People don't care about 21000 packages they care about say 5. An environment which has 5 has excellent software availability for that user. One that has 3 it has for that user poor availability.
Debian has far more packages but pure numbers are hard to compare when packages are broken up in different fashions and missing 1 package that 30% of users desire is more problematic than missing 1000 package that collectively 3% of users desire. More so if that 1 package is required for the users computer to work properly or indeed at all.
For a substantial number of users Guix has insufficient software availability and one notes that for example that for example Fedora which is very free software focused doesn't forbid you from discussing nonfree software in its channel. Elsewhere you tout that RMS wasn't allowed to remove clang from the package collection as if it were proof of value. Other distributions don't have benevolent dictators trying to remove useful free software for ideological reasons.
We are all habituated to what we perceive as normal. Neither situation is actually normal and indeed is sufficient reason by itself to ignore a superior product like GUIX and does a disservice to the cause of free software by decreasing the number of people willing to put up with it. I'd go so far as to say that without more liberal attitude from other player the entire free software movement would already be dead. A free software only default is perfectly fine as is acknowledging practical consideration to drive interest in free software in order to provide a larger base of people from which to draw potential contributors in order to continue to strengthen the base.
If GUIX is Debian than someone ought to just make a Ubuntu that largely ignores ideology and focuses on the practical.
> Elsewhere you tout that RMS wasn't allowed to remove clang from the package collection as if it were proof of value. Other distributions don't have benevolent dictators trying to remove useful free software for ideological reasons.
My point was that neither does Guix. But you do you.
Debian has far more packages but pure numbers are hard to compare when packages are broken up in different fashions and missing 1 package that 30% of users desire is more problematic than missing 1000 package that collectively 3% of users desire. More so if that 1 package is required for the users computer to work properly or indeed at all.
For a substantial number of users Guix has insufficient software availability and one notes that for example that for example Fedora which is very free software focused doesn't forbid you from discussing nonfree software in its channel. Elsewhere you tout that RMS wasn't allowed to remove clang from the package collection as if it were proof of value. Other distributions don't have benevolent dictators trying to remove useful free software for ideological reasons.
We are all habituated to what we perceive as normal. Neither situation is actually normal and indeed is sufficient reason by itself to ignore a superior product like GUIX and does a disservice to the cause of free software by decreasing the number of people willing to put up with it. I'd go so far as to say that without more liberal attitude from other player the entire free software movement would already be dead. A free software only default is perfectly fine as is acknowledging practical consideration to drive interest in free software in order to provide a larger base of people from which to draw potential contributors in order to continue to strengthen the base.
If GUIX is Debian than someone ought to just make a Ubuntu that largely ignores ideology and focuses on the practical.