returned to trisquel7
hi
In fact there is a problem made me run away from it
http://trisquel.info/en/forum/cannot-switch-between-two-keyboard-layouts-shortcuts
but Today I returned to trisquel7
Yes, I have found a temporary solution
i installed trisquel7 in my pc
and i install trisquel6 in vm
When I want type in multiple languages i use
trisquel6 from the vm
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| returned to my Princess.png | 669.52 KB |
Welcome back.
"I'm leaving trisquel and gnu/linux altogether. (for the 3rd time) I might give open bsd a try as a desktop. I hear their founders and community leaders actually pride its default security"
if your using a bsd distro you should use liberybsd its based on openbsd but with the non-free software removed
if you want privacy you wont get it running software you cant even see the source code for
the libertybsd website is currently down for some reason but
theres a mirror here:
http://delwink.com/pub/LibertyBSD/
i am not sure if bsd is that much better than gnu/linux when it comes to privacy though
"Otherwise I'll juts stick with windows"
"since i care more about malcious hackers then I do the NSA lol. "
and you don’t class the NSA as "malicious hackers"?
also windows is a very insecure operating system in genrel
not just from the NSA
"Then there’s the difference in licensing that Linux and the BSD family use. While both use open source licenses, Linux uses the GPL which favors users by forcing developers to release any of their modifications to GPL-licensed software as open source and with the same license.
The BSD family uses the BSD license, which favors developers by allowing them to take open source software, make modifications to it, and then keep it proprietary if they wish rather than forcing them to release their changes as open source (although they still could if they wanted)."
-----------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/linux-vs-bsd-which-should-you-use/
In other words, choosing BSD is going for more security indeed (no expert, but it sounds like overkill).
But that can be argued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features
The GNU C library didn't include these functions because to them it leads to other errors.
So BSD is much less flexible, probably even more secure (but that sounds like overkill), but certainly not privacy friendly since you're at the mercy of the developer's whim.
Also I doubt Microsoft will change their ways by 2020. And they don't give a damn about your privacy. As for security, it's not as good as GNU/Linux, period.
Following your reasoning (you want more security and privacy), you don't make much sense in your choices.
But you're free to leave Trisquel if you want.
In other words, choosing BSD is going for more security indeed (no expert, but it sounds like overkill).
The quote has absolutely nothing to do with security and everything to do with licensing. I see no reason why permissively licensed software would be inherently more secure than copylefted software.
Following your reasoning (you want more security and privacy), you don't make much sense in your choices.
Indeed. Security and privacy are byproducts the freedom to study how the program works. Without it, there can be spyware. There can be backdoors. It actually is well known, either through observations or even through leaks (thank you Edward Snowden), that Windows has such malware.
Sorry, bad wording on my part. Let me clarify: I meant that following the quote on licensing AND the alleged security extras that OpenBSD seems to be known for (from the URLs), then follows the rest of my answer. I adress the licensing part later in my answer, but t should have been right after the quote.
all this talk about licensing is why i stopped going in the #gnu room on irc. I'm not interested.
As far as BSD being less private because i'm at the developers whim? How would that be diff then any o/s? At least I know the openbsd founders and community leaders take security seriously. And according to your link: "OpenBSD has a history of providing its users with full disclosure in relation to various bugs and security breaches detected by the OpenBSD team.[17] This is exemplified by the project's slogan: "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!""
As for windows, i'm not expecting windows to change its ways by 2020. I'm just going to stop using it altogether at that time. But I still feel more secure using windows, which I use for gaming, then I do gnu/linux. Maybe not against MS or gov't agents, but in regards to all other malicious hackers. Take that how you want.
Even though linux has been voted most vulnerable operating for the first time by many, these past two years, I have my own reasons for believing that. It still really boils down to what exactly you do on your computer, how much of a target you are, (everyone is one to some degree) and how capable of an administrator you are. I feel i am pretty equally capable of hardening both systems, and I have my own reasons for believing as I do.
I shall see how I fair with openbsd now.
If you're concerned about security, try Qubes OS.
The dev of that distro messaged me one time asking me to try it out. But I have never tried it yet. Vms and tor don't sound like an enjoyable experience, but the real reason is i feel I would rather have a real test machine to install it on which I don't have available at the moment. Or I probably would give it a shot now.
It's really easy to use, and Tor is optional (not default) - Maybe you're thinking of Whonix?
