On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:31:18AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Your analogy is upside-down. > > The "interpreter" is the processor, and the microcode is definitely > non-Free Software. So x86 code is like java without the free interpreter ? > The key difference here is that the code for the system library was > put in the user's computer by the user, straight from the OS vendor > that the user chose, not from the distributor of the Free program System library, OS vendor, ... that would be us so that is not a different. > So, again, it appears to me that the analogy is faulty. > > > - and I'm definitely in favour of it being a separate package to the > > kernel so people know which is which. > > Good, do you know people who do care about this non-Free firmware to > work, who have skills needed and who can test it to make some effort > to this end? I've been slowly working this way for a long time for quality, and other reasons like paging. All the raving anti binary nutters have succeeded in doing so far is making everyone hate them and setting the work back at least two years. But it goes on - very slowly, as nowdays I have to do them one at a time after long discussion with authors of the code having waiting until they forgot the last stupid flamewar that put them against it. Alan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
