After version 6, Trisquel is moving to LTS only releases.
There has been some debate on this topic recently, but hear me out:
1. In April 2013, all versions of Trisquel prior to 6 will lose their support. No more package updates or security fixes will be made available from Ubuntu for Trisquel to use. Trisquel 4 (based on Ubuntu 10.04) loses support for the desktop but the server packages will get updates for 2 more years. Every other release is unsupported.
2. In April 2013, Ubuntu 13.04 will be released and it is rumored to be the last non-LTS release for Ubuntu as they move to a rolling release model but continue to release LTS versions every 2 years.
3. If Ubuntu moves to a rolling release model, Trisquel does not have the resources to check packages daily (to blacklist and deblog) to make sure they are freedom friendly. There is already a struggle to get a release out the door and I doubt daily changes to the OS would helpful.
4. Trisquel 6 MAYBE gets released around the time of Ubuntu 13.04, meaning that it is two codebases behind. In the traditional numbering scheme, this would be Trisquel 7. Delays to 6 have seriously hurt the progress of Trisquel.
5. Is there a point in spending the resources to release Trisquel 6.5, based on 12.10, at this point? The code is 6 months old and is not good PR for Trisquel.
6. Updating from version to version has now become a pain. Ubuntu 12.04 cannot be easily upgraded to Ubuntu 13.04 without first updating to 12.10 and then 13.04. That would mean a Trisquel 6.5 has to be released in order for people to upgrade safely down the road if they want.
7. LTS releases are made to be updated from one version to the next and are heavily tested by Canonical and the community. This includes the desktop and the server.
8. Being LTS only means less emphasis on full releases and more on backporting newer packages from newer Ubuntu releases in a dedicated Trisquel repository for it. Packages from PPAs can be imported or custom tailored from source code for Trisquel.
So in a nutshell, with the recent changes to the release structure of Ubuntu and this project seeing heavy delays, the only way for Trisquel to survive at this point is being LTS only.
The same decision was made during the March 5th meeting with a similar
reasoning. See http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/2013-03-05-meeting for
details.
To summarize the meeting:
* Yes, we will do LTS only.
* We will open a user repository so the community can submit their backports (newer software like gimp 2.8, etc)
I didn't see the meeting notes from a few days ago (or their existence) and that is a good thing that it is agreed upon.
Some things I would like to see included in the user repos:
1. nginx: https://launchpad.net/~nginx/+archive/stable
2. MariaDB: https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/
3. MongoDB: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/tutorial/install-mongodb-on-ubuntu/
4. PHP 5.4: https://launchpad.net/~ondrej/+archive/php5
5. Git: https://launchpad.net/~git-core/+archive/ppa
6. LibreOffice: https://launchpad.net/~libreoffice/+archive/ppa
7. Transmission: https://launchpad.net/~transmissionbt/+archive/ppa
8. VLC: https://launchpad.net/~n-muench/+archive/vlc and/or https://launchpad.net/~n-muench/+archive/vlc2
Sorry what I said was a proposal from the previous meeting:
http://trisquel.info/files/trisquel-dev.2013-02-26-17.10.log_.txt
See at 18:00:16
Edit: Actually, it has been mentioned on the latest meeting too at 17:31:53 :
http://trisquel.info/files/trisquel-dev.2013-03-05-17.00.log_.txt
I always liked the idea of limiting to LTS versions and do backports when possible. I think that this can benefit a documentation/translation project since all contributors can focus on the same version and have more time to work on it.
I am a member!
First off- this definitely has my full support.
I didn't have a chance to read the meeting notes. I wish I hadn't missed this meeting. I actually do have concerns I think we should look into despite being an advocate of this approach. In any case the meeting does sum up exactly what I've been saying.
I'm not sure all of the reasons this is moving forward although it sounds like Ubuntu's leap to a rolling release and the lack of funding are a big part of it. And I am attributing the lack of time/development resources to the lack of proper funding.
