Pine in Hoary

[Eric Dunbar]

> all the Stallman ways. If you want, Fedora could care less whether the
> software is free or not and is an incredibly good distro. Ubuntu folks
> however are on the other side of the moral fence and we intend to keep
> it that way.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:49:36 -0800, Chuck Vose <vosechu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alas, configurable == unusable (usually).
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? Even windows is configurable.
> Maybe put some justification behind blanket statements like that a
> people won't mock you openly.
> 
> -Chuck

Alas, it is this attitude that gives OSS a bad name. All OSS users, or
developers are not fundamentalists. I suspect only a tiny minority
actually care whether or not something is "free" according to your
definition (or that of a particular demigogue). Of course, since they
care, they are the ones you hear from.

At one point you argue that Ubuntu is on one side of a "moral fence".
I thought that Ubuntu was intended to be accessible to all. If that
means incorporating a stunningly useful e-mailer, for example that is
PERFECTLY LEGAL, then by all means they should do so. But, I suppose
you'd rather have a system that can be used by only the experts than
one which can be used by all (that way the experts can gouge the "rest
of us" for help, eh?).

Anyway, chill  before you blow a gasket.