Why is Trisquel 8 taking so long

30 replies [Last post]
William5565
Offline
Joined: 07/24/2017

Thought all they had to do was remove the proprietary bits

bobstechsite

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 12/10/2017
William5565
Offline
Joined: 07/24/2017

Oh they actually have the development image up on the download site now so thats cool hopefully it wont take much longer.

Jodiendo
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2013

William5565

Patient and give them sometime, it is on and continuous development. have faith on them to iron out the bugs.
respectfully
jodiendo

William5565
Offline
Joined: 07/24/2017

Oh I am happy to wait I just wanted to know what the development process was because I thought all they had to do was remove proprietary bits and be done with it

quantumgravity
Offline
Joined: 04/22/2013

Well, I guess that makes it sound a bit too simple.
However I'm also interested to know what's the major "blocking bug" that is keeping trisquel 8 from being released.
Anybody got some info on this?

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 07/07/2017
William5565
Offline
Joined: 07/24/2017

Thanks mason that explains some issues but is there a more technical explanation as to why it isn't so simple as to just remove proprietary bits.

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 07/07/2017

Many proprietary packages can be simply removed. Others may be need to be modified or replaced. For example, any proprietary firmware removed should be replaced with with free firmware when available so that as many devices as possible are supported. Another example is SMPLayer, which in Ubuntu (I think) includes the non-free SMTube for YouTube compatibility, while the rest of SMPLayer is free software. Rather than throw the whole thing out, it is better to rebuild it without the proprietary feature. Then there's Firefox, which is technically free software but has some problems that Abrowser attempts to address. Things like these are why removing proprietary software is not as simple as removing them from the repo. However, it seems to me that this is mostly complete and that the main issue blocking the official release is ensuring that the upgrade process from T7 to T8 is smooth no matter how T7 is configured. I'm no expert, but I wonder if replacing GNOME Fallback with MATE as the default DE makes this a particular challenge.

SuperTramp83

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 10/31/2014

I've no idea but it would seem logical to me it would be much simpler to base Triskamullo on Debian - the OS is already free and you'd just need to remove the references to non-free from the documentation. How difficult is that? No idea, again, but I imagine it would not take much effort/time.

jxself
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2010

Also swap out kernels, replace Firefox, modify the installer to get rid of those various verboten prompts, rebrand everything, and more. gNewSense is based on Debian and they have similar things to Trisquel's "Helpers", caller Builders. (I think that might be where the idea of Trisquel's Helpers came from.) Anyway, if anyone were to check them out they can see what's involved in transforming Debian. I think it does a disservice to the people that work on FSF-endorsed distros to classify their work as "just" removing the non-free stuff. Not only is it not true, because things are also changed and added, it seems to minimize & trivialize their efforts. It seems there are some that don't realize just how much work is involved in this sort of stuff which is why I point to the gNewSense Builders as an example of doing it on an even supposedly "easy" distro like Debian, where it will hopefully open eyes and cause some realization.

Sorry, Mr. Tramp this is not really directed to you. You just happened to be the one I replied to because you made it easy to start talking about Debian and then go on to the whole distro process in general.

SuperTramp83

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 10/31/2014

>Also swap out kernels

Why? The kernel is free, deblobbed.

>Replace Firefox

Icecat is already ready. No big issues, it would appear.

>modify the installer to get rid of those various verboten prompts

Never saw one, but that too wouldn't seem a big issue

>rebrand everything, and more

What exactly? That's just very vague..

>I think it does a disservice to the people that work on FSF-endorsed distros to classify their work as "just" removing the non-free stuff.

I think it does a disservice to the users to ship an old distro, oh wait, it is not ready yet - I'll correct myself - to ship an ancient distro.
(And this comes from someone who never suffered from versionitis. In fact I use only Debian Stable and always will, unless change distro, gentoo maybe, RMS concurs)

>it seems to minimize & trivialize their efforts

Not my intention. just pointing out what to me seems logical. A developer who has no time should not take the longer way 'coz you know Buguntu is more friendly and well known'..

>Sorry, Mr. Tramp this is not really directed to you.

Even if it was, why sorry? We are here to discuss openly and freely and in a, I would hope, decent if not friendly manner

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 07/07/2017

> Icecat is already ready. No big issues, it would appear.

In my experience Icecat is barely faster than Tor Browser. I don't know that everyone would accept it as a substitute for Firefox or Abrowser, at least not until ESR moves to FF60 in May. I'm looking forward to Tor Browser becoming faster then too.

jxself
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2010

">Also swap out kernels
Why? The kernel is free, deblobbed."

The request_firmware calls cause problems. Linux-libre fixes that.
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-01/msg00046.html

">rebrand everything
What exactly?"
I don't pretend to know all of the places where rebranding would be necessary, but an FSF-endorsed distro should not go around with the host distro's branding. I'm thinking user-visible things like:

The logo in the installer:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Debian-installer.png

Images in GRUB:
https://oskuro.net/blogpics/grub2-pretty-menu.png

etc.

