Google Chrome
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I tried to install Google Chrome (.deb file) on Trisquel 7, and I installed it without problems. But I have doubt: are users allowed to install non-free-software on completly free distributions?
They are allowed to do so, but they shouldn't do it.
What's wrong with Abrowser? At the very least, use Chromium or Iridium.
They're not forbidden from doing it. It's just that the distro itself doesn't package nonfree software.
Yeah, if you were forbidden to install any program, the OS would not be libre. If it's your computer, you have a moral right to control what it does. Of course, a proprietary program violates this right, which is why you ought not to use it.
To be honest I didn't want to install Chrome instead of Abrowser. I just wanted to know if it's allowed to install non-free software. In this case you are completely free, which it means that you can install whatever you like, but the operating system has no proprietaries repository and the kernel is completely free. Am I right?
Right. Trisquel doesn't actively prevent you from installing any software. It wouldn't even be possible to design an OS that restricts what you can install without being a jail (like iOS), and to do that would be horribly unethical, difficult to do, and ineffective, because you would be able to just modify the source code.
You could install anything you want on Trisquel, Whenever it's Chrome, Steam, or any other non-free program the FSF condemns. There's nothing stopping you. But then Trisquel does not become a 100% Libre OS
The difference between running a distro like Ubuntu or a distro like Trisquel is that with Trisquel you have to make a conscious decision installing non-free software and you know you are compromising. With Ubuntu you are not aware you are running proprietary software because Ubuntu helps its users to be unaware.
If you have been brought up in a prison but not being told you have (Truman show??), you are not aware you are enslaved and believe that what you experience is freedom but in reality you have no idea what true freedom is and are totally unaware of that it exist. As with societies today where most people believe they live in freedom where they get some mouldy bred crumbs called health care, state sponsored media, free school that is in most cases crap. People hasnt been told that dying of a sickness in 80 years of age is unnatural so people believe it is supposed to be that way. Normal is the new natural in todays sick and distorted world.
Why try to make something better when you BELIVE it cant get better?
Open source supporters are unaware of the difference between open source and free software. Open source can be called a big con. Open source ideology is better then proprietary software but open source is also a dead end that will for freedom because it is constantly compromising and never saying no to bad proprietary implementations but instead often saute them. As with Linux Action Show that is supporting and using Lightworks that is a proprietary video editor on GNU/Linux.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires