non-free vs. free packages

Jon South striker at
Wed Oct 19 22:08:08 UTC 2005

Couannette wrote:
> Thus we should free the users from any new and error-prone method of handling
> those non-free modules. We just have to inform them on a per module basic off
> licensing restrictions (i.e. with a DETAILS's field, that's the simplest way I
> think).

Hold up just a minute there..."error prone?" You do know that use of
things like fdisk, partitioning, formatting, kernel config, drivers, etc
are required knowledge before even installing lunar...

If downloading a package with a non-free moonbase would be considered
"error-prone" by people who must be at least a *bit* tech savvy then
perhaps we should gui-fy the entire distro and put in all kinds of eye
candy and disallow any kind of advanced setups. How about we rename the
project to Lunar-Hatlindrake too. I don't mean to turn potential new
users away from lunar, but lunar is not entirely meant for consumption
by the general public. It's more of a server distro for server admins
that are already know their way around linux. Lunar is the more lean &
mean man's distro -- we're so far from the "I'm new to loonix, help me
plz." crowd, it's not even funny. We're working bit by bit towards
helping along the linux newbies, but we're still _very_ far off.

Also, downloading a non-free moonbase addon could be completely
automated, and could be added or removed at the user's leisure. I'm of
the opinion that we /should/ have seperate moonbases for FOSS and
non-free. This solves the debate we're having of mirroring files that
are not allowed to be cached elsewhere -- we just wont have files from
the non-free moonbase cached on our mirrors. Plus, I don't want opera to
touch my server...wretched thing.

My $0.02,


The system requirements said "Windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux.

Microsoft sells you Windows; Linux gives you the house.


Registered Linux User: 332618

More information about the Lunar mailing list