I don't think its something I can test properly in a vm. I need a test machine. Hmm maybe i am thinking of whonix. But i'm pretty sure it was the dev from qubes who messaged me. I could be wrong.
Linux voted as the most vulnerable OS? No, it's about the kernel, and even that is a wrong representation.
Here's an interesting quote: "The reason why only Linux Kernel and Apple OS X are listed at the top is because the number of vulnerabilities that specifically apply to other Linux distributions (like Red Hat, Debian, etc.) is lower than the number of vulnerabilities that apply to the operating systems already listed.
For example (...):
Ubuntu
39 total vulnerabilities 7 high severity 27 medium severity 5 low severity"
----------
http://www.gfi.com/blog/most-vulnerable-operating-systems-and-applications-in-2014/
Also, the vast majority of security holes are not related to the OS. The user is always the weakest link.
don't do stupid shit, and even on Windows you should be ok against malicious hackers.
----------
http://www.csoonline.com/article/2137210/security-awareness/studies-prove-once-again-that-users-are-the-weakest-link-in-the-security-chain.html
On the other hand, on Windows you'll have all your life recorded by corporations and governments. You won't even have control of your own data. And it's clearly written in their licence, or whatever is that thing you click "I agree" on.
With free software, you are not at the developer's whim thanks to the licensing.
It means that legally, you and others can know how it's made under the hood.
That's a level of control that you don't have in OpenBSD if the developer makes his code private.
A free software developer can't change his mind and make his code private after licencing it as free software.
That boring licencing stuff is exactly what protects your privacy.
But again, do what you want. It's your life.
All I know is that your feelings about GNU/Linux security in general are not justified.
And for privacy, Windows is obviously one of the worst choices. OpenBSD isn't a great one, but not as bad I guess.
That's a level of control that you don't have in OpenBSD if the developer makes his code private.
A free software developer can't change his mind and make his code private after licencing it as free software.
The author of any program can change her mind about its licensing. For better or worse. What you probably mean is that any third person can take permissively licensed code and turn it proprietary (after modification or not).
Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I made a couple of assumptions here.
So the software heritage can be turned proprietary by anyone if it's not free software (copyleft) but under a permissive free software license.
and the copyleft author can change his mind. That's surprising (but it's not like I understand how licensing works in general).
It is not hard: if you are the author of some work, you can distribute copies under the terms of whatever license you want. You can even choose different licenses for different people. And you can change your mind along time.
Both copylefted licenses and permissive licenses are free software licenses. However permissive license allow anyone (not the sole authors) to redistribute the work (modified or not) under the terms of any license. Potentially a proprietary license. It is like a man-in-the-middle attack on the freedoms: someone who receives freedoms can strip them out before redistribution. On the contrary, the copyleft forces the redistribution of the work (or any derivatives of it) under the same terms.
It's worth clarifying that the author changing the license doesn't affect the license of the copy you got before that happened, i.e. it doesn't cause that license to be revoked. So if Linux were made proprietary tomorrow, it would still be perfectly legal to continue to distribute the version that was released under the GNU GPL, under those same terms.
Its mostly because of things like shellshock and heartbleed, Things like jellyfish etc... linux is becoming more and more of a viable target for the big fish.
As far as corporations and gov'ts recording my life on windows, I don't think it makes any diff what o/s I use as long as I browse the web and have accounts online, and don't encrypt all my connections. And as far as backdoors in windows, i have a feeling its overrated especially with no real proof. The only backdoor i know of for sure that gets exploited on me, is in my router.
So, to sum up, you "piss off people on the internet" and demand a system that will allow you to do that anonymously. You "don't encrypt" and say that "tor don't (sic) sound like an enjoyable experience". You now leave GNU/Linux and goes back to Windows because privacy is not the "raison d'être" of free software (only a byproduct of freedom 1) and "backdoors in Windows are overrated".
You have serious logical issues...
Windows has backdoors. At least since Windows 98: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html
Shellshock, heartbleed & co. have nothing to do with Linux. Linux is the kernel.
You're missing the point, which is predictable. Its not about pissing people off anonymously. I'm using the same screen name i've had since junior high, since before aol. The only other account i've had registered on freenode was my real name. I registered on this forum with my full name.
And as for me "not encrypting", its impossible have full encrypted communications unless everyone you communicate with is encrypting too.
No tor, is not an enjoyable experience. I'm not about total anonymity, I never was, maybe because I've always been against cheaters in video games. Although, since sameer-isa decloaked me in the irc room, i've only used tor since, to log into the trisquel webiste...lol
GNU/Linux has been a viable target for years; last time I checked, most servers ran GNU/Linux. That's why Heartbleed and Shellshock were a huge deal.
