I think the Raptor machines run Trisquel
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I messaged the Raptor people asking what OSes they support to which I got the answer:
"Our systems are compatible with most Linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, CentOS, Gentoo, SuSE, etc.) and also there is initial support in the development versions of FreeBSD. "
I then sent them a question back asking that if it's working on Ubuntu, does that mean that it also works on Trisquel. Waiting for answer :)
If it turns out that the Raptor machines is compatible with Trisquel, wouldn't that effectively make them the "most free" and "most powerful" hardware to buy these days?
> Our systems are compatible with most Linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, CentOS, Gentoo, SuSE, etc.) and also there is initial support in the development versions of FreeBSD.
That is a new piece of information to me. Raptor replied me, the
talos computers can run debian.
You do know the talos computers are powerpc computers, not x86? From
the outset powerpc computers were made to be free software
computers.
Contrary to the free software x86 computers which are available.
I do not know if the talos computers have an embedded controller
running non free software. If not, then talos computers are
better.
> if it's working on Ubuntu, does that mean that it also works on Trisquel. Waiting for answer :)
If it turns out that the Raptor machines is compatible with Trisquel, wouldn't that effectively make them the "most free" and "most powerful" hardware to buy these days?
Trisquel is a stupid matter. Debian makes a free software system.
Ubuntu adds non free software. Trisquel then removes the non
free software. Some people on this forum have a groveling
loyalty towards trisquel. Which they are entitled to have. What
I resent is if people are not accurate about other software
systems.
When I read your post I get the impression that you believe it
is required that a computer runs trisquel in order to be the
most free software computer. That is not correct. Either
the software on your computer is free software or it is not.
Trisquel is not better on free software than other free
software systems. I do not know if you get non free software on
your powerpc computer if you install a powerpc version of
ubuntu? If you do not then your powerpc is a free software
computer. Installing trisquel does not make it more free software. Same thing if you install a free software debian version.
The fact that fsf will not ryf certify the debian or ubuntu
computer does not make the trisquel computer more free
software. Talos enables you to get a free software computer. It is
the only new computer giving you that option. And talos
computers are the only computers on the market which from
getting shipped from the manufacturer are willfully free software
computers. Only due to the price I do not have a talos computer. I
think that is the case for several people on this forum and
elsewhere.
Why should trisquel not be able to run on a talos computer? Are
there technical reasons why trisquel cannot be ported to the
powerpc system?
> Ubuntu adds non free software. Trisquel then removes the non free software.
Ubuntu does add nonfree software, but it also adds free software. Trisquel removes the nonfree software and keeps the free software. This does not make Trisquel more free than Debian, but it has practical benefits. I don't think that's stupid.
> Debian makes a free software system.
Debian follows the DFSG, whereas Trisquel follows the FSDG. Both are concerned with freedom, but the FSDG has some requirements that the DFSG does not.
The DFSG only requires that software in the default distribution (Debian main) be under free licenses. It is not a violation if some of this software recommends nonfree software (nonfree Firefox addons, Pocket, nonfree snaps) as long as the software recommending it is free. The DFSG also allows documentation that helps users install nonfree software.
Like the DFSG, the FSDG also does not allow nonfree software in the default distribution. However, it also says not to guide users toward nonfree software, so Trisquel prevents software like Firefox from recommending nonfree software, and Trisquel does not provide a nonfree repository with documentation helping to install it.
If your opinion is that the DFSG is good enough and the additional requirements of the FSDG are unnecessary, then Debian is a good distro for you. Some people prefer the FSDG, so Trisquel is a good distro for them. It is not "groveling loyalty," just different values.
> What I resent is if people are not accurate about other software systems.
If someone says that Debian does not follow the DFSG, then they are being inaccurate. I haven't seen anyone claim that, though. If they say that Debian guides users toward nonfree software, then they are being accurate. That's fine. Debian has the right to choose what guidelines to follow, and guiding users toward nonfree software is not against the DFSG.
> Why should trisquel not be able to run on a talos computer? Are there technical reasons why trisquel cannot be ported to the powerpc system?
I hope it does eventually. If Grevengull is correct that Ubuntu supports powerpc, then I see no reason Trisquel can't. It just hasn't been done yet.
> I do not know if you get non free software on your powerpc computer if you install a powerpc version of ubuntu?
If you install Ubuntu, then you will have nonfree software on your computer. That doesn't make the Talos nonfree, though. If Talos can run Debian main, then it works with free software.
