How many people are working on Trisquel? Which libre Linux distro has the most developers?
I am only interested in distros that are fully free.
I am a member!
Trisquel & Parabola GNU/Linux are both the most popular and actively maintained of the free software distribution (as FSF defines it/certifies/approves/etc).
gNewSense has also been updated infrequently over the years and extends support to non x86 architectures although has numerous technical problems.
If you are looking for a fairly stable/usable distribution I would suggest sticking with Trisquel. It is by no means perfect although it is generally possible to make usable if your a tad bit technical, willing to overlook some things, and determined to eliminate your non-free dependencies.
If your more interested in the latest and greatest and don't mind dealing with lots of technical hurdles and breakages that frequently result in a rolling release Parabola GNU/Linux is the way to go. I'd only suggest this if your very comfortable with the terminal and putting a lot of effort into maintaining the system yourself. I'm not suggesting there are no GUIs. Just that it requires a lot more technical know-how, effort to install, and effort to maintain than Trisquel. I believe Parabola GNU/LInux also has support for at least some non-x86 architectures as well.
How many people are working on Trisquel? 10? 20? Can you please give a number?
On 12/09/13 13:14, 438963 wrote:
> How many people are working on Trisquel? 10? 20? Can you please give
> a number?
Depends what you count as "working on". Patches? Working on
documentation? Writing code? Maintaining the server? Also, things are a
little quiet at the moment, although I'm sure they will get busier next
year when the next Ubuntu LTS is released.
At the moment it seems like most of the development is done by Ruben,
the project leader.
Andrew.
"Depends what you count as "working on". Patches? Working on
documentation? Writing code? Maintaining the server?"
All of the above. I want to know the approximate number of everyone who contributes to the Trisquel project, no matter what their roles are.
To prevent any misunderstanding, I'm not implying that distros that have more contributors are 'better' than less popular distros. I'm not trying to compare distros. I'm just curious.
The only official role I am aware of is "Trisquel leader" (Rúben aka quidam).
Some users have a "I am a translator" badge but I do not even know how they got it. You do not directly obtain it by translating English documentation at least.
The "I am a member" badge labels users giving monthly donations to the project. There currently are 96 such users. You can get that number through this command:
$ wget -qO - https://trisquel.info/about https://trisquel.info/en/about?page=1 | sed -n '/Associate Members/,/Registered Users/p' | fgrep -c 'tr class'
96
If you want to know the total amount of one-time donations (this possibility started some three years ago), here it is:
$ wget https://trisquel.info/en/donate -qO - | tr '<' '\n' | awk '/td>donated/ { donations[$2] += $3 } END { for (currency in donations) print currency, donations[currency] }'
PLN 170
CHF 10
BRL 25
£ 245
CAD 271
SEK 290
MXN 1120
AUD 80
$ 6501.42
€ 2127.79
Counting the number of people reporting bugs can probably be done with more complicated scripts. Same thing for counting users who contributed to the documentation.
I am a member!
It's been an ongoing discussion.
We were shooting for 100 members I think. Hearing that it is up to 96 is actually encouraging.
I am a member!
I'm glad to hear this from you. I guess I haven't been around long enough. It just seemed to me suddenly, as I read Magic Banana's comment, that 96 members were so few. I'm glad to know it is not the case. I do hope the movement keeps growing. This is such an important issue! I keep wondering what else I can do.
>This is such an important issue! I keep wondering what else I can do.
Here are some ways to participate
Debian is fully free (as long as you do not manually add non-free repository) distro with the most developers, altho it is not endorsed by FSF.
Unless you really know what you are doing, do NOT use Parabola. But since number of developers doesn't really matter (most of the Trisquel indirectly came from Debian anyway) you should probably use Trisquel, it is quite good for beginners.
"Debian is fully free"
Excuse me while I laugh.