If you honestly think that Windows doesn't have occasional bugs like this, you're naïve. In fact, we don't even know how many vulnerabilities Windows has had, because there's no guarantee that Microsoft is going to report the existence of one they discover and patch before anyone else notices. All software has bugs, and security vulnerabilities being caused by bugs is a simple fact of life.
I'm only telling you of my personal experience.
Shellshock and Heartbleed are your personal experience? Your computer has been attacked by people via these vulnerabilities? That must mean you run an OpenSSL server, though I can't imagine why you would do that, and that you're automatically executing commands in Bash based on information you get from the Internet, which again, I can't imagine a reason for a regular desktop user to do.
Who voted? I doubt they are security experts...
> Those are partly why gnulinux has been voted most vulnerable operating system
> since 2013.
Evidence, please.
> my windows hasn't been destroyed since windows xp.
That's because your Windows is 'destroyed' by default. Outside bodies control
your computer from day one with Windows, and I'm surprised you don't seem to
recognise this fact.
> the nsa is more likley to compromise their system
The NSA has control over your computer from day one with Windows. It is
compromised by default. There is a 100% chance of the NSA compromising your
computer, and there is a 100% chance of the NSA taking whatever it can get and
stuffing it in a database because that is what the NSA *does*. How is this not
malicious?
Now that we've established that, which is more secure? Windows, which is
compromised from day one not only by Microsoft and the megacorporations, but
also the NSA and the intelligence apparatus, as well as providing shit security
against the common hacker and/or virus.
GNU, on the other hand, is free not only from corporate and government control,
but also provides pretty damn good security against hackers, and is practically
invulnerable to viruses.
"all this talk about licensing is why i stopped going in the #gnu room on irc. I'm not interested."
--I understand. Intellectual enrichment isn't interesting to most people.
"As far as BSD being less private because i'm at the developers whim? How would that be diff then any o/s?"
--BSD programs can easily be made proprietary, binary-only, programs. This doesn't make OpenBSD have less "privacy," it just means derivatives may allow you less freedoms, and hypothetically, privacy.
"This is exemplified by the project's slogan: 'Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!'"
--In the **default install**. If you only use the default software (Not enough for a desktop OS), then yes, OpenBSD is more secure than GNU/Linux and Windows. But you aren't going to only use the default install, I can guarantee you that. You're going to use third-party software from the ports tree, which is pretty much going to compromise the extra security gained from using OpenBSD in the first place. For desktops, GNU/Linux and OpenBSD are just about equivelent for security.
"As for windows, i'm not expecting windows to change its ways by 2020. I'm just going to stop using it altogether at that time. But I still feel more secure using windows, which I use for gaming, then I do gnu/linux."
--You feel more secure using Windows? Why? You already know that you're leaving gaping holes for the NSA and Microsoft-- that's the complete opposite of safe! What doublethink!
"Even though linux has been voted most vulnerable operating for the first time by many, these past two years, I have my own reasons for believing that."
--Was that supposed to be a sentence?
" It still really boils down to what exactly you do on your computer, how much of a target you are, (everyone is one to some degree) and how capable of an administrator you are."
--Indeed it does boil down to what you do. If you run proprietary software on your computer, for example, you are much more vulnrable to domestic and third-party attacks than with free software.
"I shall see how I fair with openbsd now."
--Good luck. You should use LibertyBSD, rather than OpenBSD, though. LibertyBSD is wholly free, and doesn't use and non-free firmware blobs.
I have a mirror up here: http://jadedmeta.net/mirrors/libertybsd/
EDIT: Wow, I'm being a jerk today. Sorry, cool.
I am a translator!
cool
A default install and throughly audited code, is the core base foundation of any secure system to be built on. I mean to say its pointless we might as well go so far as to say why use any security, or why even use gnulinux, since we can all be possibly socially engineered.
I'm not worried as much about the NSA or or MS, I guess because unlike most of you nerds who live in a bubble, I actually have gotten hacked from pissing people off online. I've known professional criminals who have hacked people for a living. I have gotten major historic viruses since I was a child.... the govt and microsoft are the least of my worries because I am a conscious individual. Judge things for yourself not by what others tell you.
You guys will say i'm just a paranoid and delusional noob, but thats how I feel about you.
