Non-free packages

xerxes2 · 2004-10-20 15:31:48

phrakture wrote:

ok this is retarted - someone close this thread.... I've tried to change the mood twice to something less harsh.... no flaming or anything, then someone responds to a post from 2 pages ago, flaming them saying "i doubt Arch would be worse without you".

stop spreading fud

phrakture wrote:

You sir are the one that this statement applies to. skoal has posted many a helpful tidbit in other forums, yet I have never seen your name until this thread. You supply nothing to the community except your debian-oriented "free as in freedom" banter.

what is this for accusations?

phrakture wrote:

In my eyes you have lost value. You provide nothing to arch users, except your heavy-handed opinions about what is "right" (by chance are you a communist?) and insult many who actually do provide to others. If you're really such a software philanthropist, then help out others with what you know in addition to force-feeding others with you opinions you read in a Stallman quote. Until I see you provide back to the users, you will not warrant an opinion or reply from me. You are a child. It is people like you who make me wish I had never come to linux (well, you and the linuxquestions forums).

if you want to go back to where you came from, please do so and stop polluting this forum with more nonsens

phrakture wrote:

I am done with this thread. I have tried to lighten the mood (see my response to Dusty) and I have tried to help remedy the mplayer problem. Yet I still see one person stuck in his own little world, making sure everyone knows what "free as in freedom" means. I realise I am guilty of the opinions I expressed earlier, however, this time I am angry.

if you are angry, try to calm down alittle "before" you post next time,
if you aren't already leaving us....

phrakture wrote:

And to you, good Mr Haakon, I will give you your own words, for it would make me ill to use them myself:
Haakon wrote:
I somehow doubt Arch would be worse off without you.

I won't comment on this one!

phrakture · 2004-10-20 16:08:11

For the record, xerxes, my post - as most posts in a forum tend to do - was in response to the post above mine.

Dusty · 2004-10-20 16:18:47

phrakture wrote:

I'll try flaming before leaving work for the day, and see what happens tomorrow:
Dusty is stupid stupid stupid stupid and I think he's stupid

awww, shucks!

Now I have to decide whether to stop valuing your opinion, or to believe what you've said or to think that you're jesting.

Problem being that my ability to make such a decision depends greatly on the truth of such a statement.

Flame on, I'm sure Judd couldn't care less about the bandwidth wasted...

Dusty

rehcra · 2004-10-20 21:00:30

Haakon wrote:

I don't want ArchLinux to be a "pragmatic" distro -- I want it as free as possible, and I want to spread awareness. But more than that, I want freedom of choice as much as the rest of you do. As part of that freedom, however, I want to make it easy to choose free software when choice exists, and to choose not to use anything when only proprietary alternatives exist. This is a personal thing for me, and I don't want to push it on everybody, but I want there to be mechanisms in place that excludes proprietary software if I should want that. I have suggested how the License field can be used for this, or how division into repositories can be used for this. I think this reasoning is fair and doesn't get in anybody's way. I hope the derogatory zealotry elsewhere in this thread does not put this reasoning in a bad light -- I, nor anybody else who through years of consideration believe software freedom is right for them, want anything to do with those mindless zealots who in effect works against us all. Let's hope they grow up. :-)

I reread the whole topic and came with the following conlusions:

Responders who don't like to use closed software (Haakon (cited above), me, even Zeppelin) seem to be concerned with freedom. When you read all their posts, you will see that they don't intend to impose anything on anybody (they did make some personal insults; but this is irrelevant).
For example, every time I spoke about dependencies I meant that they should be reduced so that user has more freedom in chosing whatever software she wants.
On the other hand, the other kind of people (skoal, paranoos, dusty) seems to be trying to impose using closed source software on others. When I describe my point of view about how packages should be built, the only response from them I get from them is "use ABS".

This makes me think. Perhaps various types of freedom are somehow interconnected, and those who are against one kind of freedom are against the freedom as a whole.

To phrakture: you refered to the previous post only? You didn't address your words clearly; where they directed at me?

Haakon wrote:

skoal wrote:
How many of you ideological open source "weenies" have illegal downloads of Transgaming's WineX, instead of just using Wine? Where's your conviction now?
(...)
I'm sorry you hate software freedom, but I somehow doubt Arch would be worse off without you.

I really think Haakon's words are justified by what skoal said.

Btw. seems Mr Green is my friend. Could you, Mr Green, express your point of view on the subject of closed source dependencies?

skoal · 2004-10-20 21:12:33

Haakon wrote:

I'm sorry you hate software freedom, but I somehow doubt Arch would be worse off without you.

Hell, my comments aren't directed at anyone in particular here, although maybe indirectly. You need to understand the context of my post.

I grew up having liberal profs slam Stallman and the like down my throat in college. This was in the early 80's before Stallman was even a blip on the radar screen. I won't go into further detail here about Stallman and his "cause". I leave that open to you to discover on your own.

