The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: exchange with Richard Stallman

I nearly completely agree with this one, so I add my comments here ...

In article <19960325145336.762.qmail@tad.micro.umn.edu> Raul Miller <rdm@tad.micro.umn.edu> writes:

> Here's my take on this:
> 
> (1) Unstripped executables probably have some technical advantages in
> some circumstances.  I don't think it's reasonable to require this for
> debian 1.1.  I don't think it's reasonable to require strip for a base
> system until its size can be brought down (it's nearly 200k).

I don't think 200k to be unacceptable. But we needn't discuss this
until 1.1 is released.

> Personally, I'd be happy to distribute the packages I maintain,
> unstripped.  I'd even be willing to dual-upload: once to an FSF disk
> (unstripped) and once to a debian site (stripped).

IMHO it is too much burden to create every package twice. If we want
to support unstripped binaries I'd prefer to not distribute stripped
ones.

> (2) Encouraging people to write documentation is very different from
> mandating people write documentation in texinfo.  I think it's
> reasonable to point people at the texinfo documentation from the
> debian standard, and suggest that it's a acceptable format for
> material that's a mixture of user manual and reference.  I wish I knew
> more about how to convert this format to html.  Html seems more
> oriented towards small documents and live presentation.  Texinfo
> better for printed manuals and lots of information.  The info browser
> has its flaws, but it will let you interactively search multiple files
> for a single string -- this alone has saved me hours of time
> (libc.info).

One option is to implement such a search facility for HTML Browsers. I
have some 100 lines of discussion about the documentation system, but
no code ...

> (4) RMS's point 4 is not completely clear to me.  I don't think we'd
> run into any problems if we gave him permission to distribute copies
> of the specs with phrases which offend him removed.  Perhaps these
> should be re-labeled as GNU specific specs?  I suppose the point is
> that having a forked standard is probably a bad idea?

RMS wants to provide a GNU-only system. This is completely valid from
a vendors point of view. DEC prefers to offer DEC-only solutions.

I think we should concentrate on what our "customers" might want. When
there is no GNU (or other free, like X11, BSD ...) solution, we should
tell them that there might be a non-free solution. If we a know a way
to solve a problem we needn't refrain from offering it only because it
doesn't match a strong religion.

It's not our business to watch the purity of GNU, so we shouldn't put
time into it.

> Instead of making a blanket statement out of this ("we can't work with
> you"), maybe we should factor this into the individual concepts?  I
> feel very comfortable saying "we won't be able to put this into 1.1".
> I feel quite a bit less comfortable saying "we don't want to tackle
> these issues."

Agree.

	Sven
-- 
Sven Rudolph <sr1@inf.tu-dresden.de> ; WWW : http://www.sax.de/~sr1/