Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Paul Mahon <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>]

On Fri, 2005-04-11 at 01:02 -0800, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500, Paul Mahon wrote:
> > I can't see why we would care about being on that list one way the
> > other. The truth is, is that there are packages out there for which
> > there are no decent (GNU)free alternatives exist, Java is an example.
> 
> You can't be serious.  Java coding is a choice one can make if they want 
> to write in a poorly-designed and monopoly-controlled language.
> 
> Just because we could build a java replacement doesn't mean we should.

I certainly can be serious. Of course it's a choice, so is using a
computer a choice. I agree that we shouldn't build a Java replacement. I
also agree the language has many problems, and believe that its
maintainers frequently do it further harm.

> > Just moving the grimoire to another host would still violate the
> > "spirit" of the list, we would still be maintaining it, and thus
> > advocate its use. 
> 
> Not if it's not officially supported by us and supported only be a 
> separate (possibly overlapping) group of developers that want to waste 
> their time helping The Man(SM).

Waste their time?? This is a very odd statement to make... I don't see
how supporting what users want could possibly be a waste of time. 

Side note, The Man was a pretty funny movie. Jackson and Levi, such
total opposites.

> > It looks like a bunch of changes which will make things more difficult
> > for new users, and we don't get anything for it except our name on some
> > wall no one much looks at.
> 
> We get the ethical and philosophical benefits that aren't being counted 
> because perhaps it's not very tangible.

Ethical? Our stuff IS open and free, and its primary stack is all open
and free, from Linux, to bash, and all the other command line utils it
uses. I have to disagree that by not restricting what we support to a
narrow definition we are somehow less ethical than we would be if we
were restrictive.

> Do we really want marketshare over a truly free and good product?  
> Personally I don't think the cathedral and the bazaar is perfectly 
> adequate at describing the process of free software developement.

I want a practical product. SMGL is good, and it is free now. You are
suggesting that just because it supports people who try to install
non-(GNU)free stuff that it is not "truly free"? Hogwash. If I thought
that I'd have to advocate that SMGL only support computers with open
source BIOS.

> It's, in fact, unfortunate that people like to follow ESR's lead.  Look 
> at what he's written, I think his experiment was a bust.
> 
> Seth
> 
> > 
> > I'm just not seeing the gain for us.
> > 
<snip>