On 06/12/2014 14:24, hellekin wrote:
> *** Well, the "wrong" with non-free, is that it's antisocial.

Just to be clear: you're proposing to either publicly shame vendors
_and_ users[1][2] or drop the non-free section altogether.

Ok, then, let's talk about a real world problem: my workstation has a
CPU with a known perfcount erratum which can be trivially fixed with
iucode-tools and an up-to-date intel-microcode package. The former
belongs to contrib, the latter to non-free because it doesn't meet DFSG
criteria (it's essentially a blob).

How do you plan to handle a case like this? Tell the user to go buy a
new CPU because shipping microcode updates is "antisocial"?

If I were given a response like that, my reaction would be simple: wipe
Devuan from my machine and never look back.

So no, I *vehemently* disagree with the idea of dropping non-free or
renaming it to "antisocial".

[1]: imagine you'd have to say that you're using packages from the
"antisocial" section of the archive...

[2]: also, the word "antisocial" is strongly loaded with nefarious
connotations. Its widespread use dates back to dark periods in history
when people which wouldn't fall in line with the ideas of those in
charge would be branded as "antisocial individuals" and punished bitterly

Regards,
--
Matteo Panella