While I do understand where you are coming from and all your arguments, I would advice you to calm down a bit for other's sake and for yourself.
I am not that technical, but I am deeply fond of the ideas behind free software, that's why I use Trisquel and that's why I frequent this forum.
Trisquel is very friendly towards non-technical people, and the fact that it is proposed by FSF and you don't have to do anything in order to have a completely free OS makes it easy for non-techs.
Please try to not read too much into posts and assume things like "When I read your post I get the impression that you believe it
is required that a computer runs trisquel in order to be the
most free software computer."
This is only stressful to you and others.
Please stay on topic :)
While that it said, I do indeed understand all your logic and arguments, I am simply suggesting you calm down a bit champ.
> Debian follows the DFSG, whereas Trisquel follows the FSDG. Both are concerned with freedom, but the FSDG has some requirements that the DFSG does not.
You are right. I left out that part which was a mistake. Instead I will write
you may use, share, modify and redistribute the software. Because fsdg is what
counts and fsf defines fsdg a trisquel system will be more free than a debian
system. By that standard debian is not free software. What I have opposed and
will continue doing so is, if someone claims that debian main contains software
which you may not use, share, modify and redistribute.
If someone says trisquel is not fsdg free software I will rebut him. If someone
says, debian main contains software you may not use, share, modify and redistribute
then everyone should rebute him. Not defending debian is a disloyal act regarding
software you may use, share, modify and redistribute.
> This does not make Trisquel more free than Debian, but it has practical benefits. I don't think that's stupid.
Would it not be more efficient if there was a cooperation between trisquel and debian such
that trisquel would get the software before any non free software gets added? Is
removing the non free software a small task? If not then adding and removing the
same software is stupid and ought to be avoided. Why can't it be avoided?
Why is trisquel derived from ubuntu and not debian?
> adds free software.
Could trisquel not deal with that part of the configuration by providing a script which
people would then run if they wanted to?
Would it not save costs?
I asked fsf to tell all and every cost fsf defrey regarding trisquel for the years
2016 and 2017? And I asked how many use trisquel or how may they think
use trisquel? I got no answers.
If the costs are significantly and there are few trisquel users, then fsf should
not engage in trisquel. Stallman told me, fsf will not obtain a talos computer
because fsf already has free software computers and a talos computer
would be too expensive. There are other free software systems
than trisquel. If trisquel gets money from fsf, it should stop.
> If you install Ubuntu, then you will have nonfree software on your computer.
Would that be drivers, firmware or what you call it, which would make various
devices run on the talos computer, because the powerpc architecture does
not require non free software?
> Please try to not read too much into posts and assume things like "When I read your post I get the impression that you believe it
is required that a computer runs trisquel in order to be the
most free software computer."
You are right. I should not have written it. It has happened that it has been said that debian
contains software which you may not use, share, modify and redistribute. I thought
it happened again.
> Trisquel is very friendly towards non-technical people
It should be friendly towards all. Which has not always been the case.
> adding and removing the
same software is stupid and ought to be avoided. Why can't it be avoided?
>Why is trisquel derived from ubuntu and not debian?
It is not "adding and removing the same software." Ubuntu also adds free software that Trisquel does not remove. If Trisquel were based on Debian, it would not benefit from Ubuntu's improvements over Debian. Ubuntu is a more beginner-friendly distro than Debian, and being based on Ubuntu is partly why Trisquel is beginner-friendly. Non-hackers deserve freedom too, so it is important that there is an easy-to-use free distro.
>> If you install Ubuntu, then you will have nonfree software on your computer.
> Would that be drivers, firmware or what you call it, which would make various
> devices run on the talos computer
No, the Talos does not require non-free software. If it did then Debian would not run on it without non-free/contrib enabled. However, Ubuntu includes non-free software, so you will have non-free software on your computer if you install Ubuntu, even if that computer is a Talos.
> Stallman told me, fsf will not obtain a talos computer
> because fsf already has free software computers and a talos computer
> would be too expensive.
That sounds reasonable to me. The FSF doesn't have a lot of money, so it would be unwise to spend a money on a new computer if there is nothing wrong with the computers they already have. Maybe if they ever do need new computers in the future then they will buy from them Raptor.
> If trisquel gets money from fsf, it should stop.
Trisquel is very important and it would be great if the FSF could help fund it, but I don't think the FSF has enough money to do so even if they want to. You claimed in another thread also that Trisquel receives money from the FSF and I already told you that this is not true.
