[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New maintainer
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: New maintainer |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Oct 2015 23:34:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Jens K. Loewe) writes:
> David Kastrup schrob am 04. Okt. 2015 um 17:49 Uhr dies:
>
>> The point of the GNU project is to support free software.
>
> That sounds different and better from "the point is to fight non-free
> software", do you agree?
Since there enough users who do not care one bit, you don't get one
without the other. The playfield is tilted.
The whole point of the GPL is to reject non-free software rather than
not care any which way like the BSD licenses do.
>> If you are to manage a vegetarian fair and your idea of improvement
>> focuses on the sorely missing hot dog stands and you think a show
>> tannery a great addition, you are out of your depth.
>
> I use GNU tools (well, at least Emacs) on non-free systems and I
> strongly disagree with your interpretation. I don't say "GNU should
> make more Windows software" and I even agree with the ethical
> disapproval of Apple's products, *but* I say that a focus on so-called
> "free systems" is implying a restriction.
Oh definitely. And the GPL is restricting software to be used only as a
building piece for free software. That's its sole point.
> Not being actively interested in maintaining compatibility with
> Windows means a lock-in for non-Windows systems.
>
> Being able to use GNU tools on non-GNU systems often leads to the
> thought that switching the OS would not be much effort.
Look, Windows 10 contains keyloggers that record any key combinations of
you and send them to Redmond to "make your computing experience more
enjoyable". They reserve the right to sell every information they gain
about you for any purpose. The operating system is malware to a degree
where the most money-grabbing software company in the world does not
want you to pay a dime for it (likely because then you'd have some
minimal rights) and will force the upgrade on users of older Windows
systems.
People for whom such a system is a serious consideration do not care
about freedom one bit. Bending over backwards for them so that they can
keep getting screwed over is not going to make them change their mind.
We don't really have more convincing arguments to change from Windows or
MacOSX to offer than the Windows EULA and privacy agreements and MacOSX
licenses. If you can read through all that and wholeheartedly state
"IĀ agree", then we don't have anything to offer, really.
For every new Windows system, the EULA has become more ridiculous.
MacOS was comparatively benign in that regard for a long time since the
hardware (and to some degree the not-easily-replaceable firmware ROMs)
served as a sort of dongle, not necessitating additional thumbscrews
over what copyright already provided.
But right now by far the most important consideration has to be to make
GNU software work well in connection with free systems since the unfree
systems are so far off the chart that catering for them is not providing
a free work environment in sufficiently tangible respects.
>> And if his main motivation for organizing the fair was getting the
>> best steak hut far and wide, he is a mismatch for the fair, even if
>> 90% of all visitors happen to eat meat at home.
>
> The best free tool is a tool that does not require you to change your
> operating system, do you agree?
The best vegetarian dinner is a sideplate to a juicy steak, do you
agree?
>> A church custodian does not need to be devout, but it won't be
>> acceptable to celebrate orgies in the church either.
>
> No one implied to do so. None of the aspirants for the GNU Emacs
> maintainership suggested to start a Windows party on this mailing
> list, did we?
The issue here was actually MacOSX, resulting in a reminder of the rule
that no functionality is to be introduced for non-free operating systems
that is not available for GNU/Linux.
> There's a huge difference between maintaining a software and living an
> idea. Can a software only be good when its maintainer has /the right
> mind/?
You seem to be fond of flogging that strawman. I repeat: the maintainer
does not need to have certain personal beliefs but he must be able to
understand and follow the rules governing and underlying the project.
>> That can mean that a technical manager not invested into GNU's
>> philosophy will likely have to deal with a few things he considers
>> technically awkward.
>
> Which is OK as long as it does not have a major influence in what he
> does IMO.
In some respects, it will. That makes it harder to find a person for
what amounts to an unpaid position since it means that the only person
doing such a job will have strong reasons of his own. And when those
reasons are partly in conflict with the FSF's goals, that takes an
impact on the satisfaction one can derive from such a job as one's
metric for doing it well might not be in complete concord with the FSF's
metric.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: New maintainer, (continued)
- Re: New maintainer, John Wiegley, 2015/10/10
- Re: New maintainer, David Kastrup, 2015/10/09
- Re: New maintainer, Richard Stallman, 2015/10/11
- Re: New maintainer, Artur Malabarba, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, David Kastrup, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Jens K. Loewe, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Tassilo Horn, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, David Kastrup, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Jens K. Loewe, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, John Wiegley, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: New maintainer, Jens K. Loewe, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, David Kastrup, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, David Kastrup, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Artur Malabarba, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Michael Westbom, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Richard Stallman, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/08
- Re: New maintainer, David Kastrup, 2015/10/08