firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...

[Yavor Doganov]

Sam Liddicott wrote:
> 
> And what you say isn't strictly true either; he could have
> boot-strapped from scratch, but judged it wiser not to, which is
> also my point.

How?  (Maybe I'm missing something.)  It would be probably possible,
but not feasible at that time.

> Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed
> up the development of free software.

No, because it was the only way to go forward, and he has thought a
lot about it.  It was not an easy decision.  Fortunately, nobody has
to face such dillema today.

> But others aren't allowed to so-judge if it speeds up their adoption
> of free software.

Please explain how excactly using the proprietary Flash plugin (or a
browser such as Firefox suggesting to install it) helps the free
software cause.  Does it help to develop a free replacement?  No.
Does it help to establish alternative solutions (such as SVG, etc.)?
No.

And how is this in any way analogical to the other case: development
of a free compiler using a non-free one, at least until the free
compiler can build itself?

> Picking analogies which support your position is useful to help explain 
> but doesn't convince;

You started the analogy, by saying it's a "reincartnation" of the "old
question".  I claim that there is no "old question", and no
"reincarnation" at all.  These two cases have nothing in common.
Absolutely nothing.

> Absolutely, but thats just another way of saying that because you don't 
> appreciate someone else's requirements 

No, I perfectly understand the requirements of those who need a flash
player, and that they are a vast majority compared to those who need a
compiler.  In fact, 99% of the sites I have to visit at work require a
flash player.  But it doesn't mean that one has to surrender; it's all
about how much one values her freedom.  One can refuse to visit such
sites, even as an employee.

> > TTBOMK, this did not happen since the 80's when all the important
> > parts of the toolchain already had free replacements.  
> >   
> You say this without being all of the people that you say this
> against.

Sure.  I'd wish I was at least one of these people, but I'm certainly
not.  I base this on RMS and other people from the early era, and some
digging in the changelogs of GNU packages.  Even if RMS makes such a
claim, which he does frequently in his speeches, he can't speak on
behalf of all GNU developers and contributors.

> SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't recognize
> it as a prison.

I agree, this is more correct.

> If someone is moving to free software but keeps non-free flash for a
> little longer, they are decreasing their dependance on non-free
> software and formats even if they are prolonging their dependance on
> ONE piece of non-free software.

Maybe, and nobody prevents you to use non-free plugins with an
entirely free browser such as IceCat.  The purpose of IceCat is not to
drive users in using such plugins.  That is why the GNU project cannot
recommend Firefox (also it's source contains some non-free bits, which
are cleaned in the IceCat package, and in Debian's Iceweasel).