pdf toolchain notes & suggestions

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 14:03, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 18:47, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> 
> > > > So ... should we abandon all this stuff and use Framemaker + SGML?
> > > More extremism Karsten?
> > 
> > Your use of the word "extremism" is ungracious. I would recommend you
> > take a look again at the Fedora Project overall goals:
> I use extreme in its simplest form Paul. Out at one end. I never 
> mentioned Frame or SGML in this thread.

Dave, I understand that you did not bring up Framemaker or SGML, but you
sound like you're being deliberately obtuse here. Karsten's reply is not
about either of those things in specific.

You originally said that using Sun's Java would be fine. According to
the Fedora Project goals, which you seem to agree with below, that's
*not* fine. What Karsten is trying to tell you above is that if we
follow the logic of using whatever works, even if it's not free, because
that approach is expedient in this particular case, that's what's
referred to as a "slippery slope" argument in logic/philosophy. If it's
OK to do it then, why not use a doc-building tool that's even "less
free"? Why use free tools at all for docs? Why use them for building the
O/S itself?

Do you see what I'm getting at? I think this was the point Karsten was
making. He killed the horse with a single, subtle shot, whereas I am now
beating its dead, flyblown corpse. :-P  (yuck, sorry)

> > "The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to
> > build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free
> > software."
> > 
> > The Docs Project, which is part of the overall Fedora Project, builds
> > documentation which is to eventually be included in the operating
> > system, as a fedora-docs RPM I would imagine. Any .src.rpm in the Fedora
> > tree should be buildable on Fedora itself, with free software. Karsten's
> > point -- which is the same as my earlier point in essenc, I think,
> > although Karsten may correct me if I'm wrong -- is that when we add
> > non-free tools to the toolchain we break the project. Period.
> 
> OK, that's enough for me.

Well OK, by this statement, are you saying, "I agree with the goals of
the Fedora Project"? Because if that's what you're saying, we can
proceed with argument (the word "argument" here in its good sense, not
"mindless bickering," which I'm sure you don't want any more than I do).
If not, there's really no way to discuss this subject.

> > I don't know much about some of the tools whose names have been bandied
> > about, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is their status as free
> > software (or otherwise). If it's not free we shouldn't be using it. To
> > do otherwise runs directly counter to the ambitions of the Project.
> Set by RH? A commercial supplier.

Dave, am I mistaking a tone of "beware the Red (Hat) Menace" in some of
your posts? The Project goals are pretty clear, and have been since the
Fedora Project was started by Warren Togami:

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/01/1417208&mode=thread&tid=51

It's about partnership, not dictatorship. No one has to partner up with
Fedora who isn't interested in its goals. Commercial interests are not
mutually exclusive with the interests of the free software community.
Even RMS agrees with that.

> >  It's
> > not about being a zealot; it's about simply accepting the goals of the
> > &FP; and the &FDP;. They are what they are, and our project either
> > follows them or gets jettisoned.
> There are other options.

Sure; for one thing, people are free to fork if desired. But they lose
some of the infrastructure that Red Hat will be providing for the &FP;
in that case. And it may be slow in coming, but it is coming.

> > Your skills, my skills, and/or Karsten's skills are not particularly
> > relevant to the discussion either. You're missing the forest for the
> > trees here. What Karsten is saying, I think, is that any reliance on
> > non-free software puts us at the mercy of that tool.
> I'd use the word extreme again.
>   I really don't believe the statement above.

How so? You make a sweeping pronouncement that you don't believe it, but
you don't support your position with logic. I'm willing to admit I'm
completely off-base but only if you can prove it to me.

> > I'm in agreement with Karsten, for the
> > reasons stated in my topmost comments.
> 
> OK.

> > > OK lets blame someone else.
> > >   My usual question now follows. Who?
> > > 
> > > Can you point to a document/person/project manager who has this
> > > documented somewhere?
> > 
> > There's no reason to "blame" anyone. The goals of the Fedora Project are
> > axiomatic -- or more correctly, maxims, meaning they are principles that
> > we accept when we participate. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is
> > free to move ahead with their own project. These goals, and their
> > antecedents (see above), are not really something subject to discussion
> > and mitigation.
> 
> So much for community development?

> Bye.

Any project, whether it's about free software in one's spare time, or at
one's full-time workplace, has to have goals. The goals must be agreed
upon by participants. In some cases, "agreed upon" == "agreed to",
especially when the goals are established prior to gaining participants.
Again, they're maxims, so if you buy the goals, you now have at least
very basic rules for completing any task under the project.

When I participate in a project in the free software world, I buy into
the goals for the project. There's no barrier to entry; I just decide,
"that sounds good to me," and jump in. If I change my mind, no one bars
my exit either. I can even take the product with me and change it
however I like, but I then have to either (1) get other people to help
me, or (2) do it all myself.

If I buy into the goals, though, everything else follows. 100% free
means just what it says. Our docs are supposed to be buildable under
Fedora, as it is, 100% free, not with third-party proprietary add-ons. I
hope this is easier to understand than what I first wrote, if that was
confusing.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE