Trisquel Mini on a netbook with 700MHz CPU and 512MB RAM
I am looking forward to buy this very affordable netbook(http://idasystems.net/products/smartbook) which is a bit low on specs. It cums with a custom distro based on Ubuntu Mavericks that obviously does not suit me and is certainly outdated. I am playing with Trisquel Mini on my PC and I noticed I can make it run using about 150MB RAM if I switch from LightDM to LxDM. CPU usage was also minimal. Then it dawned on me that I did not check them during the installation process. So I booted again from a Live USB. Sadly RAM and CPU usage increases by a large margin when the installer configures the system. Any workaround?
Would it help to connect a video card via PCI express (?) like those guys were talking about in the other thread? Is there a way to use USB memory as RAM? Sorry if this cannot assist installation ... I don't know how these things work.
http://trisquel.info/en/forum/external-graphics-card-laptop
Did anyone notice this about onetech's computer:
"Copyleft Plans (CC BY-SA): Free plans to manufacture the device"
http://idasystems.net/why_open_hardware
Once manufactured, how does the firmware get on there? Can anyone make firmware for it?
I think so. It was originally developed by genesi under the name Efika MX. Genesi has discontinued the product. Now, IDA Systems are selling it under the name IDA Smartbook.
http://genesi.company/products/smartbook
Is ARM potentially good for liberty, where the design is available and anyone can make and install the firmware?
If anyone can make and install the firmware, is it correct that anyone can remove and replace the firmware?
I don't have the knowledge to answer the first question. As far as the second question is considered, see this link. http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Ben_NanoNote
It is a similar device. Not using ARM, though but certainly is released under same licenses.
That's an ARM notebook. Is it really feasible to run Trisquel on an ARM system? I thought only x86 binaries were provided in the repos.
You can't run Trisquel on ARM machines, I'm afraid.
Debian, however, is an option for ARM.
If there was a way to run Trisquel on ARM, you could use netinstall, rather than the GUI installer.
You are right. Debian can run on ARM machines. This page has everything I need to know. https://wiki.debian.org/EfikaMX
This is a more pleasant surprise.
"Konstantinos Margaritis has provided more recent Wheezy and Jessie images.(http://www.freevec.org/content/efikamx_updated_wheezy_and_jessie_images_available)"
Sadly, it is true that I can't run Trisquel on it. I was stupid not to look into the architecture. Thanky you everyone ,though.
Thank you, you has helped a lot! I am with a WM8650 andtrying to install free software in it.
Look, unfortunately Trisquel would not be running on this EPC Smartbook (chinese), so Debian must get it?
What there's in these architectures that FSF doesn't support?
There has been lengthy discussion on this in other threads, here:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/what-repositories-debian-8-are-free-software
...and here:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/difference-between-linux-libre-kernel-and-debian-main-kernel
The TL;DR, according the FSF:
>> Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database.
There is also a “contrib” repository; its packages are free, but some of them exist to load separately distributed proprietary programs. This too is not thoroughly separated from the main Debian distribution.
Previous releases of Debian included nonfree blobs with Linux, the kernel. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011, these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate packages in the nonfree repository. However, the problem partly remains: the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine. <<
People always say that the debian installer recommends non-free firmware.
However, whenever I installed it on notebooks with wifi chips dependant on non-free firmware, it never recommended anything.
The wifi just didn't work, and that's it.
I heard other people here saying the same thing.
Maybe it's more of a rumour than a fact.
It certainly does or at least did, e.g.
(might need to use "expert install")
If you really need to use "expert install", there is in my view no problem whatsoever.
An expert knows what he is doing; offering the possibility to install non-free software is imo only a problem if unexperienced users end up doing so by mistake, because they don't know better.
My freedom is not threatened by an offer to install nonfree firmware. I can just click "no", and that's it.
A lot of people think that "optionally free is not enough" (please don't link to the gnu page, i already know it).
I think that's partly true and partly wrong.
Is the freedom by default or somehow hidden deep down in a list of options? Is it difficult to stay free because the software repository is misleading, or the operating system is _endorsing/advertising_ the use of non-free software (in the sense like "yay, it's great... forget about freedom")
Then I think "optionally free is not enough".
Otherwise i don't think so.
Just because another option appears on my list of options, my freedom is not at stake. I can just choose to not use it.
If somebody disagrees here, he has to think about the consequences:
We would become more and more free if proprietary options that we don't even use died out.
That's nonsense.
Edit: put this in the wrong place ... I replied to onetech instead
I am a translator!
People always say that the debian installer recommends non-free firmware.
However, whenever I installed it on notebooks with wifi chips dependant on non-free firmware, it never recommended anything.
The wifi just didn't work, and that's it.
I heard other people here saying the same thing.
Maybe it's more of a rumour than a fact.
Debian doesn't recommend anything (at least the two I used - 7 and 8)
I can confirm, having it installed on several computers and with several components that would require non-free firmware to function properly, that it never ever recommended the installation of the proprietary firmware, not during, not after the installation.
If you really need to use "expert install", there is in my view no problem whatsoever.
An expert knows what he is doing; offering the possibility to install non-free software is imo only a problem if unexperienced users end up doing so by mistake, because they don't know better.
My freedom is not threatened by an offer to install nonfree firmware. I can just click "no", and that's it.
exactly.
I have to admit I mostly side with the opinion that Debian's expert mode installer making that offer isn't a problem. It's not like it gives you a button that installs the firmware for you; it just tells you the name of the firmware needed and says you can provide it if you have it. The only particular problem there is that listing the exact name of the firmware sort of reads like a recommendation, but the thing is, the way Linux works, you need to know that name to put any firmware there -- even libre firmware you may have.
If Linux were modified so that these file name associations were in a config file somewhere, and the installer just told you that firmware is missing and included instructions to define what the firmware file should be, then it would be perfect.
People always say that the debian installer recommends non-free firmware.Did you use the netinstall?
However, whenever I installed it on notebooks with wifi chips dependant on non-free firmware, it never recommended anything.
The wifi just didn't work, and that's it.
how about using vrms and the trisquelize script to remove all the non-free components from that system? I know we can't isntall trisquel packages into it, because of the different architecture, but maybe removing the non-free components would be enough? Ubuntu is the basis for Trisquel after all...?
It would certainly not be good enough anyway... just a though :)