ADFENO
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2012

> check them out they can see what's involved in transforming Debian. I
> think it does a disservice to the people that work on FSF-endorsed
> distros to classify their work as "just" removing the non-free
> stuff. Not only is it not true, because things are also changed and
> added, it seems to minimize & trivialize their efforts. It seems there
> are some that don't realize just how much work is involved in this

U fully agree with you here.

Labeling the work of free/libre system distributions as "just" removing
some stuff is oversimplified description on how much work it is.

> Sorry, Mr. Tramp this is not really directed to you. You just happened
> to be the one I replied to because you made it easy to start talking
> about Debian and then go on to the whole distro process in general.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, even Debian's "main" repository has some GNU
FSDG issues, so even if one manages to "do it yourself" the process of
disabling the other repositories, you still end up with possibly
non-free software. This in fact was (and still is?) a bad costume I'm
trying to break in the Brazilian Latin-American Free/Libre Software
Installation Festival (FLISoL, from portuguese: Festival
Latino-americano de Instalação de Software Livre) event organization
mailing list, the city-level organizers don't seem to care if their
service involves installing non-free system distributoins.

I might not be the most active developer in terms of coding, but I do
care with imagery and consistency of words.

--
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
(apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 07/24/2010

Also, if I'm not mistaken, even Debian's "main" repository has some GNU FSDG issues, so even if one manages to "do it yourself" the process of disabling the other repositories, you still end up with possibly non-free software.

https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html says:
Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system.

Is that statement is wrong? However, you may be referring to more subtle FSDG such as:

Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

It would be good to point out the precise problems programs in "main" (if there are indeed problems) and have https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html details them.

As far as I remember, "contrib" and "nonfree" are disabled by default. As a consequence, no "do it yourself" "process of disabling the other repositories" is required.

Abdullah Ramazanoglu
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2016

> As far as I remember, "contrib" and "nonfree" are disabled by default. As a consequence, no "do it yourself" "process of disabling the other repositories" is required.

I would agree to that. Unless one goes out of one's way and *add* (opposed to "enable") non-free repositories, Debian is free by default. While we are at it, it is equally possible to add non-free repositories in any distribution, including the FSF endorsed ones.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 07/24/2010

Of course it is. The opposite would mean DRM! But FSF-endorsed distributions do not steer users towards nonfree software. Here is the whole paragraph in the FSDG:

A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that are not committed to only including free software; even if they only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

Debian does not qualify because it does not respect those guidelines. However ADFENO affirms that "even Debian's "main" repository has some GNU FSDG issues".

Abdullah Ramazanoglu
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2016

> However ADFENO affirms that "even Debian's "main" repository has some GNU FSDG issues".

I would like to see them case by case basis, save "steering" users to non-free solutions, or subtle incompatibilities between DFSG and certain licenses (IIRC some man pages and other documentation were incompatible with DFSG and had to be moved into non-free repository, while they were actually free). Such minor, even pedantic, incompatibilities shouldn't be a deciding factor in gaining FSF endorsement, I think. Of course it is just how *I* think. FSF apparently thinks otherwise.

ADFENO
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2012

The Artistic License 1.0 ([1]) is considered DFSG-compliant ([2]), while
not free/libre software license ([2][3]). Software under Artistic License
1.0 are included in Debian's "main" repository ([4][5]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License#Artistic_License_1.0 .

[2] https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Artistic_License .

[3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense .

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Archive_areas .

[5] https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ .

2018-02-12T18:32:37+0100 name at domain wrote:
>> Also, if I'm not mistaken, even Debian's "main" repository has some
>> GNU FSDG issues, so even if one manages to "do it yourself" the
>> process of disabling the other repositories, you still end up with
>> possibly non-free software.
>
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html says:
> Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official
> Debian system.
>
> Is that statement is wrong? However, you may be referring to more
> subtle FSDG such as:
>
> Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins,
> documentation, and so on.
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
>
> It would be good to point out the precise problems programs in "main"
> (if there are indeed problems) and have
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html details them.
>
> As far as I remember, "contrib" and "nonfree" are disabled by default.
> As a consequence, no "do it yourself" "process of disabling the other
> repositories" is required.

--
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
(apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 07/24/2010

Oh, yes, there is that. Are there still packages under that old unclear license in Stretch?

ADFENO
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2012

> Oh, yes, there is that. Are there still packages under that old
> unclear license in Stretch?

I'm not sure, all I know is that the DFSG (D for "Debian") still accepts
that, while the GNU FSDG (F for "FSF") doesn't.

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

"GNU FSDG" stands for "GNU Free Software Distribution Guidelines". The acronym has changed multiple times, but the "F" has never stood for "FSF".

