Why is Trisquel based on Ubuntu, instead of Debian or Devuan? Can't the developers rebase it again to Debian or Devuan???
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Hello everyone, I have a very serious question to ask that just baffles me. Why is Trisquel, a 100% free as in freedom GNU/Linux distributuion, based on Ubuntu, a distribution that is known to contain lots and lots of non-free software? Ubuntu is infested with proprietary software (such as snaps), proprietary firmware, opt-out telemetry, bloatware, high system requirements, and is literary ditching GNU itself and moving to the Rust-based Coreutils.
And so I wonder, why do the developers make it harder for themselves, especially since Ubuntu seems to be shooting itself in the foot each year? Trisquel was once based on Debian, so why can't the developers rebase to Debian again, or even better, to Devuan? Why is a 100% free as in freedom distro dependent on Canonical and it's awful decisions? To me it seems that Trisquel does not need to be based on Ubuntu at all, and Trisquel already uses many parts from Debian, such as the netinstall option or some other packages.
Rebasing to Debian or Devuan would not only make Trisquel more independent, or make it easier for developers to actually develop and work on it, but it would also make the support cycle much longer. If Trisquel 12 was based on Debian or Devuan instead of Ubuntu 24.04 (which is now 2 years old), then instead of getting support until 2029, we could get support until 2031, because Debian 13's support ends that year. That is 5 years of support instead of 3 years.
Trisquel really should rebase to Debian/Devuan. Im sure that the developers could make it as convenient on Debian as on Ubuntu. A few years ago we atleast had gNewSense, but now even that is gone. Please, tell me, why is Trisquel based on Ubuntu, the Devil of GNU/Linux? We really don't need this dependence. To any developer that is reading this in the forum, please at least consider making a Debian spin like Linux Mint does with LMDE. Thanks.
I think I once asked the same question on this forum. But if I did, I am not able to find it again. Some of the answers I got came with valid arguments on why ubuntu is preferable to debian.
I did find this post on the matter.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/peppermintos-ditching-ubuntu-base-debiandevuan-trisquel-should-also
I also want to use this opportunity to blame debian on the current state of affairs. Free software people cannot accept any piece of non free software. But debian has a right to define their own policies. It appears debian find it important that people get easy access to non free software repositories and now a debian iso comes with non free firmware. At the same time debian is hailing free software. I blame debian for not also providing a free software debian iso each time they make a new debian version. The free software debian iso could be a minimalistic one. And they could skip updating the free software debian iso. That way debian would only have to make one free software debian iso for each version. That way debian would show people that free software means something to them. When I aired the above critique of debian on a debian forum my post got censored.
> Why is Trisquel, a 100% free as in freedom GNU/Linux distributuion, based on Ubuntu, a distribution that is known to contain lots and lots of non-free software?
Well, I suppose this answers the question itself. Trisquel is 100% because it cleans waste from Ubuntu, if there were nothing to clean there won't be a need for Trisquel right?
> And so I wonder, why do the developers make it harder for themselves, especially since Ubuntu seems to be shooting itself in the foot each year?
Interesting, I wonder under whose perspective is Ubuntu (in extension Canonical) shooting on the foot, I think they are moving exactly to where they want, become as difficult to fork as possible so they can maintain a monopoly on their product.
> Rebasing to Debian or Devuan would not only make Trisquel more independent, or make it easier for developers to actually develop and work on it...
Well, I suppose you have a point there, but if you look closer there is already PureOS and some other distro aiming for it. Plus we already take some important pieces from Debian itself, so we are not blocked from relying on some of Debian's work directly.
Coming back to the previous question, yeah, developing Trisquel it's hard and takes time, the development team is tiny, but Trisquel provide value that no one else is providing and people use, a completely free distro based on a popular one whether for personal use or for servers, which is good enough to make it to a production environment.
That would be my insights on the matter.
Regards.
But pureos is based on debian testing... not debian stable. ;)
If you guys based it on devuan stable, I would consider switching to it in a heartbeat.
For my "gaming" laptop.
Also, debian is less free than it used to be according to GNU and FSF organizations.
Because the non-free repo is now connected to it by default.
Also, non-free stuff is not being separated as much as it used to be.
just some thoughts
> Interesting, I wonder under whose perspective is Ubuntu (in extension Canonical) shooting on the foot, I think they are moving exactly to where they want, become as difficult to fork as possible so they can maintain a monopoly on their product.
Yes you are right, they do want to become a monopoly, though what I meant here is that they don't care about their community nor users, and even though people hate snaps, bloatware, or that telemetry, they just don't care at all and implement that stuff. Why? Because they want money, and they don't care if they will loose some users, or if their distribution becomes shit. Canonical only cares about profit, not about the users. Why be dependent on this? Why not just rebase to Debian or even better - Devuan?
> Well, I suppose you have a point there, but if you look closer there is already PureOS and some other distro aiming for it. Plus we already take some important pieces from Debian itself, so we are not blocked from relying on some of Debian's work directly.
PureOS aims for privacy and security, while Trisquel aims for general use. PureOS uses GNOME, Trisquel uses MATE. They are not the same here; they aim for something a little bit different. PureOS is the closest 100% free distribution to Trisquel, but that's really all we got. Also, if you already rely on some Debian parts, then why not rebase to it?
You see, Canonical doesn't care about the users, community, or anybody really. They just care about the money and profits. They will do anything to get that, even if that requires shooting themselves in the foot, forcing snaps, adding bloatware, telemetry, ditching GNU, or some other stupid thing. We don't need this dependence. Some people said that Ubuntu has greater hardware support than Debian, or updates faster. Both points are either wrong or just stupid. Trisquel 12 uses parts from Debian 13 and Ubuntu 24.04; If it just was based on Debian 13, then instead of having packages from April of 2024, we could get packages from Mid 2025. And what hardware support are we talking about, if Trisquel already aims for no non-free software, and a lot of hardware needs that? Please, it will only get worser as time goes on, Canonical won't change, so atleast consider making a Debian spin.
Just a day later after I posted this, Ubuntu made a blog about adopting and integrating AI called: "The future of AI in Ubuntu". Proves my point even more.