However- that said this is really a great move. It'll push things forward and hopefully fix a lot of the problems we currently have with GNU/Linux. The issues which I'm hoping will be fixed effect a lot more than just Trisquel. They negatively effect distributions across the board. This really could make Trisquel one of the best distributions out there (if it isn't already).
Now the trick will be to get everything right. Some of the packages might be tricky to back port and there could be issues introduced that might make this initiative backfire. Hopefully though my concerns are unfounded and things go smoothly.
I think we need to do a little more basic testing of the concept with Trisquel 4 and see if this approach can work. As long as there aren't major hurdles for backporting HPLIP or issues with the crazy way graphics are handled with X/the kernel/etc though I think this will work.
Like Ubuntu's LTS, Debian roughly releases a new version every two years. Could Trisquel come back to it (even though gNewSense wants to do the same)?
Debian is more stable, raises less freedom issues and is more in sync with the free software development community. I mean Ubuntu basically is the only player insisting on Upstart (the rest of the world jumped or plans to use systemd), Unity (although most Trisquel users seem to prefer GNOME Shell or GNOME Classic) and, soon Mir (whereas every other distribution plans to jump on the Wayland train). For the last project, it really looks like Ubuntu does not know what it is doing. For instance, the Wiki was originally criticizing Wayland with plain wrong statements.
Hmm, I was thinking similar thoughts yesterday on my walk. My thoughts below:
Advantages
* Debian focuses more on freedom than Ubuntu (as you already pointed out). This would mean less work removing non-free software, recommendations and occasional branding.
* Debian and Ubuntu have many similarities (e.g. Synaptic and other similar tools).
* Debian goes through a lot of QA to make sure everything works. Ubuntu doesn't appear do this so much (e.g. gnome-panel (fallback), unstable AbiWord in 12.04).
* gNewSense and Trisquel might be able to use each other's work.
* Potentially better upstream relations.
Disadvantages
* Ubuntu LTS releases are supported for 5 years. Debian releases are only supported for ~3 years.
* Difference in browser release models. Squeeze uses Iceweasel 3.5 by default, whereas Ubuntu keeps up-to-date with Mozilla. (Debian does have backports though).
* Some consider Debian software to be more out-of-date. For example, Wheezy has been frozen for 8 months. (For me, this doesn't matter, as I prefer stability).
* Debian doesn't have PPA system (officially, anyway).
Perhaps there are other pros/cons to using Debian over Ubuntu as well.
I am a member!
Debian's advantages are mainly that it is stable for at least server applications and relatively secure. I wouldn't trust it on the desktop though. Stable is just too out of date for desktop. Now you do have Debian testing although the main problem with it is that it's beta quality. Stuff breaks. You can't have that. You could do a combination of stable maybe with Debian backports. That might work. You would still be running an out of date set of applications though. Probably ones that are less critical although I'd still shy away. If Debian stable has more backports than I realize though it might work.
Ubuntu has a lot of advantages on the desktop. There are various patches applied to make it work better. For the desktop I think Ubuntu is actually more stable than Debian.
It would be nice if there was a Debian flavor geared toward the desktop that was more up to date.
The closest thing I can think of to get a feel for what Trisquel would be like based on Debian is probably Linux Mint Debian edition. However I think that is based on Debian testing and frozen. Probably similar to how Ubuntu does it. It could be that Linux Mint Debian is a workable stable base to build from. I think the problem though with it is there isn't much of a guarantee that it'll be around long term. I don't think there is any issue with basing a distribution off the Linux Mint Cinnamon edition which is based on Ubuntu. What the advantages of that might be now... I'm not sure. I think Cinnamon might be a good desktop environment to build off although I lack the knowledge as to what it would take to utilize it as a base. Either basing it off Linux Mint Cinnamon edition or taking Cinnamon and using it on another Debian or Ubuntu base.
I remember trying Linux Mint Debian when it came out and was a mess. Packages always breaking and this was the testing repositories. They eventually moved to an update pack system and even though they are tested, they are out of date.
