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

[Quiliro]

El Sat, 27 May 2017 10:44:36 -0400
"Eder L. Marques" <eder at edermarques.net> escribió:

> 
> 
> On 26/05/2017 8:01 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> > Debian is a project to provide a system distribution, and
> > unfortunatelly, the current system distribution provided by it can't be
> > considered as free/libre, specially becaouse of the problems you raised.
> 
> On your eyes, or in the eyes of FSF. By the end of the day, the project 
> does not care to be considered by FSF libre or not, but I saw over the 
> years a lot of people (from both sides) trying to collaborate but being 
> stopped by this kind of miope view.
> 
> > For an alternative, there is gNewSense, which is listed at
> > [[http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html]].
> 
> Why you guys keeping proposing distros very outdated/not well maintained 
> as an alternative?
> 
> Look at this page:
> http://www.gnewsense.org/Documentation/3/DifferencesWithDebian
> 
> It is 3 years old!
> On Savannah, last ticket is from June 2016.
> I can keep going for a day, but I think your got the point.
> 
> Offer something at the same level. Your alternative is insecure and 
> outdated.
> 
> 
> > It's not recommended to "recommend" Debian to society, even if non-free
> > repositories and packages are removed, because o the branding associated
> > with Debian, for which the user can remember and, instead of asking you
> > for help, could potentially ask Debian project for help which would say
> > that "the installation was modified somehow, do this [non-free software
> > installation] to fix it". Besides, the user will remember the Debian
> > brand, but won't probably remember what you recommended to do in order
> > to have a free/libre copy, in casese where, for example, he tries to
> > install it again (or gets it installed again by a person other than
> > you).
> 
> Seriously? You are mixing things.
> 
>  From the 'branding' perspective, doing so you are, IMHO, undermining 
> FSFLA's owns branding. Do a research and ask different people what they 
> think about FSFLA (or other FSFs) and you can have an overview (I did, 
> and the result was pretty bad for me, as I do care with FSFLA otherwise 
> I wont be here).
> 
>  From the scenario you proposed about help, it is very different from 
> reality. And further, what makes different from someone installing the 
> fsf-approved distros and later install non-free because someone said 
> that will fix their problems?
> 
> 
> > Also, the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines can be interpreted as
> > to have the following goal: to make sure that a non-tech end-user
> > receives the essential freedoms. So the cumbersomeness of having to do
> > "this and that" in order to have a free/libre copy of [Insert non-free
> > system distribution here] isn't that non-tech end-user friendly.
> 
> Fantastic. And in your mind the outdated/insecure distros are more user 
> friendly than the [Insert non-free system distribution here]?
> 
> Just curious.

Values are more important than functionality for FSF/FSFLA. Functionality withouth freedom is not worthwhile. Winning is not winning when it is for the former without the latter.

If you care about FSFLA, then you care about its values, not about FSFLA becoming more important by it going against its values. User freedom (understood as the 4 freedoms) is core in FSFLA, regardless of what some people think about FSFLA.

-- 
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