Needless to say, in my prior post I hope you understand my level of detestment for the FSF "commune" and their cause. They just don't have a clue about Industry, reality, and what motivates. That's my opinion, and I like to think it's based on life, not college theory. My concern has always been making Linux a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop. You need to read my posts and keep that in mind as you read my words, while they burst in flames. Furthermore, if you had to deal with the typical introverted ascocial Stallman types, like I have over the past 20 years in Industry, you would understand my frustration with them. They are some of the most condescending sons of bitches you will ever come across. I take it personally when they lash on other people, much less myself, and use such profanity in the process. It belittles a person and squashes whatever childish interest they have in Computers in general. You just don't treat people like that where I was born and raised.

I have old battle wounds with these "commune" fellers and their ideologies. Like I said, I'm here because I enjoy the Arch community, but mainly because the Arch distro keeps a fine balance between productivity and flexibility while working in Linux. If these forums deteoriate into a FSF ideological board, and package management becomes even more a chore (for reasons I think are trivial), then adios amigos. That's my freedom of choice, and more power to you and Arch. God Bless you and your decisions. I post here in this thread to weigh in my concerns, in conjunction with yours. Arch developers can read, and they'll be the final judge. I don't think Judd has any real intentions to make Arch the next Redhat. If memory serves, he developed Arch out of necessity from what he experienced in Industry. And, I can appreciate and respect that. I think Judd once said, "Simplicity and elegance were my goals". Taken in that context, I'm here for that exact same reason. Nothing more. Productivity...

p.s. Phrakture, I just don't think they get it...or, ever will...

phrakture · 2004-10-20 22:26:29

rehcra, my post was directed at Haakon - that is why I quoted him at the end

phrakture · 2004-10-20 22:53:03

Let me say this, I did as rehcra did and reread this thread. It was irritating.

All opinions expressed herein are mine, and mine alone:

On one side of the fence you have the authoritarian "freedom":

Every thing will be free and we will force it to be free.  If it is not free then it is worthless and we will smash it

And on the other you have my kind of freedom:

Who cares if it's free or not, I am the one choosing to use it, open sourced, closed sourced, black, or white

In america, we have this same type of thing going on right now... for those not from here, I will explain. Our election for president is between 2 billionaires who couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag, and even if they could, they wouldn't know what to do once they were out. Many, MANY, people are upset that we have no real choice in the matter - it's basically like choosing to run Windows 95 or 98 - not a whole lot of difference internally.
Now the problem arises here with this little tidbit. Presidential candidates from other parties (yes there are more thn Bush and Kerry) were banned from the presidential debates. So no one knows anything about any of these other small party candidates. Alot of those who feel upset at having to choose between 2 candidates who are, for all intents and purposes, the same person have decided not to vote at all. Now some from other countries may see this as shocking, but hear me out.
America was founded on freedom of choice (we came over here from europe because some were not allowed to follow the religion they wanted to) and peaceful dissent. Now those who have decided to not vote are being labeled as "unpatriotic". However, NOT voting is as much of a choice as voting. One thinks through his actions, decides on a course of action, and takes it. The only difference in the two is the end result of the choice. If I have the choice to do what I want with the election, then I have the choice to not vote. If people are forced to vote (check out some south american countries where they used to make people vote at gun point) it is no longer a choice.

By parallel, forcing someone to use only free software emilinates the aspect of choice. You are removing options. Saying "you can choose a,b or c.... but if you choose d you're breaking the law" removes the aspect of choice.

Free software is, and always will be, about choice. Remove choice, and you remove the only true ethical backing of the movement.

skoal · 2004-10-20 23:21:47

phrakture wrote:

[...] Our election for president is between 2 billionaires who couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag, and even if they could, they wouldn't know what to do once they were out.[...]

haha, well said. But, as I have in the past, I step into the booth, pull the curtain tightly over my back, and hold my nose as I punch out the slots for the candidates.

In the past, I've wrestled with my convictions over casting votes for a 3rd party candidate. Having served in the Army, It's my duty, first and foremost, to vote. Period. Our military brethren secured that right for us with their blood. Secondly, it's my obligation to vote by conviction. However, I would never call anyone "unpatriotic" for not voting. That's the beauty of the "freedom" we take for granted.

Personally, most of the 3rd party candidates this time around remind me of Richard Stallman and the FSF. So, I'll be holding my nose yet again.

By the way, Phrakture, I do take issue with the presidential debates banning 3rd party candidates from participating. Since the '88 election I believe, when the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the debates, the 2 major parties placed many obstacles for such participation. I was flipping the channels late one nite and ran across the 3rd party candidates debate on C-SPAN2. What percentage of America actually has access to cable, much less one which carries C-SPAN2? Politics is a bitch...

phrakture · 2004-10-20 23:31:18

I'd vote libretarian, but in all honesty I'm as qualified to vote for that dude as I am Mickey Mouse - I know crap about either.

fuse · 2004-10-21 04:58:32

Just my thoughts on all of this. I think the package maintainers are doing a great job, I don't see the need for flames and demands. I left the comment about ABS, the way I see it, if you dont like the way the maintainer does it, do it yourself! Arch is flexible this way, I remove dependencies all the time with ABS, like Ruby I don't need TCL/TK or X for my servers, but I dont hunt down the maintainer and say I would appreciate if you removed these because I don't use them.

sweiss · 2004-10-21 17:36:54

Seems to me like the people who are against closed source applications are more familiar with which applications use which license. If you don't wish to use closed source packages, then you can simply remove them and list them in the IgnorePkg line.

rehcra · 2004-10-27 22:00:51

Ok, seems I'll make my own versions of the packages and won't ever use "pacman -Syu". Perhaps I'll move to my own distro based on ALFS.