Ubuntu and their derivatives like Trisquel add an extra layer of testing and the LTS releases are stable. Having the PPA system in Ubuntu is helpful so that those LTS releases have an option to get up to date software if needed.
I'm glad Trisquel is sticking with Ubuntu and being LTS only. Trisquel 4 is still one of my favorite operating systems of all time and I hope future releases can maintain that charm.
> I don't think there is any issue with basing a distribution off the Linux Mint Cinnamon edition which is based on Ubuntu. What the advantages of that might be now... I'm not sure. I think Cinnamon might be a good desktop environment to build off although I lack the knowledge as to what it would take to utilize it as a base.
If it's less buggy than GNOME Fallback Mode then it is good. ;-) Apparently Linux Mint introduces a few more proprietary packages than Ubuntu, although I can't imagine they would be too difficult to remove.
I haven't used Cinnamon or themed before, so I can't really comment on it. But reading online there seems to be a lot of positive comments on Cinnamon.
I am a member!
Cinnamon shouldn't be a problem to use. It's based on Gnome 3. The additional proprietary pieces are third party and not developed by the project and it's actually Linux Mint that includes them. Not Cinnamon. Removing them or not including them should be easy.
* Pretty confident of that. Needs confirmation. I know the project does not develop non-free software.
---Trisquel 6 MAYBE gets released around the time of Ubuntu 13.04-----
ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail will be Release 18 April 2013[wikipedia]. that mean again Trisquel 6 @ a huge delay. :-(
About the release, don't get so frustrated anymore. It has already been moved to cdimage.trisquel.info (where official releases go), it is unlikely to be changed although possible. If you were in the dev channel you'd see that even Ruben is somewhat mad about this version and wants to release ASAP.
A wise decision, in my opinion.
I even thought of proposing just that, in the previous discussions that I saw being held here. But refrained myself from doing so, because, not only am I not part of the developing team, but also, because I'm still waiting for Trisquel 6 to be released (exactly because it is based on a LTS version of Ubuntu) I'm still not sure if I will adopt this distribution or not.
I've been a long time Ubuntu user, almost since that distribution appeared. And, through the years, I've repeatedly had so many bad experiences with non-LTS versions, that I don't recommend any of those to anyone any more. And will only use one if I really have to.
Non-LTS versions of Ubuntu are often buggy and, definitely, not as stable as the LTS versions... (And I think there's also no need for them. Since, 2 years is, to me, a decent time interval to wait for a new version of an OS.) To base a version of Trisquel in one of those non-LTS versions is to be inheriting all of those bugs and to be possibly wasting a lot of time trying to solve them, which can be spared and better used if you just concentrate yourselves on the more stable LTS versions.
I've always thought that it is best to do little, but well done, than to do much, and badly (or not as well) done.
I am a member!
An excellent decision.
I hope this alleviates the development pressures that Ruben must be feeling.
I am a member!
I wholeheartedly agree with this decision. LTS 4tW!
Regarding Debian - I can see advantages and disadvantages to moving over. The important ones, as have already been pointed out in this thread, are systemd vs upstart, Wayland vs Mir, etc.
Perhaps the most important advantage Debain would have as a base, though, is the fact that they also [I]try[/I] to be a free software distro, so everything is de-blobbed already and they'll throw up [I]far[/I] fewer freedom issues than Ubuntu will, thus alleviating the pressure on the Trisquel team.
Disadvantages are the obvious out-of-date packages in stable. Not sure how to address this to be honest.
Thoughts?
I am a member!
Debian has backports for stable:
http://backports-master.debian.org/
I'm not sure how well that works compared to testing although it sounds to me like it should be better than trying to go with Debian testing (which breaks from time to time).
I was also thinking about how the upgrades from one LTS version to the next go. Traditionally, Ubuntu can be updated from one LTS to the next as soon as it is released if the user manually does a release upgrade. It is only with the .1 point release and higher (like 12.04.1) that the update manager and update manager core will give the user an option to update from one version to the next.
