1 |
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:58:22PM +0200, Angelo Arrifano wrote: |
2 |
> Why? You are running a free and opensource operating system, what's |
3 |
> wrong suggesting *other* free and opensource alternatives? You are just |
4 |
> providing the user a choice, not to actually oblige him to install anything. |
5 |
|
6 |
Some of us have 'no solicitation' signs on our doors for a reason. If |
7 |
you're not familiar w/ the concept, it's essentially a legal warning |
8 |
to keep various idealogical people from coming up to our doors and |
9 |
trying to tell us how their particular religion will save our souls. |
10 |
|
11 |
You've got some invalid assumptions here. While gentoo infra is ran |
12 |
on strictly OSS, the tree has always been pragmatic- because it's the |
13 |
consumers *choice* if they want to run an idealogically pure system. |
14 |
What you're proposing is converting the tree away from it's neutral |
15 |
stance that "the consumer is an adult and can make their own |
16 |
decisions" to "the consumer should be told they should use a better |
17 |
<insert idealogy> pkg regardless of if it's equivalent in features". |
18 |
|
19 |
This sort of thing is where I honestly wish there was a FSF |
20 |
no-solicitation sign I could purchase. |
21 |
|
22 |
We have license filtering already, meaning the pkg in question isn't |
23 |
even visible on a default portage install. This is equivalent to |
24 |
having a safety on the gun that is pkg merging. Your request is at |
25 |
best requesting a second safety be added, at worst trying to push |
26 |
idealogical decisions into what is purely a technical matter. |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
> >> Maybe I expressed myself a bit misinterpretative. I don't want to request an |
30 |
> >> elog message telling users about alternative packages. But in my opinion an |
31 |
> >> elog message pointing at the bald-faced parts of Adobe's license should be |
32 |
> >> added. These parts about allowing Adobe to install further content protection |
33 |
> >> software is just too dangerous in my opinion. |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > I will ignore the technical portion where basically any binary on your |
36 |
> > system; even binaries you compiled yourself have the ability to |
37 |
> > 'install things you do not like' when run as root (and sometimes when |
38 |
> > run as a normal user as well.) |
39 |
> |
40 |
> For all the years running Linux, I never found that case. |
41 |
|
42 |
That's reality. If in doubt, read some glsa/cve's, or go read into |
43 |
the recent brewha about unrealircd. |
44 |
|
45 |
Or go look into exactly what cpan, setuptools/dispatch, or gems do. |
46 |
|
47 |
Hell, look into the automated pkg updating in most integrated binary |
48 |
distro's. Can't count the number of times they've installed shit I |
49 |
didn't want (specifically not wanting it because it broke my system |
50 |
yet again). |
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
Simply put, you run whatever the hell you want on your system, |
54 |
literally, your choice. |
55 |
|
56 |
I will not deprive you of that choice, nor will I stick in little |
57 |
nagging messages to pkgs you use suggesting you use something I think |
58 |
is idealogically better (whether it be DRM related, proprietary |
59 |
license, or just plain binary blobs). |
60 |
|
61 |
Please show me the same respect I show you. Deal? |
62 |
|
63 |
It really is that simple from where I'm sitting. The user is an |
64 |
adult, they're free to make whatever decision they want (even if you |
65 |
vehemently think said decision is wrong). |
66 |
|
67 |
~harring |