[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] some ideas (about opening files)

From: gnewsense
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] some ideas (about opening files)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:04:23 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 12:27:58PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> address@hidden wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:12:32AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > That does not always mean 
> > > that one is better than the other - they may just do things in different 
> > > ways and it may frustrate users who knew the legacy proprietary package 
> > > when they have to relearn.
> >  
> > Arguments about the pandering of non-free software use the reason 
> > "But what about the users ? Why won't anybody think of the users ?" far too 
> > often.
> People with weak arguments build straw men like "won't anyone please 
> think of the children^Wusers?" far too often.  Please don't do it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I was trying to say that "but not listing
proprietary applications might frustrate users" is not a valid reason for
listing them.

As far as I can tell Debian is stuck with non-free because of "Our priorities
are our users and free software".
For gNS this should be "Our priorities are Free Software and its users" to 
getting stuck in the same situation.

> > Learning can be frustrating at times, but if someone is not willing to make 
> > that effort
> > there may be other distributions better suited for that person.
> Is this clear enough?: it is not that relearning is frustrating, but 
> that unexpected relearning is frustrating.  A list of non-free-software 
> with free software "equivalents" will probably create a false 
> expectation that no learning will be needed if you knew the legacy 
> software listed.  I have tried it a few times in the past and now think 
> it should be avoided.  Please, learn from my mistakes.

I think I have misunderstood your other post. This is indeed a valid practical
reason not to list such software.

> Hope that explains,
It did, thank you.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]