With that in mind, should future Trisquel LTS releases be based on the .1 releases of Ubuntu so when someone updates from like Trisquel 6 to 7, the update manager will ask the user to update the day of the release?
I am a member!
Great. I totally support migrating to this LTS-only release method.
Just a thought on a matter that appeared later: since there is already a 100% FaiF GNU/Linux distro based on Debian (gNewSense, despite it's not ready yet for most users), wouldn't migrating Trisquel's base to Debian let alone people desiring a 100% FaiF Ubuntu-derived/like/whatever GNU/Linux distro?
I am a member!
I have always had a feeling that gNewSense had other objectives for which it had largely achieved and never actually was fit for other purposes. Trisquel was and is the right solution for desktop users. The gNewSense purposes being to put forth an example of what a free software distribution should be. Another is/was to get an older Lemote machine working working (non-x86 system that ships with Debian) that shipped with Debian although had hardware which was unusually less restrictive. That made it one of the least restrictive solutions.
We could be working on more editions at the time. Xfce, KDE, and improving the Mini.
If we go to the debian route we should just merge with gNewSense. The 'idealist' free distribution is already fit by Parabola which removes anything even remotely related to proprietary like fat support.
Would there ever be a server edition ISO that matches the default installed packages as the Ubuntu Server ISO?
Besides the kernel and firmware, I would assume the Ubuntu Server ISO includes and installs only free software?
If you type 'sudo tasksel' there are some server options to install.
The Ubuntu server kernel is still blobbed. I don't know much about the server iso, although Debian is a more free server.
I thought Debian wasn't endorsed by the FSF due to the availability of the contrib and non-free repositories that contain questionable software? Plus, Debian Stable packages are more outdated than the 12.04.2 LTS and it is debatable which one is more stable.
Yes, Debian is 'optionally' free. It is not endorsed by the FSF because they make it easy to renounce your freedom right in the installer (by asking you if you want to install proprietary firmware for your hardware if it needs it), and by including an official repository for non-free software. If you agree to not install proprietary firmware and not enable the repository, you are not using proprietary software.
Debian Wheezy, which statistics predict to be released in May, will have newer software than Ubuntu 12.04 (except some stability-critical backports like kernel and xorg). Basing Trisquel on Squeeze would be insanity by this point.
I am a member!
The Debian definition of free is different too don't forget! But yea- your basically right. For the most part the Debian definition and the FSF definition align pretty well. I don't know that it would be any easier to base Trisquel off Debian or vice versa. It might be easier to base it off gNewSense if things can be aligned with that project. While I wouldn't discourage collaboration I'm not sure the gNewSense project and the Trisquel projects share the same target user base. I think you would need to go look back at why Trisquel moved to Ubuntu and why various distributions have moved back or considered moving back to Debian.
I think ultimately that both Debian stable & Ubuntu LTS have had instability and bugs. Ubuntu LTS releases do tend to have newer versions of many packages. Particularly programs that are desktop oriented. For that reason Ubuntu LTS tends to make a better desktop base. If you asked me Debian is better suited for the server than Ubuntu. Mainly because I have confidence that Debian will be around in 5 years. I can't say that about Canonical and Ubuntu.
Another point in favor of Debian is politics. If we base on Ubuntu we are relying on Canonical, meaning we are on the corporation's back. Basing on Debian there is no corporate control behind upstream.
I am a member!
I agree it might is better in some ways. I'm not sure Debian though is going to be less of a challenge working with upstream. In fact I'm inclined to think it may be easier to work with Ubuntu than Debian.
If you have worked with both I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. I suspect it is changing one bureaucracy for another ultimately. Then again working more with an upstream project like Debian there may be more opportunity to fix non-free software issues directly and that would probably have a positive impact on Debian (and other users of Debian) which could be good. That may not be the case for Ubuntu.
I have used Debian a few times. So, my theoretical points are:
Advantages:
* Debian releases a new version only after extensive testing, unlike Ubuntu which is more focused on a planned date.