If someone says, debian main contains software you may not use, share, modify and redistribute then everyone should rebute him.
Nobody said that. However, a case can be made w.r.t. the Artistic License 1.0 (and, I guess, a few other uncommon licenses): Debian considers it DFSG-compliant; the FSF does not consider it FSDG-compliant.
Would it not be more efficient if there was a cooperation between trisquel and debian such that trisquel would get the software before any non free software gets added?
As chaosmonk told you: Ubuntu adds free software too. And it improves upon Debian's package (see the word "ubuntu" in the versions of many packages that Trisquel ships). Most package helpers written by Trisquel developers remove recommendations for proprietary software. Those recommendations are present in Debian. Ubuntu does not add them.
Notice also that Debian's separation between main and non-free is not much better than Ubuntu's separation between main/universe and restricted/multiverse. I mentioned the Artistic License 1.0 above but the reverse "misclassification" (from FSDG's perspective) is more common: Debian considers the GNU FDL with invariant section(s) (typically the GNU manifesto) nonfree.
If not then adding and removing the same software is stupid and ought to be avoided. Why can't it be avoided?
I do not know what you are talking about. Care to give examples of Trisquel reverting changes that Ubuntu introduces?
Why is trisquel derived from ubuntu and not debian?
It used to. According to quidam (Trisquel's leader) when the switch was made (I hope I remember well), it was because Ubuntu has more and more recent free software than Debian stable. That is still true. Also, gNewSense is based on Debian. (I know: the gNewSense project is apparently dormant and Debian stable currently has more recent software than Trisquel... but still less recent than the latest Ubuntu LTS that Trisquel 9 will have as a base).
Could trisquel not deal with that part of the configuration by providing a script which people would then run if they wanted to?
I believe you are referring to fetching the software from a third-party server (otherwise, it is adding packages absent from Ubuntu to Trisquel's repository: that has already happened), such as Ubuntu's or the upstream developers' repository. That would not satisfy the FSDG. More specifically, that paragraph, which is the one I am constantly discussing in this post:
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
Also, that would not be user-friendly.
I asked fsf to tell all and every cost fsf defrey regarding trisquel for the years 2016 and 2017? And I asked how many use trisquel or how may they think use trisquel? I got no answers.
See https://www.fsf.org/about/financial for FSF's finances.
The answer to your first question is 0. The FSF employs quidam (Trisquel's leader) but for administrating its servers. Not for working on Trisquel. Estimating the number of users of Trisquel is hard and I do not see why the FSF should spend effort on that. https://trisquel.info/download tells us that Trisquel 8's final ISO was downloaded 38490 times. That is not the number of Trisquel 8 users: I downloaded a release candidate, I upgraded (rather than doing a fresh install) my parents' computer from Trisquel 7 to Trisquel 8, a same ISO can be used to install Trisquel on many machines, etc.
Stallman told me, fsf will not obtain a talos computer because fsf already has free software computers and a talos computer would be too expensive.
That looks reasonable.
There are other free software systems than trisquel. If trisquel gets money from fsf, it should stop.
It does not. Although I would love if it did. The FSF used to pay Ian Murdock for developing Debian (full-time, around 1995). It could now pay quidam, part-time, for developing Trisquel.
> Nobody said that.
On another post it was claimed debian main holds software
which you may not use, share, modify and redistribute.
> That would not satisfy the FSDG.
You are right. It has been investigated that deriving
from ubuntu is more clever than from debian?
Sound strange. I would think getting the required software
from debian would be the most efficient solution?
> FSF should spend effort on that.
I did not say fsf should. But if the fsf has the numbers
then there is no reason not to give them to me.
> https://www.fsf.org/about/financial
I cannot find any pieces of information about trisquel. That
does not say fsf has no expenses regarding trisquel.
> Care to give examples of Trisquel reverting changes that Ubuntu introduces?
I do not know. If it is documented somewhere then I do not know
where to search for it. Is it not the non free firmware and
software in ubuntu which depends on non free software?
> That looks reasonable.
No. Asking people to use and support free software and hardware
which can run on free software only also if it is
inconvenient and then refusing to spend 2000usd on getting
a talos computer and have it tested such that interested
people can inform themselves is a wrong decision.
> answer to your first question is 0.
Who covers the expenses for hosting trisquel? Who covers the expenses regarding the trisquel forum? If it is fsf then your answer is not correct.
