Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?) - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?) - Linux ; Clinging to sanity, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) mumbled into her beard: > Falk Hueffner writes: > >> Spamme Now writes: >> >>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes: >>> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

  1. Re: Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

    Clinging to sanity, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) mumbled into her beard:
    > Falk Hueffner writes:
    >
    >> Spamme Now writes:
    >>
    >>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes:
    >>> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
    >>> Måns> for many GNU programs.
    >>>
    >>> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
    >>> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
    >>> debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
    >>> include the GNU programs

    >>
    >> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue next
    >> time before you open your mouth.

    >
    > But why is the GFDL so terrible that it can't be included in Debian?
    > There are no legal obstacles for inclusion, only political and
    > philosophical.


    The Debian folks concluded that GFDL-licensed manuals weren't "free
    enough" for inclusion in the distribution.

    I was involved a little bit with wording of GFDL, way back when, so I
    certainly have mixed feelings about this.

    On the one hand, the intent certainly was for the documentation to be
    "freely redistributable," and when the Debian folks consider it to not
    be that, something seems odd.

    On the other hand, the GNU FDL does impose some requirements (mostly
    regarding disclosure of changes) that I think the Debian folks
    _rationally_ decided didn't fit.

    Note that if the Debian Project was what they are oft-characterize as,
    namely a set of wild-eyed "Stallmanites" that want to gasp in every
    notion that RMS ever belches out, then they would presumably have
    blindly went along with the GNU FDL. The fact that they essentially
    rejected it establishes that they are organizationally and
    philosophically quite distinct from the "Cult of Stallman" (which does
    exist, much the same way that there is something of a "personality
    cult" following Linus Torvalds, whether anyone approves or not).
    --
    If this was helpful, rate me
    http://cbbrowne.com/info/emacs.html
    To quote from a friend's conference talk: "they told me that their
    network was physically secure, so I asked them `then what's with all
    these do-not-leave-valuables-in-your-desk signs?'".
    -- Henry Spencer

  2. Re: Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

    Christopher Browne writes:

    > Clinging to sanity, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) mumbled into her beard:
    >> Falk Hueffner writes:
    >>
    >>> Spamme Now writes:
    >>>
    >>>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes:
    >>>> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
    >>>> Måns> for many GNU programs.
    >>>>
    >>>> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
    >>>> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
    >>>> debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
    >>>> include the GNU programs
    >>>
    >>> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue next
    >>> time before you open your mouth.

    >>
    >> But why is the GFDL so terrible that it can't be included in Debian?
    >> There are no legal obstacles for inclusion, only political and
    >> philosophical.

    >
    > The Debian folks concluded that GFDL-licensed manuals weren't "free
    > enough" for inclusion in the distribution.


    That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. What's the point in
    requiring things to be more "free" than is required for legal
    distribution?

    > I was involved a little bit with wording of GFDL, way back when, so I
    > certainly have mixed feelings about this.
    >
    > On the one hand, the intent certainly was for the documentation to be
    > "freely redistributable," and when the Debian folks consider it to not
    > be that, something seems odd.
    >
    > On the other hand, the GNU FDL does impose some requirements (mostly
    > regarding disclosure of changes) that I think the Debian folks
    > _rationally_ decided didn't fit.
    >
    > Note that if the Debian Project was what they are oft-characterize as,
    > namely a set of wild-eyed "Stallmanites" that want to gasp in every
    > notion that RMS ever belches out, then they would presumably have
    > blindly went along with the GNU FDL.


    Yes, the disagreement over the GFDL quite surprised me.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
    mru@kth.se

  3. Re: Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

    In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) transmitted:
    > Christopher Browne writes:
    >
    >> Clinging to sanity, mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) mumbled into her beard:
    >>> Falk Hueffner writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Spamme Now writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes:
    >>>>> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
    >>>>> Måns> for many GNU programs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
    >>>>> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
    >>>>> debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
    >>>>> include the GNU programs
    >>>>
    >>>> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue next
    >>>> time before you open your mouth.
    >>>
    >>> But why is the GFDL so terrible that it can't be included in Debian?
    >>> There are no legal obstacles for inclusion, only political and
    >>> philosophical.