* It does have a graphical installer called debian-installer, which is what you'd see on any graphical install from their official iso or their livecd/dvd. May not be as user friendly as ubiquity but it is usable by anyone.
* They have a patched Ubuntu software-center (version 5) which does not recommend proprietary software (although it does have debian branding). More user friendly than Add/Remove.
* We don't have to care about upstream ubuntu bugs because they ignore a lot of them.
* Better support for multiple architectures (mips and armel/armhf for instance). Raspberry Pi has a plan to release a FSF-compliant version of their chip which wouldn't work in Ubuntu.
Editing to add two more advantages:
* Debian is a more lightweight base.
* Debian is a more mainstream project and has more community backing than Ubuntu. (~1000 developers/contributors vs ~500 of Ubuntu)
Disadvantages:
* Hard to manage software not available on repositories. Not all PPA's work. Would need a lot more work if we wanted to have newer software.
That's what I can think of right now.
I am a member!
A version of the Ubuntu Software center for Trisquel would definitely be a nice addition. I'm not sure this is as important though as having newer set of base applications and better integration of those packages. I think it is still best to continue on the Ubuntu path for the target user base. There may very well come a time in the next 3-5 years where reverting to Debian will make more sense and/or become necessary.
As I have said before I'm not confident Canonical has a workable business plan and Mark Shuttleworth has said he won't fund it indefinitely. They seem to be taking the path traveled by other commercial distros in that there is no clear business model. While I can understand trying different things they have switched from a model that focuses on the desktop, to one that focuses on the server, to one that focuses on smart phones/tablets/TVs/etc. From a development perspective that is not going to coincide well with the desktop. The only good thing about the current situation is they don't appear to have completely abandoned the desktop. This will probably be Canonical's downfall though. Trying to do too many things at once will probably mean they don't do anything that terribly well. Redhat succeeded by switching focuses to the server. They completely abandoned the desktop (they still are the #1 contributor though to desktop development from my understanding).
The bigger the company the more profit oriented it becomes. Red Hat is the only well known software company I know that still cares a little about the freedom philosophy.
I believe that in the near future Canonical will become the new Novell. Sealing deals with the competition to ensure their funding and Ubuntu will be the new OpenSUSE.
I am a member!
As long as the source is available... and there product continues to have value I think it'll be a good distribution to work off (short of that they will probably continue to see a declining user base and at that point how are they making money? Collapse would probably be inevitable. Our problem here would be solved by moving to Debian should it happen).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le 13-03-10 01:00 PM, name at domain a écrit :
> Another point in favor of Debian is politics. If we base on Ubuntu we are relying on Canonical,
meaning we are on the corporation's back. Basing on Debian there is no
corporation control behind upstream.
Several very visible Ubuntu members and users are hanging out since a
few days at #ubuntu-expats on OFTC (on IRC).
THere are also talks about a "welcome committee". I posted about
focusing better on free software a few days ago:
http://www.fabianrodriguez.com/blog/2013/03/09/moving-on-how
Cheers,
Fabian
- --
Fabian Rodriguez
http://trisquel.magicfab.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlE93RIACgkQfUcTXFrypNVgWwCdHLsKXH7sfc+pWIuu3zBg05OX
E3cAoKmMDOs/R9UEnGo63mcEjrKcE7Pd
=Y4Ai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
When the next LTS of Ubuntu is released in a year, then that release will have newer packages than Wheezy.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 12.04 release can be on par with Wheezy in "freshness" if you use PPAs for software that you use on a daily basis.
And how about new features like opusenc and Gstreamer with opus support? How can I install those in Trisquel 6?
1. https://launchpad.net/~opus-developers/+archive/stable and https://launchpad.net/~n-muench/+archive/vlc2 have Opus for Precise backported.
2. https://launchpad.net/~gstreamer-developers/+archive/ppa should have Opus supported in a recent version.
