Simple guide to make happy a GNU user
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
On 07/12/13 12:31, gnuser wrote:
> You are relying on the work of a non free project, but you don't look
> at that in the same light you do with Debian. I am not against
> linux-libre, I am a supporter of such a project, but I am aware that
> if Linux stopped being developed, Linux-libre would be doomed.
Trisquel is also in the same situation, being dependant on a non-free
distro: Ubuntu. It's not ideal, but the developers of Trisquel have
worked hard enough that we can create a free version of it. Having an
upstream project that respects freedom is of course better, but
sometimes not possible.
Yeah, if Linux development stopped, at least it's free software. Maybe a
bunch of GNU hackers would fork it then. But unless that ever happens
forking would be counter-productive.
> How can you use Linux-libre as an excuse to overlook all the work
> Debian has put into Hurd and the kfreebsd kernels??
I don't think we are overlooking the fantastic work Debian developers
does for the free software community. Some people (including myself) are
criticising the Debian project for distributing, and in some cases,
displaying proprietary software to the user.
> So you believe one can be free without freedom of choice? Lol, that
> would basically make you a slave of other people decisions regarding
> free software.
If the software is free then any community of developers can make their
own decisions.
Andrew.
You learned your text properly from rms.
But maybe, sometimes questing things in a rational way is good.
You can't messure freedom in dimensions of "how many options do I have" - that's right.
But - here comes the point - if *someone* (not the laws of physics, not my financial limitations) takes away choices from me which I originally had, then he is controlling me.
Recall what rms said in an interview about freedom:
"I'm not free if someone makes me do this, and not do that".
Taking away choices in the sense we were talking about clearly makes me do this and makes me not do that.
We are talking about having a choice of kernels and/or CPU architectures to run our distribution. The Trisquel project never put some work into "taking away" those choices. It just never worked on them. Debian worked on them. That does not make Debian more free though. It just gives its users more choices.
The "someone makes me do this, and not do that" is indeed unjust because someone is not the user ("me" in the sentence). It is a third entity that controls the user. For instance, some authority sending her files in formats that only proprietary software can read; some "content industry" that purposefully prevents her from copying files (through DRMs); etc. I do not think it applies to what we are talking about.
Again, in the above paragraph, the part that relates to freedom is not the reduction of the number of choices. It is the unjust control a third entity has over the user.
"We are talking about having a choice of kernels and/or CPU architectures to run our distribution."
Why are you only talking about those kind of choices?
I don't.
Let's turn things the other way round:
How should an additional choice take away freedom?
Obviously not at all.
Indeed. Because the control of the work and the number of alternatives to achieve it are unrelated. Having more (or less) choices does not give more freedom. Those are orthogonal dimensions. And the best is obviously to maximize both (although the success of Apple would suggest some users actually prefer to minimize both!).
Quoting Richard Stallman
"In 1981, using a computer in freedom was impossible, all operating systems were proprietary".
In this sentence RMS says 2 things:
1. Many options don't necessarily mean more freedom, if none of them is free;
2. The lack of options equals a lack of freedom, if no free option exists you have no freedom.
Of course having many kernels is not giving freedom, but the fact that Debian has been bringing free software to many different architectures and using different kernels IS providing freedom to people who, other way, wouldn't have it. Just like it was impossible to use a computer in freedom, it was so in smartphones (Replicant and to some extent CM have been changing that), tablets (Debian more than anyone has changed that), and maybe some other devices. Also, thanks to the work of Debian, we now have the option of using systems like Trisquel and Tails that provide special "freedoms" to people who need them.
All of this to say, Debian should not be looked at as a "bad son who got out of house alone against orders", but really the son who goes out to live life in his own way while trying to stay true to the lessons he learned from his parents.
Debian brings freedom to many devices and so stays true to the origina goal of GNU project. Also it frees people who don't want/need/can use linux, to still use free software operating system.
Now, of course, I maintain that looking at the distro itself, IT IS FREE. You download CD1, install it, search for non-free software (apps, drivers, blobs, whatever) and you find none. So, the distro is free.
I think our efforts are in vain . There are psychological reasons why many people in here think of debian as "not holy enough".
There is one thing I learned from rms:
"I don't try to convince people whose minds are already made up; it's too unlikely to succeed."
//this should be under GNUsers message and my second post should be under magic bananas. Don't know why it somehow didn't work properly.
Agreed. But I am not one not to speak my mind on things, so (as you discovered in our past "debates") whenever this issue comes up, I will fight the good fight. And if I was able to convince you that "piracy" is in some ways, bad, maybe one day I will make other people realize that Debian is a "good" distro :P
I agree that maybe some things could be changed (Debian could drop the non free repos and still maintain the amazing freedom it provides to many users) but I don't think that would be the best option and it should not disqualify such an amazing project/distro.
