Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: any Free BSD variant?

[Rubén Rodríguez Pérez]

> I disagree.  This is what makes us a community.  The users have equal
> powers as developers.

For power level this is true: the more you do, the more you rule. But I
was talking about knowledge, more related with your words on usability
and what you said about the users not being dummies.

> A user who wants to learn more about
> the system than the average user

So you are not the average user, and also not a dummy :)

> > you compile your own emacs
> 
> Compiling Emacs and other packages is what users typically do.

See? That's where I think you are wrong with this. Compiling is for
advanced users, just a little tiny portion of the total. Most of the
users know nothing about computing science -the exact amount they want
to know-, and they expect the system to work with no effort.

> > and you are bothered about the lack of debugging symbols.
> 
> Sure I am, but this doesn't imply I'm a developer.  I think that a
> diligent user has to at least try to report every bug she encounters,

Your knowledge level is way above the average computer user. If you
design a distro thinking that every user is a hacker, only hackers
will use it. Including an easy way to report bugs is a good idea, but
everything should be automated and easy.

> I also use GDB as a learning tool [...] The distro should make such tinkering
> easy by default.

Yes, a good distro should include the best of the two worlds: a easy,
non frightening, modern OS that "just works", with all the required
hacking machinery underneath, so if a user -like you do- wants more, he
can learn all he wants. Both tasks are equally important.

> But we have a GNU system!  It was never the intention the GNU system
> to comprise only of GNU packages.  At the dawn of the project all
> efforts have been made to reuse existing free software.  Facts like
> rms' quest for a free compiler and the early decision to use large and
> important software like X and TeX speak in favor of this.

Then you need to explain what do you mean with "pure GNU". I thought
you where talking about just the GNU packages.

> My only conclusion is that Fedora is closer to a free system than
> Debian is.  Not yet there, surely.

That is nice, I didn't know.

> 
> > > This was just one (albeit central) point of my plan, and it's not
> > > something to be taken lightly.
> > 
> > I think that this is not a good idea.
> 
> I was expecting a comment like this.  As a GNUer, don't you want to
> improve the system?  I'd even say that everyone who appreciates the
> goals of the GNU project wishes it success, both on philosophical and
> technical level.

Of course I do, but the GNU packages are just a tool. The only matter
is the philosophical one. So, if a free program exists, then the
hackers should not waste their time by doing a GNU version, as there
are lots of more important tasks to do. They should work on GNU
versions of non-free programs instead.

> If you're brave enough to claim that GNU make is not the most popular
> and most powerful make implementation, let me know :-)  I'd by amused
> to argue just for the sport.  Yet, they include their own
> implementations, because of natural solidarity and the desire to
> improve their own system.  I guess their default shells are not Bash
> as well, etc.

In most cases, that solidarity is mostly filled with ego too. I don't
care much about a program being "ours" or not, as long as it is free.
As a distro maintainer, I choose GNU programs if they are equally good
as some other. If they are not, I have to provide the user with the
best alternative available. I.e. our distro ships with swfdec, as it
can show way more flash movies than gnash. The day gnash catches up, we
will replace swfdec. Our pride of GNU should not blind us.

> > There are lots of non-free software that needs a replacement, that's
> > a much more urgent issue.
> 
> I agree 100% with you.  It is more urgent and more important, too.
> 
> But that's a bit out of scope from the perspective of a distro
> maintainer.  The task of distro maintainers is to make the system more
> usable, more coherent and integrated for the benefit of its users.  A
> distro maintainer is a proxy for the user -- 

True, In this case, replacing a commonly used free app with a not
so known GNU package is a pointless effort anyway, even it the GNU app
already exists. Only if the free program is -despite of it's
popularity- doing the things wrong we should replace it. If the program
is fine, then we should stick to the standard, as it will simplify the
users adoption of our system.

Excluding or replacing a program for freedom shake is mandatory. Even
if it makes the distro harder for the user. But replacing a package
just because we like it better does not justify the extra hardness.

But of course this are just a general thought, your idea makes sense for
several packages anyway.

> the complex task of
> assembling the system is not anymore user's responsibility, like in
> the early days.

The same applies to compiling too ;)

> > And by the way, you cannot replace them all as I said previously.
> 
> Naturally.  I don't suggest to introduce a GNU implementation which is
> buggy and leads to important regressions.  This is a process that
> should be handled with great care.
> 
> > Is there a point in replacing all but the kernel and the xserver?
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that X needs to be replaced?

What I meant is that you cannot replace those packages with GNU pieces,
because we don't have them. Ok, you can use the HURD, but we have no X.

> Even the Hurd is not a priority for rms, not anymore.  But if someone
> writes a working and powerful kernel and wants it to replace Hurd as a
> kernel for GNU, I bet it would be seriously considered.  I hope that
> Neil Walfield's research work on Viengoos will lead to something.

Every free program is interesting, but as the linux-libre kernel is
already done, I think  that we should focus on other issues. Writing a
kernel is a huge job, and it would have to compete with well
established kernels out there...