3. I've installed libogg and opus-tools from the Ubuntu 12.10 repositories with no issues on the 12.04 codebase. You can also nab newer versions of libopus and the opus-tools from https://launchpad.net/~stefanobalocco/+archive/ppa if you like.
Thanks. I knew about the gstreamer developers ppa but it looks old. They are using an alpha version of opus according to the page, and all the packages are for oneiric and below.
I wanted it for batch encoding (in Soundconverter 2.0.4) and playback in rhythmbox. So a supported gstreamer version would be required.
El 11/03/13 10:22, name at domain escribió:
> 1. https://launchpad.net/~opus-developers/+archive/stable and
> https://launchpad.net/~n-muench/+archive/vlc2 have Opus for Precise
> backported.
>
> 2. https://launchpad.net/~gstreamer-developers/+archive/ppa should
> have Opus supported in a recent version.
>
> 3. I've installed libogg and opus-tools from the Ubuntu 12.10
> repositories with no issues on the 12.04 codebase. You can also nab
> newer versions of libopus and the opus-tools from
> https://launchpad.net/~stefanobalocco/+archive/ppa if you like.
>
Your are hurting the user and putting Trisquel's FSF certification in
peril when you suggest non-free software. Please stop infiltrating.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
09-845 8078
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
I am a translator!
quiliro:
I am not aware that any of the things he suggested to include are nonfree.
And since that is the case, you are being overly confrontational by accusing him of "infiltrating."
El 11/03/13 12:38, name at domain escribió:
> quiliro:
>
> I am not aware that any of the things he suggested to include are
> nonfree.
>
If you are not aware of it, then you should verify the sources. Trisquel
is a lot of work to verify for non free code and it does not include non
free software. If some software is recommended, it should be checked before.
> And since that is the case, you are being overly confrontational by
> accusing him of "infiltrating."
>
That is your point of view. It is respectable. But from my point of
view, doing what he did is even more confrontational because is an act
against our freedom. And yours is naive because of your lack of analysis
or proof.
I am not aware that I have accepted to abide by your rules. All I am
aware of is that Trisquel does abide by FSFs rules and that includes the
mailing lists.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
09-845 8078
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
I am a translator!
I'm now having an easy time remembering why I switched from Trisquel to Fedora two years ago: guys with sticks up their bums.
My analysis/proof is that all of the media-related packages he suggested are already in Fedora's repository or the third-party RPMFusion Free repository (since those are patent threats and possibly unsafe to include in a major distro ... but to use the software is still basically ethical). And, while no FSF, they are serious about software freedom and check carefully to make sure there is no violation of it within the licensing or the code. I go by simple common sense: if a piece of software is under the right license and popularly recognized as Free or "open source", it's quite wise to not doubt it. Sometimes, there is a freedom issue there, but that's usually not the case.
But who needs courtesy when you can be a saint in the Church of Emacs, right?
>guys with sticks up their bums.
>But who needs courtesy when you can be a saint in the Church of Emacs, right?
Please, let's try to be constructive.
El 11/03/13 13:25, name at domain escribió:
> I'm now having an easy time remembering why I switched from Trisquel
> to Fedora two years ago: guys with sticks up their bums.
>
Good!
> My analysis/proof is that all of the media-related packages he
> suggested are already in Fedora's repository or the third-party
> RPMFusion Free repository (since those are patent threats and possibly
> unsafe to include in a major distro ... but to use the software is
> still basically ethical). And, while no FSF, they are serious about
> software freedom and check carefully to make sure there is no
> violation of it within the licensing or the code. I go by simple
> common sense: if a piece of software is under the right license and
> popularly recognized as Free or "open source", it's quite wise to not
> doubt it. Sometimes, there is a freedom issue there, but that's
> usually not the case.
>
Since this is the important part ...my response.
Actually, usually that is the case. You seem to take many things for
granted without investigation. There are many parts which offer free
software but in practice only include blobs. Please state facts.
In fact, those softwares recommended by Tegskywalker may even be free
but did he or you even verify before making a wrong to Trisquel and
those users that trust this list not to suggest non-free software?