I laugh at it because it reinforces the notion of the Debian GNU/Linux distro not containing proprietary software, which isn't true. It comes from strange double-talk from the Debian Project in which they claim that the non-free software in their repositories is somehow not "part" of Debian. That's just double-talk designed for misdirection. All that the Debian Project did was draw an administrative line around certain packages -- the existence and inclusion of which would normally make the Debian GNU/Linux distro non-free -- and say "See these packages? They're not 'part' of us." This is an attempt at misdirection to avoid discussing the real problem: That the Debian Project distributes proprietary software. Whether it's "part" of the distro is totally irrelevant.
So, the Debian distro is only free if you accept that argument. If you do it means that all GNU/Linux distros that exist are now free. Every single one is now 100% free.
Why? Because all that any distro needs to do repeat what Debian did: All they need to do is point to certain pakages and say the same thing - That the packages aren't "part" of them, even though they host them, maintain them by fixing bugs, and offering help and support to people in using the software (all of this is true for Debian - see their constitution that non-free is officially supported), and then put them into a separate repository.
And hey - Ubuntu has their non-free stuff in a different repository - see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu
So they're most of the way there already. They just need to take that final step and be totally free and endorsed by the FSF! Surely the FSF will fall for such a sham arugment, right?
Actually, this probably deserve a blog post to fully explain everything and flesh it all out.
I am a translator!
The main problem with Debian is that it recommends non-free software, for instance the free software version of Firefox included in Debian (Iceweasel) recommends the installation of Adobe Flash and the version of Kopete included in Debian includes a plugin that (presumably) controls Skype (called Skype buttons). In addition, the documentation on Debian's website explains how to install and configure proprietary software. However, if a user does not enable the non-free repositories, Debian can be used in freedom, and Debian is probably the freest GNU/Linux distribution that can run a full desktop on ARM (since there is no port of a GNU/Linux distribution endorsed by the FSF to ARM at this point in time discounting LibreWRT which probably does not support running a full desktop such as LXDE).
Your arguments do make me doubt the "free" label of Debian... (And, I agree that, for the reasons you stated, it cannot be described as "fully free".)
Although, I can also understand that, even it the purpose of such a distro is to not use non-free software, it may be a good idea, for practical reasons, and for the people who need to use such software, to collect all the compatible non-free software, in the versions that are compatible with a specific distro, in one place. And, which better persons to do it, than the ones responsible for such a distro?
Isn't it better to have a "trustworthy" repository for such non-free programs (as far as that can be said for proprietary software, that is), than to let some other unknown people create one (and, possibly, fill it with malware)?
Some people *do* need to use non-free software. So, what should that people do? Migrate to a whole non-free OS?
(It's better to have some freedom, than to have none, in my opinion...)
Were will you be making such a blog post? I'm interested in reading more about this...
Nonfree software cannot be trustworthy. Without an access to the source code, you cannot know what it actually does. And many popular proprietary software are known malware. Adobe Flash and Microsoft Skype for instance.
I know that... And, that's why I wrote "(as far as that can be said for proprietary software, that is)".
(I also don't trust proprietary software, am aware of how much it compromises a system, and know of the amount of it that has malware included.)
A "trustworthy" repository, for such type of software, only doesn't let the problem be (even) worse.
Regardless of that, some people *need* nonfree software. Debian with nonfree software is better than full nonfree operating system: one step towards right direction. One can even track progress with vrms - haha.
I understand what you're saying, but such a distro that is distributing proprietary software could not do so and at the same time wash their hands of it and claim no responsibility. I wish they would just come clean, admit that they're a non-free distro, and stop the double-talk. I complain about Debian because they try to have it both ways.
Yes. I understand. If by "distribution" a person means "the whole set of software that a project distributes" - and, if one ignores the "psychological line" drawn by the Debian project - then, yes - the final result, of a set made of "free" and "non-free" repositories, is a "non-free" distribution.
It's a matter of if one recognizes the existence of such a dividing line, then. :)
And, I guess that the "labelling problem", or the problem with recognizing such a division, could then be solved, if the people at Debian just created a separate entity, for the non-free repository, and hosted such repository in a different server, with an address associated with that separate entity.
But, that wouldn't change anything, in practical terms. It would just be a way of making that (already existent?) dividing line more evident. And, of making everything more "formal". And, it would also just mean more trouble/work for the people at Debian.