So, you too are using Debian? Why and what are your experiences with this OS?
Yes, I'm currently using Debian wheezy on my main laptop. Trisquel is on my old desktop pc.
Hmm it's hard to explain why I prefer debian on my laptop. Maybe for the same reasons like you!
I just have a better feeling in terms of security. Debian is so damn reliable. It's stable like a rock and feels somehow better to use (maybe it's only my imagination)
And then.. the freedom to have control over my pc is extremly important to me, but it's not the most important thing on earth. Maybe I will have to make compromises in the future for some good reasons, and with debian, this is possible without changing the whole os.
Well, then keep up the fight ;)
I'll support you if I have some free time (i'm pretty busy at the moment).
> I think our efforts are in vain . There are psychological reasons why many
> people in here think of debian as "not holy enough".
Who said Debian had to be holy? It just has to be true: it is not a free
distro because it does not offer its users freedom. If they would be
direct about that, it would be fine.
> There is one thing I learned from rms:
>
> "I don't try to convince people whose minds are already made up; it's too
> unlikely to succeed."
I agree. But you seem to be in this forum that is supposed to defend FSF
position and at the same time oposing this position. What do you want?
In this sentence RMS says 2 things:
1. Many options don't necessarily mean more freedom, if none of them is free;
2. The lack of options equals a lack of freedom, if no free option exists you have no freedom.
I disagree. Stallman says in this sentence that, at that time, you could not both use a computer and be in control of the work achieved with it because no solution was free (only the nature, not the number, of the options matters). Also, he does not say nobody was free: anybody not using a computer (and anybody could choose it) was free, i.e., not under the unjust control of a third entity.
Of course having many kernels is not giving freedom, but the fact that Debian has been bringing free software to many different architectures and using different kernels IS providing freedom
It looks like you affirm something... and then the exact opposite!
If Debian is "the son who goes out to live life in his *own* way" then why is it so important that it receives the approval of the FSF (the parent in your story, if I properly understand it)?
Debian does not "stay true to the origina goal of GNU project". The GNU project has never been about maintaining non-free software packages along with the free ones.
The distro is not the sole CD1. That is why the nam of that CD ends with "1"! And the Debian project is not the sole distro. It is also the website, the documentation, etc.
So then you agree with me that the optional non-free repos in debian are not a freedom issue.
There is no other conclusion.
//this is the answer to magic banana
Up to now, we were discussing additional free software options!
If the additional option is proprietary, then it represents an additional temptation to give up your freedoms. When the official website of the project proposes the one-click installation of proprietary applications, it also becomes harder to explain the users they have freedom they should not bargain. In those regards, it makes sense for the FSF to not recommend Debian.
I do not recommend it either (for the same reasons). Now, if your question is "if more appropriate to my needs, would I use Debian without the contrib and non-free repositories?", the answer is yes. I would be 100% free and, today, I feel strong enough to resist the temptations to activate the evil repositories.
Do you sometimes go to a shopping mall?
How do you deal with the temptations to your freedom which are lurking there?
I mean there are pcs with proprietary software installed for sale.
Going there puts you in danger to become weak and give up your freedom.
With this I want to point out how absurd these idea of "take away all possibilities for me to install non-free software, I might become weak one day!" really is.
The users are no alcohol addicts who want to overcome their dependence.
If users tend to fall for proprietary software it's because of a lack of values and it will happen sooner or later. With non-free repos or without.
That's why the FSF does not recommend going to shopping malls!
If you look at the global population of computer users, you notice more than 90% of them are addicts of proprietary software.
>If users tend to fall for proprietary software it's because of a lack of values
I agree completely
>and it will happen sooner or later. With non-free repos or without.
Why do they have to use proprietary software again?
> So then you agree with me that the optional non-free repos in debian are
> not
> a freedom issue.
> There is no other conclusion.
ROTFL!
dadix, +1 to merging gNewSense and Trisquel and base the resulting distro on Debian.
In the future, though, I think I'll do whatever I can in GNU Guix. If I understand correctly, it will become a distro as well, and it is libre by default (libre as in FSF definition).
Merging these distro with Debian Sid is necessary because all the developers from Debian are working on Sid (unstable) packages . In Jessie (testing)(Ubuntu is based on this) are most of the beta testers.
We need all the developers to make a strong desktop distribution. Of course like all other distribution they may split in 2 parts ( one for testing and one stable).