> But who needs courtesy when you can be a saint in the Church of Emacs,
> right?
No. Who needs facts when you can assume anything for distributing false
inforamation?....That is....regardless of courtesy. Perhaps you will
take abuse from people that are courteous?
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
09-845 8078
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
OK, I'd really like to jump in here: you're saying something about an investigation and verification or something like that because someone a few posts ago mentioned a few programs that seem to be free. Are you actually aware of any of them being nonfree? If you are, please say so, but there's no need to belittle everyone else because they don't do... whatever you expect them to do to be absolutely certain that it's all free. Really, what kind of verification are you expecting here? All you're talking about is some vague "investigation".
> In fact, those softwares recommended by Tegskywalker may even be free
> but did he or you even verify before making a wrong to Trisquel and
> those users that trust this list not to suggest non-free software?
You do remember that this is a public forum/mailing list, right? Of course we should point out when someone links to nonfree software or makes a bad suggestion, but this does not at all mean lashing out because someone *might* have potentially made a mistake with their link or suggestion (i.e. any time someone links to a website that isn't one of the FSF's websites). In this case, as far as I can tell, you are seriously overreacting; someone linked to a few PPAs and you're mad because you feel they haven't been "investigated" or something, even though they seem to contain only free software.
El 11/03/13 19:32, name at domain escribió:
> OK, I'd really like to jump in here: you're saying something about an
> investigation and verification or something like that because someone
> a few posts ago mentioned a few programs that seem to be free. Are you
> actually aware of any of them being nonfree? If you are, please say
> so, but there's no need to belittle everyone else because they don't
> do... whatever you expect them to do to be absolutely certain that
> it's all free. Really, what kind of verification are you expecting
> here? All you're talking about is some vague "investigation".
The same investigation that Trisquel developers do to suggest the
software Trisquel distributes. (The "belittlement" argument is nonsense.
It is simply a matter of Trisquel Guidelines.)
>
> > In fact, those softwares recommended by Tegskywalker may even be free
> > but did he or you even verify before making a wrong to Trisquel and
> > those users that trust this list not to suggest non-free software?
>
> You do remember that this is a public forum/mailing list, right? Of
> course we should point out when someone links to nonfree software or
> makes a bad suggestion, but this does not at all mean lashing out
> because someone *might* have potentially made a mistake with their
> link or suggestion (i.e. any time someone links to a website that
> isn't one of the FSF's websites). In this case, as far as I can tell,
> you are seriously overreacting; someone linked to a few PPAs and
> you're mad because you feel they haven't been "investigated" or
> something, even though they seem to contain only free software.
Everyone here that recommends some link makes it clear to people that it
might not be free and to investigate. The links on that post didn't
implying they were free software for newcommers which is not absolutely
the intent of this list. Perhaps they should be posted on
http://trisquel.info/en/forum/troll-hole .
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
09-845 8078
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
El 11/03/13 19:32, name at domain escribió:
> OK, I'd really like to jump in here: you're saying something about an
> investigation and verification or something like that because someone
> a few posts ago mentioned a few programs that seem to be free. Are you
> actually aware of any of them being nonfree?
Why is it that on the forum in Spanish a same recommendation got a
response in the lines of "I am sorry, I don't know how to read code yet"
instead of talking about belittlement? Is it that the people on the
Spanish forum understand better the sense of freedom that Trisquel tries
to promote?
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
09-845 8078
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
Um, no. You jumped on someone accusing them of linking to nonfree software when, as far as we all know, that's not the case. That is just unfair and hostile.
El 11/03/13 21:19, name at domain escribió:
> Um, no. You jumped on someone accusing them of linking to nonfree
> software when, as far as we all know, that's not the case. That is
> just unfair and hostile.
>
>
Can you certify that this is free software? Have you read the code?
AFAICT you are judging based on a fallacy. Trisquel's commitment is to
verify freedom and recommending something that has not been checked is
undermining this work. Is saying that jumping on someone? I feel jumped on!