(Maybe, we could all just do Debian a favour, and recognize the existence of such a dividing line, then?) ;)
(I'm sorry if this post ends up just adding more confusion. But, this is a tricky and subtle issue, indeed...)
Anyway...
In the end, you win the debate.
In a final analysis, as it presently makes software available (or distributes it), being the Debian distribution the source of such non-free software, makes Debian (indeed) a "non-free" distro. And, the FSF is right, in not including it in the list of approved ones.
(Although, I still praise, a lot, the people at the Debian project, for what they're doing, in making more and more people adopt Free Software, within possible.)
You cannot compare Debian with Ubuntu. Out-of-box debian, unlike Ubuntu, does not contain any non-free parts. If the user types "non-free" to /etc/sources.list, I bet he knows what is he doing. Only difference to Trisquel (in that respect) is that Debian offers convenient way to install non-free software: After all, you cannot (should not?) ban user from doing that.
"You cannot compare Debian with Ubuntu."
Oh indeed I can. Please re-read what I said about that. Ubuntu doesn't currently claim to be 100% free, nor did I say that they did. But if you accept Debian's argument then all that Ubuntu needs to do is flip some switches around and then be in a position to make a similiar claim. And that's all that it is: Flipping some switches around. "OK; we've moved this software over here into Repository B instead of Repository A and we're not enabling Repository B by default (but our installer will still ask you if you want Repository B turned on.) And we're now declaring that it's not 'part' of the distro anymore." This is essentially what Debian says and if you accept Debian's argument that they are 100% free as a result of that then you must also accept any other distro that makes that same argument too. Seems kinda silly, right? So don't accept Debian's argument that merely flipping switches and denouncing stuff makes them a free distro.
In fact, Ubuntu already *has* separate repositories for non-free stuff, so they're already on their way. They'd need to move perhaps a few more packages into there and follow it up with a statement denouncing that repository as not being "part" of Ubuntu... which, if you accept Debian being free by doing those same actions and saying those same thing you must also accept Ubuntu doing and saying those things to avoid being hypocritical.
I think the in-depth discussion about Debian (and Ubuntu) should be moved to another thread. People who are interested about this issue should open a new thread. I suggest the name 'Is Debian free software or open source software?' or 'Does the Debian project support software freedom enough?' or something like that.
I'm so sick and tired of this shit. It's all over the internet including this forum: "since the dawn of time" people making excuses for Debian. Nice people, intelligent people, are somehow mysteriously able to fool themselves into thinking that there's nothing wrong with Debian, generating this evergrowing herd of mindless Debian advocates who happily use and recommend that distro
as if there was nothing wrong with it! HEY people it's already twenty years since the elephant is in the room. Don't you think it's about time to notice it?
DEBIAN IS OPEN-SOURCE MOVEMENT. They never really cared about freedom. If they did they would have been a free distro since day one. And while I'm at it let me take this opportunity to say something to the users here in the forum who happily use and recommend nonfree distros like Debian, Mint, etc: SHAME ON YOU!
On 12/09/13 14:52, pedrosilva wrote:
> DEBIAN IS OPEN-SOURCE MOVEMENT. They never really cared about
> freedom. If they did they would have been a free distro since day
> one.
I don't think it's wise to speak for an entire distribution. Debian as a
whole focuses on freedom, but not enough, and some policies are lacking.
Individual Debian Developers might care about freedom. For example,
former Debian Project Leader Stefano Z. worked on collaborating with the
FSF during his term.
Debian was created before "open source" existed. Interestingly, the
former DPL who helped write the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
then used that to form the Open Source definition. The DFSG and Open
Source definition are mostly compatible with the GNU free software
definition.
> And while I'm at it let me take this opportunity to say something to
> the users here in the forum who happily use and recommend nonfree
> distros like Debian, Mint, etc: SHAME ON YOU!
Although I won't say it so strongly, I agree that we should only be
encouraging free distros.
Andrew.
