally, when someone goes out of their way to type "Free Software" with that capitalization (in normal text, not as part of e.g. a page title or the like), they may be presumed to be referring to that definition. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 19:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qetFV-3Ao-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158477 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le nonidi 9 vendémiaire, an CCXXIV, Doug a écrit : > Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT > open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software > which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today. > They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that. As was pointed to you already, you are wrong on this. > This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."* > In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it. > * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to > slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs. > dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous: > _a free pass." So basically, you are contradicting yourself in the very same post, since you affirm that there is a single meaning, and then quote a dictionary that proves there are several meanings. > All of these are certainly in common usage, but the idea of "free" > applying to software that one may share seems to be unique to some Linux > users. You may want to read a little bit to avoid appearing completely clueless on this list: https://www.debian.org/intro/free You may notice that some people in this discussion have carefully put capitals to "Free Software", and even used Libre (from Latin ascent through Spanish and French) instead. Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 21:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qevy1-6hR-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158477 |
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:23:21PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
........snip.......
> * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to
> slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs.
> dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous:
> _a free pass." All of these are certainly in common usage, but the
> idea of "free" applying to software that one may share seems to be
> unique to some Linux users. If you were to ask the average American
> what his first definition of "free" would be, I would bet that he'd
> say, "You don't have to pay for it."
But the average American/German/Spaniard/Austrain/etc is not a linux
user. Neither is the American Heritage Dictionary.
--
Bob Holtzman
A fair fight is the result of poor planning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 22:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qevHI-6td-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158477 |
On Wednesday 30 September 2015 18:23:21 Doug wrote: > On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > /snip/ > > > The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter. > > > > But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different. > > The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other > > about the user's rights. > > > > But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-) > > > > In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all > > Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate > > environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one > > of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have > > been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are > > quite different. > > This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."* > In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it. > > Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT > open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software > which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today. > They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that. > > --doug > > * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to > slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs. > dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous: > _a free pass." All of these are certainly in common usage, but the > idea of "free" applying to software that one may share seems to be > unique to some Linux users. If you were to ask the average American > what his first definition of "free" would be, I would bet that he'd > say, "You don't have to pay for it." They are open source, surely. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 01:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qeyvU-274-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158477 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
2015/10/01 2:24 "Doug" <dmcgarrett@optonline.net>: > > > > On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > /snip/ > >> >> The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter. >> >> But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different. >> The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other >> about the user's rights. >> >> But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-) >> >> In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all >> Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate >> environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one >> of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have >> been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are >> quite different. > > > This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."* > In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it. > > Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT > open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software > which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today. > They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that. > > --doug > > * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to > slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs. > dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous: > _a free pass." All of these are certainly in common usage, but the > idea of "free" applying to software that one may share seems to be > unique to some Linux users. If you were to ask the average American > what his first definition of "free" would be, I would bet that he'd > say, "You don't have to pay for it." > When my wife talks about "o-make", the whole family, including her, knows that the freebie in question is a trade for our attention, and induces a sense of obligation to buy that she will have to remind us to ignore if we avail ouselves of the freebie. She is not a Linux user, except when she tells me to move over and let her read her e-mail. She doesn't want a computer at all, even though the Sony big tablets Docomo is selling double as TVs. She understands that free-as-in-beer is a deception. Your average person does not exist, any more than free-as-in-beer exists. It is a fact that politicians will use and abuse the common temptation to ignore the responsibilities that are part-and-parcel of freedom. That fact is not tantamount to legitamizing a false modal as a standard definition. If you don't like what I'm telling you, read this http://free-is-not-free.blogspot.jp/2015/07/shut-up-and-code-or-make-donation-and.html carefully before you reply. Joel Rees Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens. All is a stream of text flowing from the past into the future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomas@tuxteam.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 09:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qeGMP-5IY-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158477 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:23:21PM -0400, Doug wrote: > > > On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > /snip/ > > > >The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter. > > > >But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different. > >The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other > >about the user's rights. > > > >But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-) > > > >In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all > >Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate > >environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one > >of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have > >been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are > >quite different. > > This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."* > In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it. Language is ambiguous. You've to use the context and other hints to understand your interlocutor. OTOH... > Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT > open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software > which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today. > They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that. ...you can play language games and knowingly ignore those hints (note that I wrote "Free Software": given the context that's not a hint, that's a fat cluebat). My time is too precious for language games. Outta here - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYM5VIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ0sgCeLe9yEiF62yErQfDRoazIvrVA pdUAnRRGFTrKQIYqbgiQVk4SPQEALMgI =KjnW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 00:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qeUd3-Rt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158496 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, I don't understand why Mozilla Firefox isn't open source because in wiki it's says: <Mozilla Firefox (known simply asFirefox) is a free and open-source web browser developed by the Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.> And furthermore we have different branch of Firefox like Iceweasel. So what is that mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 22:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qe9QR-oL-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158417 |
On 09/29/2015 01:33 PM, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote: /major snip/ > > >> Among programs which are not open and not free are several CAD programs > > That's hardly everyone's necessity. > > >> and at least one office suite. > > That Chineese one, or M$ one? > > >> I'm sure there are others. > > Reco > > SoftmakerOffice is a nice non-free suite which to me is worth paying for. I don't have to bust my gut trying to learn LibreOffice, I can just use it. (There is a free version, but it's limited.) You may just be cheap, Reco. I'm willing to pay for what is not free when I deem it is worth my money to do so. YMMV. --doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qegIG-1IR-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158427 |
> You may just be cheap, Reco. I'm willing to pay for what is not free
> when I deem it is worth my money to do so. YMMV.