The new distro will have realise cycle for 6 months. In the actual time the speed of realising packages is very fast if you look out there Mesa (video drivers) begins three-month release cycle over a six month period.
We need very new software in GNU world because we don't have proprietary blobs so we must compensate with new releases and add fast the new implementations.
Wow! This looks like a hot thread.
Well... Looks like I'll, anyway, contribute to it.
We do know that, without GNU+Linux distributions like Debian, Trisquel and many others wouldn't exist. And without the FSF, Debian wouldn't exist.
Why did the FSF stop helping Debian? Simple, because Debian deviates from the goals of the FSF, and as such, Debian has to be fixed, not the FSF.
For me, freedom comes with the control that the user has, not by the variation of the options available. I can't remember where, but I've read somewhere in the FSF's official site that a software developer is not required to release a compiled/built version of such software, just the source code.
While I don't ignore Trisquel's dependency on non-free projects. I'm also worried with the GNU+Linux-libre's dependencies on other non-free projects. That means it's difficult to set things aside and just say: “Well, just abandon the non-free dependencies and start developing GNU+Linux Trisquel and GNU+Linux-libre by their own”. We'll also face other issues, like the absence of resources for the developers (by resources, I mean informations, materials, money, humans, space, technology, etc).
Any organization has an administration, and as such, I believe it's useful to analyze both the Trisquel project and the maintainers of the GNU+Linux-libre project using the three-dimensional metatheoretical of strategic effectiveness in macro environment model [1] (note: the reference is in Brazilian Portuguese only, and under a non-free license, sorry).
Even after analyzing the MM-3D-EEMA, it's difficult for me, as a beginner, to say what both projects should do, but I do know that both area heavily dependent on other projects.
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
Addendum: The author of the article is my teacher.
[1] http://www.convibra.com.br/upload/paper/2013/32/2013_32_7064.pdf
I am a member!
Far out guys, it isn't difficult.
The FSF cannot endorse Debian because of two issues. Firstly, it hosts non-free software on their offical project servers and secondly, they provide documentation on how to install and manage non-free software.
The first issue is the most objectionable - the second less so, but it's still pertinent that it is addressed.
At the end of the day the FSF has to draw a line in the sand about what they consider to be a free vs a proprietary operating system. I think their definition of a free operating system is adequate as it serves as an important benchmark for freedom. In my mind, it *is* unacceptable that Debian hosts proprietary software on their official servers. I think they will eventually resolve this issue as they did with the binary blobs in the Linux kernel pre version 6.0. And when they do, Debian ought to be considered a completely free OS.
I hate every privative symbol from any big brother or any other secret society like one eyed gNewSense.
Free means no proprietary stuff that could control you; You control your system. Since Debian is being thrown around as an example, well.. it has proprietary blobs in the kernel, it links to non-free software and even has non-free packages in their repositories. Could you elect to recompile the kernel and remove said proprietary blobs? Sure. Could you not install software that wasn't GNU? sure. Could you avoid proprietary drivers like the plague? yep. Problem is most end-users lack the knowledge to recompile the kernel, make system edits w/o totally crashing system, and I suppose they take the non-free advertisement as "that's what makes the world go round." FSF sees things differently than most. I feel blessed a group of devs has made this product for us; It really is a lot of work [and if you don't believe me.. try Linux From Scratch sometime ;) ] Free is controlling your system, but nobody is controlling you from FSF heh. You want to go the way of the masses, go on. If you choose to view the world a bit differently and want to not be waylaid by something that was hidden inside a kernel blob one day.. well then give GNU software [and the FSF] a fair shake.
Regards,
Rob
Debian doesn't have proprietary blobs in the kernel anymore. Otherwise other issues are there.
I am a member!
Seems to me that there is one thing Debian could do that would be very easy, and bring it closer to "free" status (although still not fully there).
It should fork off non-free into a separate project, run by whoever likes it in Debian now, and it should be hosted on seperate servers. Something like debnonfree.org, and removed from Debian servers.
Essentially, this would not require any change to the debian system itself, it would just require users of non-free to update their apt sources.list.
I think this would negate a large part of why it can't currently be considered a fully free distro.
The other thing they need to do is to fix debian-installer (or d-i or whatever it's called now) to make sure it doesn't recommend anything non-free during the installation. That's a more major change for a later date.
gNewSense will be my safe haven of last resort, but I'm not tech-savvy enough yet to be able to use it as my main distro, and I don't want my email address visible on the mailing list (because of spam etc.) It didn't have a forum when I last visited either, so Trisquel is my current distro for free software development.
I can't manage entirely without Mint yet though; Mint made the transition from Windows to Linux easy, and I'll always be grateful for that.
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben