>he claims to follow stallman's word >he doesn�

I'd just like to interject for a moment. You app- oh, nevermind, carry on. Thank you for respecting the photographers who respect your freedoms~

Also Parabola.

>>62469466
>You aren't using Arch, or god forbid Ubuntu, do you?

But Parabola (based on Arch) and Trisquel (based on Ubuntu) are approved by Stallman.

Stallman's list is pretty stupid. Even if a distro comes with nothing but free software it won't make the list if you are able to install non-free software. This shouldn't be the case. The world could focus on Debian and forget all the small project distros. Then everyone would have the same base and still the freedom to install or uninstall what they want. With these crazy rules there won't be a big adoption rate, forcing normal unaware people to use Windows because nobody knows about those small minority alternatives.

>>62470505
>if you are able to install
Wrong. It's only not on the list if the maintainers of the distribution *provide* nonfree software through official channels. Trisquel and Parabola both allow you to install Skype, for example, but the difference between them and Debian is that Debian *provides Skype from its own servers.*

>>62470557
Debian still doesn't come with Skype or any other non-free software, so it shouldn't matter. They won't ruin your free install unless you decide to install them. If you do decide to install Skype, why would there be a difference in installing from repos or installing manually other than practicality? There should be no ethical difference, it's just splitting hairs at that point.

>>62470640
Where do you think software comes from when you download it? Does your computer wave a magic wand and it's there? The software has to come from somewhere, and if it comes from Debian's servers, it means Debian is providing it. End of story. Debian could instead say "sorry, we don't provide nonfree software, you are welcome to add someone else's repository though~" and that would be fine in Stallman's book.
>what's the difference?
Debian itself isn't giving it to you. It's really that simple.

>>62470706
Nothing from this post counters anything said in the previous post. Maybe read it again.

>>62470505
>debian
Id rather not systemd

>>62470557
This is autism of the highest caliber. Who the literal fuck cares what server the software comes from?

Shit like this is why freetards will never be taken seriously.

>>62470743
You asked for a difference, I gave you the difference. That the ISO itself is all free software doesn't mean the OS is all free software.
The FSF has a set of guidelines for what they endorse. They endorse distributions so that people who want to try GNU/Linux the way it's meant to be done (i.e. freely) can do so, without having the chance that the OS maintainers will give them nonfree software.
>but if you don't have to for it to function that makes it okay
Imagine a distro with only the bare minimum utilities provided. It's entirely free, but everything "extra" (i.e. anything provided in its repository) is proprietary. Is it okay to endorse, since the OS on the ISO is free?
Obviously, no. How about if it provides a few free packages in its repo? How about half the repo is free? Where is the line drawn?
For the FSF, the line is drawn at "no nonfree software."
>>62470774
Someone with different standards than you isn't autism.

>>62470841
those standards being objectively dumb is indeed autism. a hallmark about autism is getting upset about shit that absolutely doesn't matter.

>>62470857
>absolutely doesn't matter.
I just explained how it did.
But if we're going to play that way, this conversation doesn't matter. Nothing will change in either the FSF's or Debian's policies. Why are you getting upset?
>b-but I'm not
Neither am I. I'm explaining the FSF's reasoning behind endorsing or not endorsing certain distributions.

>>62470889
As long as you realize that you're explaining something that doesn't matter, fine and dandy. People in the real world have more important shit to do than waste brain cycles on low-quality freetard software just because muh license.

Did you read the source of everything you're running right now? No you did not. Fuck right off.

>>62470927
Why are you getting upset?

File: VBZzcWM.gif (577KB, 244x148px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 244x148px

>>62470939
>writes stupid shit
>gets called on it
>WHY ARE YOU GETTING UPSET

Trolling never changes.

>>62470505
can't tell if you are a cia nigger trying to fuck with me or not

>>62470927
>Did you read the source of everything you're running right now?
Yet another victim of the "open source" """marketing campaign""" for free software.

>>62470841
It wasn't a real question, it was rhetorical. That there SHOULDN'T be an ethical difference, only practical. If Debian's default install gives you a full desktop OS with all free software it SHOULD absolutely be included in the free distro list. If you have to install any non-free software afterwards then it should have no difference where it comes from. In Debian you even have to enable non-free repos manually, they aren't automatically there. Unless of course you install it from the non-free ISO that's also available for people who want it. Even that option is so hidden that most people don't know it exists even when they wanted it.

I checked the FSF page and it says that distros that install non-free software by default and have the possibility to install only free software are not enough. Debian isn't one of those. Debian's defaults are free. Therefore it should be in the list.

I don't listen to a commie faggot who eats shit off his toenails.

