[FSFLA] Hiperbola: A fully free, stable, secure, simple, lightweight and long-term distribution

[Quiliro]

Dear Eder:

Thank you for speaking up. Your points of view are very interesting. Please accept reading my counterpoints and provide your takes.

El Fri, 26 May 2017 10:37:33 -0400
"Eder L. Marques" <eder at edermarques.net> escribió:

> On 25/05/2017 8:30 PM, Quiliro wrote:
> > El Thu, 25 May 2017 13:55:17 -0400
> >> "Eder L. Marques" <eder at edermarques.net> escribió:
> >> Why do we need yet another gnu-linux[-libre] distribution?
> >
> > Because the developer decided it was necesary.
> 
> I would say he decided he wants to. Necessary can lead to the following 
> questions: "necessary for who?", "necessary for what?",

It does not matter. It is his criteria. If it is for their own benefit, I do not oppose it. I cheer it because it provides the possibility for a group of non-free software users to come in contact with free software (even taking into account that it takes away users from some other free software). It also provides the possibility for the developer to continue collaborating instead of changing sides or stepping aside.

> which will lead 
> to the same kind of answer you already gave, so nevermind.

What answer did I already give?


> >> Every time we create a new distro we make the lives of users harder.
> >
> > Why? I feel that sounds the same as saying that every time a person submits their opinion, it makes listeners get confused. Diversity makes a nice environment, even if it is a waste of time. But I cannot pay everyone (or want to hire anyone). So I cannot administer their time.
> 
> Not really. Having more options is not necessarily better, and your 
> analogy to me is far from a comparison with creating new distros and the 
> colateral damage it can bring.
> 
> I don't want either to control anyone's time, just to be clear, which is 
> not the same to point out that some actions can have unintended 
> consequences.

You have said forking is bad for projects. But you have not considered how bad not forking is (especially thinking of people's feelings).

> >> If Debian can have the linux-libre kernel from FSFLA (or even the use
> >> of the standard Debian kernel without the blobs), and if we can advise
> >> the users to use only the main repo as much as they can, what is the
> >> big issue?
> >>
> >> Because if the answer is that Debian does not respect the 4 freedoms
> >> that is very inaccurate.
> >> If is because Debian has (even though is not part of the project) a
> >> non-free repo, why we don't advise the users about alternatives?
> >
> > Because people that promote this way do not want to promote the opposite. Debian is not interested in taking sides. Debian collaborates a lot with free software. But we believe we should collaborate more with those that collaborate more by using the most free software. It is not a question of quality but of rights. We understand that others do not think this way. But others must understand the way we think is our right.
> 
> Due to my limitations it was hard to understand what you are trying to 
> say. Debian definitely has a side (even if you tell that is its own) 
> that is guided by its DFSG.
> 
> I never talked about rights. FSFLA, you or any one has the right to act 
> the way you are now. It is to segregate instead of collaborate, to split 
> instead of unite. And to introduce more distros as you wish.
>
> I don't speak for the Debian project, but I know that it respects your 
> rights, and doesn't want to force you to collaborate with them, etc.
> One cannot tell with confidence that the opposite is true.

That is semantic. Any position is morally acceptable from the proposer's point of view. We are not considering to support Debian's values but FSF's. The point to consider is: "this fork will benefit or not user's freedom".

Segregation is not about having a personal point of view but about excluding the validity of other's points of view for their own sake. From this definition's point of view, ¿what or who do you think is segregational?
 
> >> A good effort, that will take less hours than maintain a distro, is to
> >> create a map that for each package is maintained at debian non-free
> >> repo, what would be the alternatives?
> >> Then, if the alternatives are not in the main/contrib repo, one can
> >> package it.
> >
> > Most free distro maintainers agree with that. I don't. I cannot collaborate more with someone that collaborates less with me and my route. I do not hinder their efforts. But I will not support a cause a do not agree with.
> 
> We agree to disagree in this case.

You agree to disagree that "I will not support a cause that I do not agree about"? I do not understand what you have assumed I have agreed about or even what you disagree about. Please clarify.

> >> As there is a lot of messages/threads on the list about how to start
> >> acting, I believe that it would be a great step. :)
> >
> > Thank you for your opinion. I think that someone that has acted does not need guidance but cheers. Hyperbola hackers did not ask for our decision. They just offered their distro. When they ask for our opinion, I will say mine. In the meantime I will cheer them because they are working for free software.
> >
> > Don't you agree?
> 
> I don't fully agree. Hyperbola/Parabola or any other team has they free 
> will to work on anything they want. I am not offering a 'decision'.
> 
> I am point out that creating new distros has a colateral damage to be 
> considered. If they (or any) want to go on that direction, no one can 
> stop/intervene. However, just because they are producing free software 
> does not make it good per see.

But you have not said why it is bad. You have only said it is bad. You have not suggested alternatives either. I cannot convince Hyperbola hackers to return to Parabola or even think it is the best for them, for Parabola or the community of developers and users of libre software. I tryed to calm down the discussion in Parabola and to make a point about unity as the most important. But when people hurt each other, sometimes it is not possible to continue together. On the other hand, I think this fork will become a merger at some point in the future. At present it needs to be a fork for the sake of keeping the devs active.

> We can spend hours on this conversation, but my point is not about your 
> individual opinion (which I my not agree with but respect).
> 
> In this time where FSFLA is looking to be more active, it will be a 
> great start point to stop to segregate people and, at the same time it 
> fights for and sustain its principles, to look for different ways to 
> accomplish this.

FSFLA cannot force people to think or act certain ways. All we can do is motivate them. I do not see how this is segregationist. Perhaps it is firm conviction. I think that we have the firm conviction to open doors to all people as long as they offer users the 4 freedoms and when they do so. Do you suggest we are open to collaborating with values which we do not support? I can agree to support the parts that we value but not those that we don't. What we need is not suggestions about what not to do but about what should be done, the way to do it and how you can help us. Would you be interested in doing that? We would be very thankful. :-)

-- 
Example of the problems in top posting:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

A: No.
Q: Should I leave quotations after my reply?

Saluton,
Quiliro
0987631031