I'm going with openbsd, because its devs pride themselves in their security. Who knows, I might not like it and stick with my hardened trisquel until something better comes along.
>all this talk about licensing is why i stopped going in the #gnu room on irc. I'm not interested.
Then according to your own interests, you should stop “going here” as well, because you will find mostly the same attitude regarding licensing. If you can't grasp the importance of licensing, then #gnu is no worser without you.
>But I still feel more secure using windows, which I use for gaming, then I do gnu/linux.
Then use it if you judge it apropriate. You can find plenty of arguments and evidence to the contrary using a search engine. We (free software enthusiast, security researchers, plain users, and so) sometimes post our experience and the inferences made thereof in the hope it is useful, but hardly anybody is going to try to fix your reasoning if you do not want to listen.
Also, you should learn the meaning of the words you use before you use them. Here you should have used “than”, not “then”.
I'm curious as to what contradictions you speak of...
People like Supertramp83, Calinou, Basstard, using debian, and/or proprietary drivers. Tellin new users in the irc room that trisquel is not good enough for them to use.
People like jxself and others linking me rms videos and gnu documentation, and claiming using free software for privacy and security reasons is not as important as the "ethical" reasons. Even though thats why most people would want to use it over the alternatives.
Being unable to express what the "ethical" reasons are themselves, when to me I interpret not "having full control over software you own" and "being able to share it with others", being "unethical" for security and privacy reasons just as much as any other reason.
When there is a community of people that seem to be against themselves and standing for nothing, its no wonder why the rest of society can't respect it or take it as seriously as other projects or movements.
> "People like Supertramp83, Calinou, Basstard, using debian, and/or proprietary drivers."
I can't vouch for Basstard, but I'm almost certain that Calinou and Supertramp aren't using proprietary drivers. They may be using Debian, however. Debian is a great fully free distribution, just like Trisquel, as long as you don't enable the non-free repository.
> "People like jxself and others linking me rms videos and gnu documentation, and claiming using free software for privacy and security reasons is not as important as the 'ethical' reasons. Even though thats why most people would want to use it over the alternatives."
Um, that's not contradictory at all. The free software movement is primarily about ethics, with practicality, security, and privacy being great side-effects.
> "Being unable to express what the 'ethical' reasons are themselves, when to me I interpret not 'having full control over software you own' and 'being able to share it with others', being 'unethical' for security and privacy reasons just as much as any other reason."
OK. You have a differing view. That doesn't make their statements contradictory.
> "When there is a community of people that seem to be against themselves and standing for nothing, its no wonder why the rest of society can't respect it or take it as seriously as other projects or movements."
Considering your prior statements, it seems to me that you have a weak understanding of the free software movement...
1. You're wrong. Calinou admits it openly, he uses proprietary nvidia drivers, because he claims he can't run xonotic without it. Which i find hard to believe since I can run it with nouveau drivers on my gtx 650 perfectly fine. And when the game depends more on cpu then anything and I have a crappy amd phenom 2.8ghz he has an i7 lol.
And like supertramp he uses debian, which super tramp has told me himself, Supertramp never used trisquel for more then a couple months, because it is not popular enough for him. Which means he must be emabarrased to use it. Or probably for prop vid drivers, which like calinou, he believes he needs for his gaming. Although hes told me he uses debian cause its more popular, w/e the heck that means...
As for basstard, Im only guessing he doesn't use trisquel only because of his actions in the room in how he demeans trisquel all the time. How he puts down francis and calls him a liar, which francis seems to like and how he does nothing but complain that trisquel is horrible to use.
2. As far as the claim to "ethics" as being more important then practicality, functionality, security and privacy... I feel they are all one and the same! Any of them is a reason is just as important as the other, and a reason to use free software. To claim otherwise for the sake of argument is just bigoted!
3. Again, claiming their views are more important then mine, comes off self righteous.
4. I think its own members don't understand what they stand for, want to be considered different for the sake of it, and thats why society doesn't respect it like it should.
> Calinou admits it openly, he uses proprietary nvidia drivers, because he claims he can't run xonotic without it. Which i find hard to believe since I can run it with nouveau drivers on my gtx 650 perfectly fine. And when the game depends more on cpu then anything and I have a crappy amd phenom 2.8ghz he has an i7 lol.
I haven't seen Calinou say this, and I don't know if what you say is true. But let's suppose it is, at least until Calinou clarifies.