    >>
    >> The Debian folks concluded that GFDL-licensed manuals weren't "free
    >> enough" for inclusion in the distribution.

    >
    > That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. What's the point in
    > requiring things to be more "free" than is required for legal
    > distribution?


    The point is that it is not merely distribution that they are
    interested in; they also need to permit modification and
    _re_distribution, because Debian Linux (and Debian AnythingElse) isn't
    burned onto CDs by the Debian organization itself.

    GFDL wouldn't cause them much inconvenience directly; the concern is
    for downstream redistributors of Debian's distribution.

    I think they're being a _bit_ anal-retentive about it, but I don't
    have any grand problem with there being a distribution that _is_ very
    careful about this sort of thing.

    After all, if the whole world had actually been using Red Hat 9, the
    recent changes there would have led to _excruciatingly_ painful
    choices, to the point of people maybe having to drop Linux in favor of
    something else.

    >> Note that if the Debian Project was what they are oft-characterize as,
    >> namely a set of wild-eyed "Stallmanites" that want to gasp in every
    >> notion that RMS ever belches out, then they would presumably have
    >> blindly went along with the GNU FDL.

    >
    > Yes, the disagreement over the GFDL quite surprised me.


    Maybe there isn't all the blind "cultism" that some accusers
    suggest...
    --
    let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
    http://cbbrowne.com/info/finances.html
    A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
    Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

  4. Re: Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

    On 7 Feb 2004 16:57:31 GMT, Chris Share wrote:
    >Maybe so... but the x86 install CD comes with 2.2.20 and 2.4.18, and
    >there's nothing to stop you installing 2.4.24 or 2.6.2 when you have the
    >system up and running.


    The Alpha install CD only has 2.2.20.
    I'm currently about to start installing a small Debian system to a second
    hard disk, upgrade that to 2.4.x, then do the Gentoo install from there.

  5. Re: Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

    >>>>> "Falk" == Falk Hueffner writes:

    Falk> Spamme Now writes:
    >> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård writes:

    Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
    Måns> for many GNU programs.
    >> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
    >> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use
    >> the debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do
    >> they include the GNU programs


    Falk> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue
    Falk> next time before you open your mouth.

    I heard that argument before about the license is different. Still
    distribution is the same. However, this is one of those debian centric
    issues that will never be worked out because once debian goes down a
    path the rest is history. Overall debian is a good distribution, but
    to say the least debian developers are trying for free software
    perfection. What does that mean? I would suspect an excellent lawyer
    could make a good legal argument that debian violates their own
    free principles. These arguments are starting to become circular.

    I guess we need the world court to rule on the matter to determine the
    legality of free software distribution. I suspect that is coming one
    day.

    Foot in mouth again ;-))

    Later,

    Alan


  6. Re: Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

    >>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Browne writes:

    Christopher> I think they're being a _bit_ anal-retentive about it,
    Christopher> but I don't have any grand problem with there being a
    Christopher> distribution that _is_ very careful about this sort of
    Christopher> thing.

    Good point. Really this issue is a minor issue. If anyone wants the
    GNU manuals, the manuals are located at http://www.gnu.org. It's nice
    to have everything in one distribution, but no distribution will have
    everything for many different reasons. debian is not the only
    distribution that does not include something for one reason or
    another.

    Christopher> After all, if the whole world had actually been using
    Christopher> Red Hat 9, the recent changes there would have led to
    Christopher> _excruciatingly_ painful choices, to the point of people
    Christopher> maybe having to drop Linux in favor of something else.

    Very true. Looks like a dead topic with that comment.

    Christopher> Maybe there isn't all the blind "cultism" that some
    Christopher> accusers suggest...

    Probably not. True to the cause, but all revolutions either die or
    become the mainstream one day. Time will tell.

    Later,

    Alan


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2