Free Software is about freedom, not about money, nor about
technical advantages.
Freedom to run the software without having to accept some ridiculous EULA.
Freedom to share that software legally with whoever you fancy.
Freedom to get whoever you want to fix/improve that software.
Freedom to share those fixes/improvements with whoever you fancy.
You don't need to be a programmer to make use of any one of
those freedoms.
Free Software tends to have, as a consequence, various specific technical
features as well, tho it's not its main goal (it's typically the goal
of Open Source software, on the other hand):
- It usually costs nothing (since the buyer can share it with anyone).
- It often works even on old or non-mainstream systems.
- It can be well-integrated with distributions like Debian, rather than
having just a big blob that contains copies of libraries you probably
already have on your system.
- It's usually free of malware, since it's a bit more difficult to hide
it in source code than in a precompiled binary.
- It tends to be aimed at more technical-minded people, since these are
the people who can provide fixes/improvements, and those people most
often do so for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of
someone else.
- ...
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 10:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qekVZ-7TY-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158427 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:34:12PM -0400, Doug wrote: [...] > You may just be cheap, Reco. I'm willing to pay for what is not free > when I deem it is worth my money to do so. YMMV. Sigh. The usual red herring. As Stefan points out downthread, Free doesn't necessarily correlate with Cheap. More with Responsible: I, for one, pay for my free software, among other things by contributing (with money and free time) to one free software organization and by tipping off the one or other developer. The thing about Free (apart from the other freedoms: to give away, to tinker and so on!) is that *you* as user decide how to contribute, and how much. (If your only motivation to use Free Software were "it's cheap", then perhaps it's better you stayed with proprietary ;-) The thing with non-free is developing more and more into "user control" instead of just recouping development costs (cf. DMCA and other disgusting developments). - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYLnAAACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbjBQCeItRyc9qj1G5MbJlZ0xYDJFB4 2U8An3UpxjrWnX+3rfbeg7nX6unWKBl2 =epor -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 10:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qelfj-8h1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158427 |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:34:12PM -0400, Doug wrote: > > > On 09/29/2015 01:33 PM, Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote: > > /major snip/ > > > > > >>Among programs which are not open and not free are several CAD programs > > > >That's hardly everyone's necessity. > > > > > >>and at least one office suite. > > > >That Chineese one, or M$ one? > > > > > >>I'm sure there are others. > > > >Reco > > > > > SoftmakerOffice is a nice non-free suite which to me is worth paying for. > I don't have to bust my gut trying to learn LibreOffice, I can just use it. > (There is a free version, but it's limited.) > > You may just be cheap, Reco. I'm willing to pay for what is not free > when I deem it is worth my money to do so. YMMV. Ok. So 'price' and 'freedom' for you equal to the amount of money you pay (or not) to the vendor. Personal attack set aside I too consider such position extremely simplistic and limited (see others' responses). Just because nobody in Debian requires you to pay money does not make Debian free. The rules of distribution of the 'main' software included in Debian, the ability to change said software, and use it for literally any purpose, on the other hand - they do. Speaking of 'cheap' - please search my alias at http://bugs.debian.org. I do not consider apology necessary in this case. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qegIG-1IR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158417 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 9/29/2015 10:33 AM, Reco wrote: > > No, you are wrong here. First, you're trying to introduce a false > dichotomy as if 'proprietary' and 'non-free' are different somehow. > Second, 'non-free' is *always* a bad choice. > > /"Hear me now, I have seen the light! // //They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! // //Damn you! // //Let the rabbits wear glasses! // //Save our brothers!" // //Can I get an amen?/ Tool - Disgustipated http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/disgustipated.html Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;-) I hate binary blobs that are required to get some hardware to work as much as the next person, but I stop short of saying non-free is *always* a bad choice. If you think of non-free in terms of Debian non-free, then non-free and proprietary can be different things. That gets into a whole different hornets nest. Later, Seeker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 11:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qelp1-8sJ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158438 |
Hi. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:57:13PM -0700, Seeker wrote: > > > On 9/29/2015 10:33 AM, Reco wrote: > > > > No, you are wrong here. First, you're trying to introduce a false > dichotomy as if 'proprietary' and 'non-free' are different somehow. > Second, 'non-free' is *always* a bad choice. > > > > "Hear me now, I have seen the light! > They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! > Damn you! > Let the rabbits wear glasses! > Save our brothers!" > Can I get an amen? > > Tool - Disgustipated > > http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/disgustipated.html > > Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;-) :) > I hate binary blobs that are required to get some hardware to work as much > as the next person, but I stop short of saying non-free is *always* a bad choice. Well, my initial point was that non-free blobs (be it software and firmware) bring suffering, and user of those has to suffer. 'Bad' is merely a simplification of this concept. Since I have a couple of instances of such hardware myself (damn you, Ralink), I can only say that I feel your pain :) > If you think of non-free in terms of Debian non-free, then non-free and proprietary > can be different things. That gets into a whole different hornets nest. Evaluate here, please. I honestly can not grasp this concept. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 14:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qeoPU-54G-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158455 |
>> If you think of non-free in terms of Debian non-free, then non-free
>> and proprietary can be different things. That gets into a whole
>> different hornets nest.
