Re: GNU/Hurd section in webpages

[Marco Gerards]

Robert Millan <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> Wether my recall is correct or not, what is true is that there's no difference
> for what the guidelines are concerned between:
> 
>  - linking to a site [1] that links to a site [2] that in some way
>    advertises or promotes non-free software.
> 
> [1] http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
> [2] http://www.debian.org/
> 
>  - linking to a site [1] that hosts a distribution [2] that advertises or
>    promotes non-free software.
> 
> [1] http://ftp.gnu.org/iso/
> [2] http://www.debian.org/

Your arguments made sense to me from the beginning.  The way I see
debian is not that they promote non-free software, they just
distribute it.  AFAIK they promote free software instead.

But I do not want to make this a discussion about debian.

What matters is that we already have a link to a site that promotes
debian, why not another?

And how about Bee?  Did someone take a look at Bee and did someone
contact some of the project member before drawing a conclusion?

IMHO we should put this stuff on the hurd.gnu.org website.  Robert,
can you send in a patch?  After we got a patch we can discuss it for
eternity or Marcus can say what he wants. :)

> Again, the GNU/Hurd Installation path in the Hurd website is completely 
> broken.
> It leads to either: a broken link to gnu.tar.gz, a set of CD images that are
> not actualy there, or a tip to use crosshurd which is broken and will stay
> broken for long.

What is actually the main problem for the CD images?  I think it isn't
that hard to upload them for someone with enough bandwidth.

> At least, if you're not going to fix this it'd be nice if you fixed the site
> to stop pretending there's an Installation path at all, which there isn't.

Patch? ;)

I'm sorry for asking for patches, but I really don't have time to do
this myself.  And if I had time, it isn't very high priority for me.

Thanks,
Marco