Debian GNU/Linux is labeled as free software operating system. However, I do not care how they label it. Do you not use linux because it is labeled as open-source instead of free? As long as open-source software is also free, I will not reject it.
What i meant was, because they're not a free distro they're open source movement. I was not referring to how they label themselves (regarding this they use both terms, see for instance here http://www.debian.org/News/2013/20130809 "Since then the project has grown to be one of the largest and most influential open source projects"). But labels/words
are of the utmost importance for the free software movement and they're one of the main criteria when i choose free software.
https://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Quick search shows that the page has 10 occurences of word "free" and only 1 occurence of phrase "open source".
Well it should have ZERO.
I think the in-depth discussion about Debian (and Ubuntu) should be moved to another thread. People who are interested about this issue should open a new thread. I suggest the name 'Is Debian free software or open source software?' or 'Does the Debian project support software freedom enough?' or something like that.
I don't agree with that.
Ubuntu and the likes... Yes. They, obviously, don't care about the Freedom issue - and even facilitate the installation of (more) non-free software.
In Debian's case, I think they're just being pragmatical. (https://trisquel.info/en/forum/how-many-people-are-working-trisquel-which-libre-linux-distro-has-most-developers#comment-42517)
(Although, I can also understand the need for - and, even like better - more intransigent distros, like the ones approved by the FSF.)
In my personal case, I can't install* the free driver for my graphics card, in my main computer, because - of all the different graphics cards, that are supported - the free driver overheats my particular one.
Should I, then, move back to Windows? Me, and all the other people that don't have compatible drivers?
Isn't it better to have a "mainly free" OS, then?
And, don't you think that Debian, by allowing the installation of non-free drivers, or software - but, by *calling people's attention to such distinction* between the software types - is making more people adhere to the Free Software ideology - even if not completely, at start? (Contrary to, if no such distribution, like Debian, existed?)
I started with Debian, also - while getting the point about Free Software, liking the ideology very much, and always wanting to completely adhere to such ideology...
---
* (well, actually, I could - but would face a huge risk, doing so)
Oh yeah, of course, only you are pure and holy just using 100% free trisquel.
It's because of people like you why the free software movement is still an extremely tiny movement most people don't want to hear about.
There is this huge, reliable distro which just deblobed their kernel and showed their strong relationship to free software;
I doubt that without debian anyone of us would be able to use a free operating system today. Their contribution to free software is incredible, and they provide the possibility to run a 100% free system.
Now you come along throwing dirt at them just because there remain some tiny problems;
recommendation of non-free software during the installation process is one of them.
I can't consider the possibility of enabling a non-free repo which is disabled by default as a problem, but if someone does, it has to be considered as a tiny one.
You can install non-free software on trisquel as well; the fact that this software doesn't "belong" to the trisquel project is just a political one without a practical difference.
No, Debian isn't perfect, but neither is trisquel.
In trisquel, non-free Thunderbird is included for instance and we all know about privacy issues like the google name server.
Should I "laugh at trisquel" like jxself laughed at debian because of this minor issues?
Should I claim "trisquel doesn't care about freedom"?.
It's pure hypocrisy to do so;
If Debian dies, I don't see any hope for the free software movement any more. Ubuntu really doesn't care about freedom, and trisquel is based on ubuntu.
Who want's to replace the huge workload of the debian team? You, the holy free software knight? Ruben?
Sorry, but I think shame on YOU.
"Now you come along throwing dirt at them just because there remain some tiny problems;
recommendation of non-free software during the installation process is one of them.
I can't consider the possibility of enabling a non-free repo which is disabled by default as a problem, but if someone does, it has to be considered as a tiny one.
You can install non-free software on trisquel as well; the fact that this software doesn't "belong" to the trisquel project is just a political one without a practical difference.
No, Debian isn't perfect, but neither is trisquel.
In trisquel, non-free Thunderbird is included for instance and we all know about privacy issues like the google name server.
Should I "laugh at trisquel" like jxself laughed at debian because of this minor issues?
Should I claim "trisquel doesn't care about freedom"?.