>>62470968
So would you consider that hypothetical OS with 100% free software on the ISO and 100% nonfree software in its repo to be acceptable for GNU's list of endorsed distributions?

>>62471005
No, the default repo should be like in Debian. The default is 100% free and all the non-free software is optional and you have to enable them yourself. This should be objectively categorized in the free distros. Debian with Skype installed from non-free repos (that you had to manually enable) shouldn't be seen as any less free than FSF endorsed distro where you install Skype manually outside of any repos. The difference is purely practical and not ethical.

>>62471121
The FSF don't want to endorse distributions who provide nonfree software. This decision is entirely ethical, because the free software movement is entirely about ethics.
This whole chain was started in reply to the myth that the FSF only endorses distributions which block software from being installed if it's not free. That's the point I wanted to counter, so we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not the FSF is right to set their standards how they have.

>>62471294
Actually, it's about autism in computer software

>>62471321
dgjlljgfhkdjsgfjueccetweuejsddtehjejscjhfsfsscssjketctuecectuctjejectextuextuextiectitiecextuectikectutuectuecrcyiiectuecttiecectitiecctueuiextuiextextutuwxruustxutsxxustutxxtuguexcjsghdcgjdgjvvdjjsttussfkuisfsiististsixtxuodtecyrcyiircyiecteticiectectiecyiiectctieiectiectiectiectiectiecteycyieciecyfcfjfjscfjcfjhksccfjhkscwctecttjectjecttcjectecttcjvjegvjkgcjcthectctukectcturchjectcjyjetukjectctosfgadgjfuvgurjfgrvjguetgetugrutguetguetgurgurfutuefwryifwrufwrydqyedqexywurcuwtceitvrivyrivyrovyrvpripvrivrpvyiiprvyoryvietuvoetuocectuoetyicwrxyiwiryxwixrywyirxqxetuwrxyiwtyicetcuooevturoyviirvyortvuoetcuoiectuectuiecutoectuoetcuoetcuoecyoectuoectuooectuuoectcuoetectuocetuorvyuoryviorvyuotuoecotfueoturgrvydctuotyiscwyixrwdryiwzyirtuqzturiwxryiwxtuoecyiectorctuyirvovorbiryrbiyorboyinoryoybroetvucoetuxeuoexuoeuitetyixiextutuexiextuuoetxoextuorcyuorciyyiorcrcyicyircyexywwxryuoexoectuexyiwruxextuotoecuoextuoextuextuiwxtyiyiextoextuoextuoextuectuoyvuororybitbuoeviwryyiwrcwyircwxryiwzyrqtzrwzyiriwxtyietuxiecyrcyiorvyiprcyioectuotoexuctoeurivyporcyituoexoexutectuowfhxfyixwirywxextuocyioeecyiocyioeiprcyruyocwryixtuoextuoecoectuctuoeiextyyiexttuoexctuoeriyvpriybpitbptnipotntbuoritcecietuextuituoecyvorivouyvoriruovxyieyiextwyixrrocyrvyioyieciextyecyoorvuorcyutuoectuoextuoectuoctuorcoecutoextuwxyirwtuzrwzrtuyiwxriwzrywzryiqtzeuqzrtuywzrietuoxoryucprivybiptybtoorvuorvtutvuorectuoextuoorcuorvyvorucyoetyiexextityiextuiexoexyctuoeiryvrcuoircycyoectuoeectuotuecoecyoectuoctoeuuiextsxtuisxtyiwryixyiwrxtuiexiectuuiexttuiextuiecuoectiecoecyoecutectuouiexttiexytuiexectuoctuieextuiectietuixuoectyoecetyixwyixrwxtyictuoeoectuiextytyiexextyiextuoetuixiextyuiextuiextuiectorvyubroyibyirbotueboetuotubeiervyiervyiervyyiervvyiwryierccyieryiercerxyityiecoectucuoetcietuietcuotcueoetcuotcuetvuoevuoetoetvubyiebyiwrybiwrisybriybsryisrbvsturvwyucyuwrcyiwryiwrcyuwxrywrxwtxrwyurxrwxuyxyiwriwcryietcycyietyietcuwxrtwzrtuwyixruotcectusoctuoetdutyisksfuiwfuwtyietuofuoetuiee
tl;dr I'm right, you're wrong.

>>62471294
I would say that the current way FSF filters distros has only been harmful for the cause. They endorse distros which never get a large userbase. By rightfully accepting Debian as a free distro they would boost its userbase, as Debian could then point out that it has the FSF approval unlike Ubuntu or Mint. There's nothing in Debian that a logical person would say is harmful to freedom.

File: 4snapshot_08.29.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>62471321
this

>>62471446
RMS says it's harmful... Meanwhile, his website runs on a debian box. Thought provoking, no?