> Evaluate here, please. I honestly can not grasp this concept.
I think he's referring to things like emacs24-common-non-dfsg.
IOW, about how the precise definition of "Libre" can change slightly
depending on who you ask.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 06:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qeDOV-1sE-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158455 |
On 9/30/2015 1:51 AM, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:57:13PM -0700, Seeker wrote: > >> If you think of non-free in terms of Debian non-free, then non-free and proprietary >> can be different things. That gets into a whole different hornets nest. > Evaluate here, please. I honestly can not grasp this concept. > > Reco > amiwm is in non-free. It includes source. It allows redistribution, but specifies "for non-commercial use". You are allowed to make changes, but not allowed to redistribute modified binaries or source. Not bad in the proprietary black box kind of way. But it is bad in the sense that it looks unmaintained and lack of ability to redistribute changes will eventually become an issue. There is angband-audio, that looks to be under some form of Creative Commons license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ Cuneiform is in non-free, don't know why that is since following the link to what is listed as the home page indicates the license is "Simplified BSD License". https://launchpad.net/cuneiform-linux/ There is game stuff in non-free where the game engine is open source, but the level data is either not included, requiring you to have a game disk or demo version to extract the data from, or game data is under more restrictive license. I'm fine with game data being under a restrictive license with an open source license on the engine, that still allows game developers to use the engine with independently developed levels and allows the game engine to continue being updated so I can continue to play the game with it's original levels in the future as long as I have access to that level data. Then there are issues with documentation under GFDL license not meeting DFSG requirements due to the invariant text clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License It's not all a black and white issue, there are several shades of grey in the mix as well. And I appreciate the way Debian developers deal with these things on behalf of those who create Custom Debian Distributions and redistribute them, but still having non-free separately available for us individual users. Later, Seeker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 23:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again |
| Message-ID | <qeaaf-Lp-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158355 |
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote: > > > On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > >>On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote: > >>> > >>>>>The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use > >>>>>RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be > >>>>>aware of very critical bugs. > >>>Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category. > >>>May I ask why you did so? > >> > >>Answer: Can I get a copy of this > >>[http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/virtualization] without > >>paying and with all the benefits? > > > >You're making the mistake of linux non-free soft ware with proprietary > >software. I suggest you read up on open source software. > > > > .........snip........ > > > There is Linux software that is proprietary and not free. Just because that's the > case does not make such software a bad choice or a bad deal. One must decide what > the software will do, and if it is worth the price. No argument from me, but there are those who disagree....strongly. Let us remember that many-- > perhaps most--users of the Linux os are not programmers, and cannot take advantage > of software being open-source. Among programs which are not open and not free are > several CAD programs and at least one office suite. I'm sure there are others. > > --doug -- Bob Holtzman A fair fight is the result of poor planning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mirko Parthey <mirko.parthey@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qbv1v-5qC-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #158154 |
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large > number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is > there a good way to simply tell a package manager that I want everything > involving that architecture deleted? The best answer I've found on my > own has been to use dpkg and grep to find everything with :i386, and > then construct a huge dpkg --purge command to get rid of them all. > Hoping for something a little simpler... # aptitude --purge-unused markauto "~ri386" This should only remove packages that are not needed anymore, assuming that nobody messed up the auto markings of your installed packages. At the yes/no prompt, you might want to check the list of packages to be purged. You could also run a first pass without "--purge-unused", check if you are happy with the results, then do a second pass with this option included. Regards, Mirko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web