It's pure hypocrisy to do so;"
Please don't be ridiculous. How can you compare Debian's open source stance of 20 years with Trisquel's "minor issues" (your words) which are being taken care of?
YOU CAN'T.
https://trisquel.info/en/issues/9782
https://trisquel.info/en/issues/6456 (I'm assuming this is the issue with Thunderbird, I've never used it).
"If Debian dies, I don't see any hope for the free software movement any more" 0_o It's worst than i though. Please go see a therapist.
I think the in-depth discussion about Debian (and Ubuntu) should be moved to another thread. People who are interested about this issue should open a new thread. I suggest the name 'Is Debian free software or open source software?' or 'Does the Debian project support software freedom enough?' or something like that.
"Please don't be ridiculous. How can you compare Debian's open source stance of 20 years with Trisquel's "minor issues" (your words) which are being taken care of?
YOU CAN'T."
Hmm ok now I got it. You value "the free software stance" above any outcome in reality.
An organization doesn't do anything for free software except of calling themselves a "free software organization" - just fine, they have the right attitude.
Debian made a whole operating system; they're the only one who offer a release with the hurd kernel;
trisquel just took a debian-based os and applied - compared to the original work of debian - minor changes.
But yes, they have the right attitude. So Trisquel is good, Debian is bad.
You're using an operating system which only exists because of the debian project.
But if you like to occupy yourself with attitudes, ok. Debian might have an open-source touch, but just look at the debian page debian.org .
They call Debian a "free OS" and give also Credit to GNU on the about page.
I don't understand the moral accusations of some members of the trisquel community towards debian; Trisquel didn't manage to do the same thing like Debian in a 100% pure and ethical way - creating a popular gnu/linux distribution *on their own*.
It's like blaming the national railroad company who built the railways because of environmental issues while driving on a tiny environmental-friendly train, feeling happy because we're behaving so ethical.
Real hypocrisy.
I am a member!
It's hard to take a strong stance against distributions that include some non-free software. Especially where the repositories are separate and disabled. Debian is far from perfect although it is enabling people to move further away from a completely non-free environment. This is particularly true compared to other distributions which include non-free software. Like other distributions Debian has a long way to go although I don't think we should be too critical. The distribution is clearly moving in that direction whereas nearly everybody else is moving in the opposite direction (towards adoption of non-free software, ie Ubuntu & Steam, etc).
RMS has argued this is bad, or has its issues in that it encourages non-free development and weakens our argument. It tells companies we are wiling to accept non-free software and thus they have no/or less incentive to release free code. I think he makes a good point here. As an example we have Steam, Adobe Flash, Oracle's Java, and numerous other non-free pieces and little to no effort is bing made to eliminate these pieces. In fact Steam is a backwards step in my mind.
I am in fact glad that Debian has taken a stronger stance against non-free software in recent releases. They are no longer including non-free pieces in the Debian kernel. That should be encouraged. They aren't doing enough mind you. The documentation should at a minimum do something to make it easier for users to opt out of non-free software (linking to h-node, fsf.org/ryf, ThinkPenguin, etc).
I would certainly not want to encourage users to adopt non-free software though and can agree the non-free repository is undesirable. I have been debating with myself the best approach here. I'm afraid we are making it too difficult for average people to take a stand against non-free software if it is completely gone as a option (yes, I think Trisquel should exclude it, as it is, despite this thought). I think RMS has to some extent made a similar point in his thoughts on Linux-libre going too far in disabling the loading of firmware when there is only non-free firmware available for a chipset (he is not saying don't exclude it from the distribution, just that it is going too far to disable it). We don't want to take away users freedom to make a bad decision. We should just not endorse/promote/etc.
With that I would like to remind/counter point here that every one of us is using non-free software (RMS and a handful of people might be an exception, although, even RMS does touch non-free software, that is not his own). There is no way to completely avoid it (short of avoiding all modern technology). Regardless of your use of Trisquel, gNewSense, or Parabola GNU/Linux.