Firstly, if Calinou wants 3-D acceleration, it's hardly unethical for him to get it from a proprietary driver. It's almost entirely harming himself, not others. Xonotic is a libre game and doesn't require any proprietary software, or any hardware that requires proprietary software (I'm pretty sure it would run just fine on a Libreboot X200).
Secondly, Nouveau doesn't work well for all Nvidia cards. The effort is largely hit-and-miss; it's reverse-engineering, after all. In fact, future Nvidia cards won't even be able to theoretically work with libre software, because Nvidia has started to require signed firmware with Maxwell GPUs.
Thirdly, Xonotic doesn't work well at all without 3-D hardware acceleration. It can actually be quite demanding, depending on how high you have the settings turned up to.
> How he puts down francis and calls him a liar, which francis seems to like
That little bit gave me a chuckle.
If I posted the chat logs you would probably lie to yourself anyways. Tell me if you want me to and I will.
I get 3d acceleration fron nouveau. He doesn't need the prop drivers with his i7. And he harms the community when he promotes them in #trisquel. Another reason he uses debian is for non free modules for his vbox.
Thirdly, i'm a gamer, I live for fps games and i'm known in many communities. And i have no issues playing xonotic with my nouveau driver. Because what matters more is your cpu, and Calinou has an i7!! gimme a break.
As far as francis, i found it sad that francis doesn't even stick up for himself, and says hes known basstard for a long time and likes him talking to him like that because it motivates him. I find it crazy that he says himself he is pessimistic about free firmware. I mean no wonder purism gets more sponsorships. That was the last straw for me man lol. I can't be around you nuts. No wonder Supertramp is embarrassed to use trisquel.
I am a translator!
>Supertramp never used trisquel for more then a couple months, because it is not popular enough for him
Never told you so. In fact I was using Trisquel exclusively for 5 months straight.
Again, let's just ignore and not feed this troll
5 months? thats all you lasted?
And you indeed told me you don't use trisquel cause its not popular enough. What kind of reason is that for not using it. It doesn't even make any sense. Shame on you for being such a wussy. Be a fkn man. I heard the same thing from Calinou. But he admitted his real reasons. Prop drivers. I assume the same for you because popularity is a pretty shallow illogical reason. You think debian is better cause its more "popular" lol gimme a break.
Why are you here? To feed your ego thinking you a helping the lowly nooby trisquel users? You're a fraud.
People like jxself and others linking me rms videos and gnu documentation, and claiming using free software for privacy and security reasons is not as important as the "ethical" reasons.
You do not get it. Free software is developed in the interest of the users because the users are in control (the whole objective of the four freedoms). If the users want programs that are secure and respectful of their privacy, they will get it. Anyone among those users is free to work on that or they can contract any third developer to work on that. In other words, privacy and security are features. Like having a nice GUI or the support for a new format.
The free software movement is not focusing on any specific features. It is more fundamental than that. If, like you claim, "most people" want secure and privacy-respecting software then that is what free software becomes because free software is developed in the interest of the users. Not in the interest of large corporations.
Being ethical is a property, not a feature.
One should know how to define why something is ethical and why its not. To me that would also define the reasons for using free software. "ethics" is not a reason unless you can explain why something would be "unethical"
My point is, to say to someone that their reasons for using free software is not a good reason, and its more about the ethics. Explains nothing but self righteousness and alienates your community from the rest of society.
One should know how to define why something is ethical and why its not.
No. Any reasoning is ultimately based on principles that are not explainable (in mathematics, they are called axioms; in ethics, they are principles). Just try to tell me why users deserve privacy and you will see that your ultimate explanation will be "because it is right".
I gave you my reasons, privacy and security. Proprietary software is more likely to log keystrokes, spy on data, and those companies are more likely to sell information on you to data brokers, or ad companies. They are also more likely to install backdoors under pressure...etc.. These are not principles, they are real tangible things society can understand.
When you say these things are not as important as "ethics", when in fact they would define ethics, you are come off as being under a false sense of importance and entitlement.
I gave you my reasons, privacy and security.
I asked you to tell me why users deserve privacy. Your answer basically is "for privacy". You do not have any deeper explanation. It is a principle. And I hope you now realize that any argument boils down to principles. That you were wrong to mock ethics.
You then list applications of the principles. We did the same to show you that the users controlling the software has real impacts. For instance that they can correct any bug or implement any missing feature.
These are not principles, they are real tangible things society can understand.
They are principles. Applications of principles are tangible. Free software principles really empower the users. In practice. And society can understand those principles.