Le 28/03/2015 05:53, John Morris a écrit :
> On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:37 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> When I wrote anti-freedom, I considered a stricter definition of
>> freedom than GPL, beyond free access to the source and gratuitous
>> redistribution, including e.g. the absence of technical lock-in. I won't
>> argue about words though; it wouldn't be constructive. One way to
>> prevent the corruption mechanism you describe is to spell out what you
>> say we didn't: that "we are building a POSIX/UNIX/GNU sort of thing".
> Trying to take the high moral ground and claim to be shooting for a
> stricter freedom is what leads to RMS and Debian unable to agree on
> which is the more 'Free.' Debian rejecting the FSF's GNU FDL and RMS
> rejecting the easy availability of the non-free repos, blobs, etc. and
> all of the eyerolling that entails amongst us normal folk outside the
> priesthood.
As I said, I won't fight for words. I don't know what moral has to
do here though. I know GNU does not consider Debian free... who cares?
>
> I was trying for a more practical line of division. To say, whatever
> guys, so systemd is Free Software; but that doesn't mean we have to like
> it. Which is likely to be important sooner than many think. Many of us
> were blindsided by systemd but I have started taking Pottering & the
> other Mad Hatters very serious now.
>
> Their failure to stabilize btrfs is the only reason they haven't moved
> on to the next phase of systemd/linux, gutting the distros and turning
> every user space program into an app in a container. Once that is done
> the apps don't really care what stub distro is hosting them and they can
> be delivered from a central Store instead of being built, packaged,
> maintained and curated by distros. Do we want to follow? It probably
> isn't wise to assume they will never make btrfs work, at best we lucked
> out and have gained a year or so of time before it starts showing up in
> Fedora. Now is the time to ask that question instead of when Debian is
> forced to follow RedHat again. Because Gimp the App is still going to
> be just as 'Free' as Gimp the package. Or at least it will be until you
> must get it from the Store with ads, nags, in-app purchase of closed
> source 'premium' filters, etc. But by that final phase it will be far
> too late to turn back.
>
> We haven't needed to run every user program in a hardened jail and a
> good argument can be made that the primary reason to do so is because
> you want to let in a lot of untrustworthy software that should be run in
> a secure container. See Android/Linux for what sort of dystopia the
> worst case scenario looks like.
BTW, I, like many others, find convenient to use e.g. Skype, and I
would prefer to run it inside a container.
> Over there, Linux installers are
> Shareware. All of them. I'm not a priest of St. Ignucius but the idea
> of the return of Shareware gives me the willies and is a future I do.
> not. want.
>
I don't understand your point. Are sharewares the present as you
first say or are they a future you don't want to see? I don't see also
why you call shareware the Debian installer.
At the end, John, I don't find what you are proposing, nor even if
you do propose anything to avoid what happened with systemd and might
well happen again.
Didier
::
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will…