To conclude. I don't think it is an all or nothing situation. Get yourself off as much of the non-free code as you can and help others to do the same. Not everything has to be perfect to make it clear non-free software is not the way for companies to go.
I am a member!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Generally, I agree that by distributing a non-free repository, Debian is non-free.
However, it's the closest out of all the other non-free distros to being free. It has a deblobbed kernel, and no non-free software can be installed without modifying sources.list.
In fact, it seems to me that it would be incredibly easy to produce a fully free distro based on Debian. Just mirror their repositories for Wheezy, minus non-free, and point sources.list to this mirror only. Voila! A free distro!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlIx68wACgkQgijxUCZnvlsaYwEAk7s5YURgrusc3G7zKQMKF7np
s5bmGJxdt8hTnLdUaXIA/jEa5o2cdWyxk4+tza+zYuh7UwJFX4BgQjuJjTqOv/Xy
=8fgk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am a member!
I think the distinction goes something like this:
There is right, and there is wrong. Right is right, wrong is wrong.
It's pretty hard to allow things that aren't right and still say, "I'm mostly right, I did the best I could, so I am still calling myself right.
Only right is right. Only 2+2=4, not 2+1.9999999=4, it just doesn't.
Why this matters as much as it does around here, I'm not sure. I suppose the sides are clearly drawn this way.
Personally, as I have moved toward free software, I've gotten so much of it to work, that having something non-free sort of wastes that effort. Continuing to search for or apdapt to a less than adequate free package is somehow fun...at least to me.
Some people enjoy playing games. I find the totally free pursuit enjoyable.
Along the way, I tried Debian. I even had it installed. Tried a live Trisquel USB for the 20th time or whatever and Trisquel just seemed a little faster on my machine and I thought, what the hell, why not just do 100% free software and see where that goes come what may.
My hardware is pretty free, but it's also old, and the bios isn't free, so that captures my interest...what to do there. What about newer options. Don't know yet. Again, it's fun.
As to the question of this thread, why does it matter who has the most developers? Or the least? Maybe so as to be more certain the effort put forth doesn't die because 2 people quit? We can never know how things will go, but you will always know, or should know, that doing the right thing, is never a wasted effort no matter how it may seem, no matter who may call it one. Right is right, that's all there really is.
I think the in-depth discussion about Debian (and Ubuntu) should be moved to another thread. People who are interested about this issue should open a new thread. I suggest the name 'Is Debian free software or open source software?' or 'Does the Debian project support software freedom enough?' or something like that.
It is quite interesting, that no one mentioned the official wiki page, that lists the developers:
Thanks, mYself. I'm enjoying Rubén's Harvard video at LibrePlanet 2013. All Trisquel users should watch it. :)
http://quidam.cc/
One problem that most distros saddle their users with is not being very helpful with hardware. The big source distros, for want of a better phrase, should know, from user generated feedback, which hardware will work 'out of the box', which needs non-free extras and which isn't going to work at all.
Thus, when a new user is installing a distro, a message should up along the lines of "congratulations, all your hardware will work without non-free software, this is something to be pleased about" with a file on the desktop on first boot explaining more, or "not all your hardware will work on first boot, you'll need to either enable the following source for drivers or read the text file on the desktop which will contain further instructions", or best of all "the following hardware will not work on first boot, if you are relying on this hardware for connectivity or on being able to see the desktop, then you need to do the following...". (There's nothing more frustrating than being able to see the screen whilst the installer is running, only to be presented with a black screen on first boot).
As it stands now, hordes of new users clog forums with the same questions "my mate told me this Linux thing was awesome but I have no sound/wireless/a black screen on every boot, how come?" Easily avoidable and avoidable in a way that would drive home the message far more effectively than leaving people to either find out for themselves or to run the risk of a verbal mauling at the hands of a free software zealot. (We all know the type - politically perfect but socially abrasive, they do no one's movement any favours).
Having spent the last couple or three weeks exploring the various FSF recommended distros, and with 11 years use of Gnu/Linux under my belt, I can say with some certainty that Trisquel is a mighty fine piece of work. Whether it be the work of 1 man, 100 men or 100,000.