Mr Green · 2004-10-28 07:34:13

I thought you had left :? ...

rehcra · 2004-10-28 08:28:45

Mr Green wrote:

I thought you had left :? ...

I have already explained why I haven't left yet (but I intend to do this as soon as possible).
I didn't mean that "I will make my own packages" (literally). I only wanted to say that you guys (closed software proponents) force me to do that. This is another argument for me to leave...

Mr Green wrote:

:?

Does this mean you hate me and want me to leave as soon as possible?

Mr Green · 2004-10-28 08:36:55

hate is a very strong word, I do not hate anybody ...

I took it for granted that when you said your leaving that you were well off to another distro

If you stay or go it makes no difference to me ....

you do what you want

Dusty · 2004-10-28 15:26:42

hate is a good word for things like yucky food and emotions (like guilt, love)...

when it comes to users that are intentionally annoying (AKA trolls), indifference would be a somewhat better word...

Dusty

Mr Green · 2004-10-28 15:28:15

I did not think there was a red belt

Dusty · 2004-10-28 15:40:30

You never told me you were colour blind. :-P

Dusty

Mr Green · 2004-10-28 16:10:26

Man do you train naked then ....just wearing a brown belt

Dusty · 2004-10-28 16:14:34

I did wearing just a green belt when my gi and brown belt were lost on the bus...

Maybe you aren't colour blind, maybe its your monitor settings...

Go try Ensmer. :-P

Dusty

rehcra · 2004-10-28 18:20:06

Dusty wrote:

hate is a good word for things like yucky food and emotions (like guilt, love)...
when it comes to users that are intentionally annoying (AKA trolls), indifference would be a somewhat better word...
Dusty

Thank you Dusty for this remark. I will certainly improve my English if you continue to explain the meanings of words this way.
Am I right that indifference to something means lack of emotional reaction to it? Like apathy and lack of interest?

Do you think I am a troll? How can you know if I am intentionally annoying? Maybe my personal opinions are annoying to you?

phrakture · 2004-10-28 18:25:20

Dusty wrote:

hate is a good word for things like yucky food and emotions (like guilt, love)...
when it comes to users that are intentionally annoying (AKA trolls), indifference would be a somewhat better word...
Dusty

as in "Dusty hates french fries" and "Dusty loves to hate"?

Dusty · 2004-10-28 18:47:38

phrakture wrote:

as in "Dusty hates french fries" and "Dusty loves to hate"?

Um.... well, sort of, but more like "Dusty hates mushrooms" and "Dusty hates to love".

French fries are ok, I don't have anything against French fries. Even McDonald's French fries aren't all that bad... well, relatively speaking. I mean, in comparison to say, a McDonald's burger...

Dusty

Dusty · 2004-10-28 18:49:20

oh, and I don't love to hate, I'm just highly experienced at it.

Dusty

Mr Green · 2004-10-28 18:54:13

what are going on about :?

Do not eat the Burgers or the Fries eat the packaging it contains more nutritional value

Arch Linux

#76 2004-10-20 15:31:48

Re: Non-free packages

#77 2004-10-20 16:08:11

Re: Non-free packages

#78 2004-10-20 16:18:47

Re: Non-free packages

#79 2004-10-20 21:00:30

Re: Non-free packages

#80 2004-10-20 21:12:33

Re: Non-free packages

#81 2004-10-20 22:26:29

Re: Non-free packages

#82 2004-10-20 22:53:03

Re: Non-free packages

#83 2004-10-20 23:21:47

Re: Non-free packages

#84 2004-10-20 23:31:18

Re: Non-free packages

#85 2004-10-21 04:58:32

Re: Non-free packages

#86 2004-10-21 17:36:54

Re: Non-free packages

#87 2004-10-27 22:00:51

Re: Non-free packages

#88 2004-10-28 07:34:13

Re: Non-free packages

#89 2004-10-28 08:28:45

Re: Non-free packages

#90 2004-10-28 08:36:55

Re: Non-free packages

#91 2004-10-28 15:26:42

Re: Non-free packages

#92 2004-10-28 15:28:15

Re: Non-free packages

#93 2004-10-28 15:40:30

Re: Non-free packages

#94 2004-10-28 16:10:26

Re: Non-free packages

#95 2004-10-28 16:14:34

Re: Non-free packages

#96 2004-10-28 18:20:06

Re: Non-free packages

#97 2004-10-28 18:25:20

Re: Non-free packages

#98 2004-10-28 18:47:38

Re: Non-free packages

#99 2004-10-28 18:49:20

Re: Non-free packages

#100 2004-10-28 18:54:13

Re: Non-free packages

Board footer