Test trisquel 7 64bit on 8gb usb memory stick?
Can I test trisquel 7 64bit on my computer on an usb stick?
How do I test if my graphic card works like it is supposed to do?
If trisquel does not contain non free software and no mainboard works without non free software, then how can it work?
"Can I test trisquel 7 64bit on my computer on an usb stick?"
Sure.
"If trisquel does not contain non free software and no mainboard works without non free software, then how can it work?"
The mainboard will contain proprietary software in the form of the BIOS or UEFI (depending on what kind of board you have) but that doesn't mean Trisquel itself needs to contain non-free software in order to be bootable on those boards. :) The proprietary software inside the mainboard is still capable of booting 100% free GNU/Linux systems. It's just that, since the software inside the board is proprietary, it's not doing you any favors because it denies you -- the supposed board "owner" -- of the needed freedoms that you have the right to have since it's your computer.
Well technically he doesn't have the rights to those things because they were reserved by the corporation who sold him his computer, which can be a problem. It was done legally so he has no rights to say, the source code of his BIOS or the documentation necessary for making drivers, because they never agreed to give anyone such info; they reserved it to themselves. If we say we have a right to what others, no matter how rich and rude they may be, have legally reserved to themselves, doesn't that amount to stealing? We should do to others what we would have them do to us, regardless of whether they return the favour.
Wow, have you heard of the free software movement? Please check out the speeched of Richard Stallman at http://audio-video.gnu.org for some basic Free Software 101 which I'll try to cover here.
"he doesn't have the rights to those things"
On the contrary: One of the key tenets of the free software movement is that all software should be free. All as in all. :) So, I must disagree with you - They do have the right to the source code of all software that they receive so that they may have control over their computing, which brings up your next point.
"It was done legally"
It is unfortunate when people use the legal system to deny people their fundamental rights to have control over their own computing (and when this is done with the software inside medical devices that go inside your body like pacemakers and other things then you're being denied even control over your own body. See the talks that Karen Sandler has given on this topic.) Nevertheless, the free software movement says that it is wrong when someone denies someone these essential rights, even if it may be legal. That is what the movement is fighting for. Software freedom should be included in the United Nations's list of basic human rights. Let's go for it!
"If we say we have a right to what others, no matter how rich and rude they may be, have legally reserved to themselves, doesn't that amount to stealing?"
I am not referring to private copies of software, which people are entitled to, but only when that software is distributed to others. Once that happens the software should be free as to to respect the essential rights and autonomy of those that are receiving those copies.
Also, thinking that it's possible to "steal" software is a very dangerous line of thinking. See http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft
He really doesn't have the rights to those things. Yes, one of the tenets of the free software movement is that all software should be free, but not all software is free. Your assertion that everyone has a right to the source code of any software they have received implies that people are obligated to distribute the source code of anything they distribute, but that's just not true. True freedom includes the freedom to release anything you create to the public, in part or in whole, with or without explanation, with or without source code, with or without documentation, under any license you choose or no license at all, and on any time schedule you wish. Just as much as freedom allows for the existence of proprietary software, freedom allows me to abstain from all use of it.
People are not being denied a fundamental right by not being given extra information concerning the hardware or software they purchased. You rightfully said, "the free software movement says that it is wrong when someone denies someone these essential rights, even if it may be legal". The problem is, it's wrong for us to force the creator(s) or inventor(s) of anything to do anything they don't want to, no matter how much we may desire them to. It's wrong for them not to release such things, but it's wrong for anyone to force them. The major exception here in the software world is when people make derivative works from something with a copyleft license and fail to release the source code, which they're bound and obliged to do by law. But when software or hardware was never developed or released under any lax license, the maker(s) have a right to do with it what they wish, including keep it secret. I'm not defending proprietary software, I'm defending the natural God-given right to keep private or secret anything we create, just as we have the right to share anything we create.
Just because software is distributed to others doesn't mean that the software code should be free and open. Do the authors of "freeware" have no rights to privacy concerning their source code? Can they not lawfully create their own licenses that people must adhere to or face legal and financial consequences, just as the GNU project has done? When somebody insists that you have to pay for something they created, and you find some way around that but still click agree to their EULA and TOS agreements, you're using unlawfully obtained software because you're breaking the contract(s) you agreed to. Most people don't care if you say unlawfully obtained or stolen, but you seem to be different.
Regardless, I wasn't originally even speaking of stealing software, I was speaking of stealing or otherwise "unlawfully obtaining" source code and documentation that has been lawfully, though wrongfully, withheld from the users of hardware/software. Software should be free, but we can't force it. Maybe one day, all the "should be"s will become "is"s.
In these days when personal privacy and security are on the edge of being eradicated, I really think it would behove everyone to grant to others the same rights you reserve for yourself.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" - Jesus, Matthew 7:12
"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free." - Richard Stallman, GNU Initial Announcement, Sept. 27, 1983
I'd like to point out here that civilization is built on laws and regulations that force people and corporations to do things they may not want to do in order to promote common decency and the common good.
"True freedom includes..."
We're not discussing 'true freedom' but 'software freedom.' Society has rules. Just like you can't drive on any road you want in any direction you want at any speed you want at any time you want. We've decided we're better off if there are rules to follow. The free software movement is saying we're better off if people follow these rules of the road. The Trisquel project is aligned with the free software movement and we're working to spread both the software and the values. You're free to disagree, but please don't use the Trisquel project infrastructure to work against our goals in this way.