ADFENO
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2012

> "GNU FSDG" stands for "GNU Free Software Distribution Guidelines". The
> acronym has changed multiple times, but the "F" has never stood for
> "FSF".

Indeed, I'm sorry. I guess I missed the fact that I *personally* use/see
"F" as standing for "FSF". :D

Abdullah Ramazanoglu
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2016

> I've no idea but it would seem logical to me it would
> be much simpler to base Triskamullo on Debian - the
> OS is already free and you'd just need to remove
> the references to non-free from the documentation.

Bingo!

The main problem apeears that FSF has just *too strict* rules. So strict that it hinders its proprietor. I like FSF being nocompromising in freedom issues, but turning things into taboos (where one way or the other wouldn't really affect freedom) is not helping the cause either.

Here are some examples where the word "strict" convolutes into "taboo".

* Conflating the concepts of "system" and "operating system" : The OS may be free and secure, yet the system may not. E.g. any system using a proprietary CPU or any other hardware (particularly if it is network related) cannot be considered as a free and secure system. In assessing freedom of an OS, these two concepts (OS and h/w) should be clearly distinguished. Currently FSF's position is that,

"We deny closed hardware/firmware, but will use it if we don't have to it. If an OS uses a blobby hardware out of necessity without uploading its firmware, then it is OK; but if it (not run, just TOUCH, i.e. upload) the firmware, then this OS is not OK."

For something to be successful, it should sit on sound and robust logic. This logic is just buggy. Uploading a firmware to proprietary hardware, or using a ROM based proprietary hardware are 100% the same thing, both in terms of *system's freedom* and in terms of *OS freedom*. In both cases the system is non-free. In both cases the OS has nothing to do with it (except being an accomplice - but then isn't *using* a proprietary harware the same?). Forbidding upload of firmware blobs is just symbolism, and hinders FSF's end goals with really nothing tenable in return.

* Mixing hardware domain with OS domain: Although firmware is software, it still belongs to hardware domain from the OS perspective. Proprietary hardware makes the *system* proprietary, but it has no effect on the *OS* itself. Mixing these two domains in freeness assessment of an OS leads to conflictions as mentioned above.

* Firmware blobs: With a piece of proprietary hardware, it is the same non-free and non-secure system, no matter it runs off of ROM or RAM. Without a clean definition that clearly distinguishes and draws lines between the hardware, the software, overall system, and operating system; we end up logical dilemmas like above. The same goes with microcode updates.

And Debian goes so far as to exclude firmware blobs from main (even if I find it excess) but it is still not enough for FSF.

* Similar arguments go for other "verboten" things that jxself mentioned.

This may sound like criticising a decision of top echelons of FSF, but wrong is wrong - I can't help it.

In a nutshell, I think FSF should rewrite the definitions and redraw the lines between hardware domain and software domain, and between overall system freedom and operating system freedom. And then align the rules accordingly.

I had talked about it in a dedicated thread in the past, without being able to persuade anyone. With the introduction of meltdown and spectre (the necessity of microcode upgrade) and seeing that this strategy leads to a distro already ancieant before release, maybe FSF would consider this view again.

Maybe it is too late now to do anything about Flidas, but I hope Trisquel will start tailcoating Debian main from the next release on.

SuperTramp83

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 10/31/2014

Abdullah, your post was given a +1 in order to remove the -1 the ordinary usual suspect gave it WITHOUT explaining why.

I won't comment further. I see no point anyway.

Please, random usual suspect, when you feel like downvoting something that goes not against the rules of the forum and is not an obvious idiocy, take your time (and testicles) to explain the reason of your disagreement.

Abdullah Ramazanoglu
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2016

For some reason voting isn't working for me, so couldn't +1 you. Nevertheless, I wanted to explicitly thank you SuperTramp83.

Some people may feel attached to certain way of thinking (perhaps due to conditioning? I don't know) and may take a "bug report" personally and may feel pissed off - I can understand this. I didn't intend to piss off anyone, though.

Substance2004
Offline
Joined: 11/05/2013

I've installed Trisquel 8 as a double boot with Trisquel 7.

There are some good things.

But I'd like to tell to developers that the famous Handbreak is missing from the Trisquel 8 packages !
If it helps ?...

Geshmy
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2015

I installed Trisquel 8 on my laptop. The two Blocking issues that I reported are no longer a problem. I easily hooked up to hidden wifi without dhcp. And I burned a dvd. Wasn't able to do either last year. Jxself's 4.15.12 installed. Nice new wallpaper too.
Should I mark those issues as solved?

GNUbahn
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2016

Should I mark those issues as solved?

How do you do that?

Geshmy
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2015

I did it

Logged in
went to aforementioned: https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/flidas-release-issues
Select Edit button
added [Solved] to
WiFi not able to connect to Hidden network
and
Missing dependencies for CD/DVD burn software
and select Preview to see how it looks and then Save