Re: [Nolug] Distro suggestions

On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 17:03, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> -ray <ray@ops.selu.edu> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 mah@everybody.org wrote:
> >
> >> Because, I'm not using Linux because I hate Microsoft. I'm using
> >> Linux because (after the personalities of Free Software) I love the
> >> freedom and openness of UNIX. I've become so steeped in the
> >> politics of Free Software that I try to rid my machine of /all/
> >> proprietary, closed software. So, right there, out goes RedHat and
> >> Suse.
> >
> > What is proprietary and closed about Redhat and Suse?
>
> Redhat: the corporation is closed. Further, as a publicly owned
> entity, they are primarily beholden to their owners who, surprise,
> want to see the company make money. If this means that they have to
> cut something, or sell closed-source software, they will. One only
> needs to look at what happened to VA to see the possible outcomes
> here.
>
> Further, you are at their mercy. RHAT can decide to stop supporting
> and developing any software at any time. Yes, the GPL protects you
> here, but I prefer an organisation that is dedicated entirely to the
> freedoms of free software.

Debian doesn't release security packages for Potato anymore...

> Suse: I'm less familiar with them, but most of my reasons for
> preferring Debian would be similar to those voiced above. (I recall
> that they also developed closed video drivers.)
>
> > If they bundled proprietary packages like netscape or staroffice, then
> > yea. But doesn't Debian also bundle Netscape?
>
> No. Debian doesn't bundle Netscape. They do bundle Mozilla.

They just stopped for Woody.

> > I don't see how Debian is more "open". It's unfair to call Suse and
> > Redhat "proprietary, closed software" simply because they turn a
> > profit on their products.
>
> Let me be clear: I don't consider the entire Redhat or Suse
> distributions to be "proprietary, closed software". Obviously, most
> of the software contained in those distributions is covered by the
> GPL or BSD-like licenses.
>
> However, as you pointed out, they do have non-free components. As an
> organisation, they don't have the deep commitment to Free Software
> that Debian does. They're willing to "sell out", have done so in the
> past, and will do so in the future.

As does Debian: non-free

In case you think I'm a RHAT-using Debian basher:
  $ cat /etc/debian_version
  testing/unstable

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
Note to LSU and Valdosta State students: India is not an Arab
country!
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2003/october/1009_college_dems_jind
al.shtml
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org