> pay quidam
I have heard fsf has set an amount of time he can
spend on trisquel.
> I would love if it did.
If trisquel have few users and fsf cannot spend 2000usd
on a computer and because other systems are available
then no.
> On another post it was claimed debian main holds software
> which you may not use, share, modify and redistribute.
I think you are referring to the discussion that began here,[1] in which Calmstorm said that Pocket should be disabled in order to have a freedom-respecting system. He was right. Pocket depends on proprietary server-side software. However, this does not violate the DFSG, because Debian is not directly distributing the non-free software, only the free client software that talks to the proprietary sever software. This is also why recommending non-free addons and including snap does not violate the DFSG. These are good examples of how the DFSG are not good enough to protect the freedom of all users. Still, the DFSG are better than the guidelines most distros use, and for a user who cares about freedom and is knowledgeable enough to avoid things like non-free addons and snap it is possible to use Debian freely.
> Sound strange. I would think getting the required software
> from debian would be the most efficient solution?
Maybe it would be, if Debian had the same software. It doesn't. Ubuntu has more and newer free software than Debian, so it is better for Trisquel to be based on Ubuntu.
> Is it not the non free firmware and
> software in ubuntu which depends on non free software?
Excluding Ubuntu's multiverse and restricted repositories is just as easy as it would be to exclude Debian's non-free and contrib repositories. What Magic was asking you is if Ubuntu makes *changes* to packages that Trisquel has to revert. I'm not aware of any. Browsing the package helpers,[2] it looks like most changes are changing Ubuntu branding to Trisquel branding (this would still be necessary with Debian branding) and removing recommendations to non-free software (which would still have to be done if Trisquel were based on Debian). The only thing that might be easier with Debian is that the kernel might not need to be deblobbed, but scripts[3] take care of that, and it's not worth giving up the practical advantages of being based on Ubuntu.
> But if the fsf has the numbers
> then there is no reason not to give them to me.
Which numbers? The number of Trisquel users? Why would the FSF know that? The amount of money the FSF gives to Trisquel? We already know the answer: none.
> I cannot find any pieces of information about trisquel.
Of course not. The FSF has never spent money to fund Trisquel, so it would make no sense for Trisquel to be mentioned. Wouldn't it be weird if financial statements listed all the things that money *wasn't* spent on? The list would be endless.
> I have heard fsf has set an amount of time he can
> spend on trisquel.
His workload at the FSF was preventing him from spending time on Trisquel, and once his workload was normalized he had more time to work on Trisquel.[4] However, as far as I know he is not paid for the time he spends on Trisquel. Where did you hear otherwise?
> No. Asking people to use and support free software and hardware
> which can run on free software only also if it is
> inconvenient and then refusing to spend 2000usd on getting
> a talos computer and have it tested such that interested
> people can inform themselves is a wrong decision.
You don't have to use every single piece of free software and hardware that exists in order to recommend it. I don't use Trisquel and Parabola and Hyperbola and Uruk and Guix and PureOS etc. because I have no need to use that many FSDG distros. That doesn't mean I can't recommend that people use FSDG distros. As for testing the Talos computer, RYF-endorsement could help Raptor if they wanted to use the endorsement to help sell their product. Have you asked them if they want this? If they do, they should talk to the FSF and send them a unit. If they don't, then the FSF should focus on products by vendors for who would find RYF-endorsement to be useful.
> Who covers the expenses for hosting trisquel? Who covers the expenses regarding the trisquel forum?
If you want information about Trisquel's expenses, you should ask Trisquel (David is probably the one to contact), not the FSF.
> If trisquel have few users and fsf cannot spend 2000usd
> on a computer and because other systems are available
> then no.
There not very many operating systems that are intended for beginners (which is most people in the world). The only ones that come to mind are Windows, macOS, Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro, and Trisquel. The only one of these that is free is Trisquel, so without Trisquel it would be very difficult for most people to use a free system. Everyone deserves freedom, even if they are inexperienced with technology. Funding Trisquel would be a good idea (if the FSF could afford it) because it would improve the quality and speed of releases, which would benefit current users and help bring in new users. Buying a computer that the FSF does not need would not be a good idea at this time. If the FSF needs new computers in the future it might then be a good idea to consider Talos, but it should not be a priority now.
[1] https://trisquel.info/en/forum/choosing-between-d16-workstation-and-talos-ii-lite#comment-133713
[2] https://devel.trisquel.info/trisquel/package-helpers/tree/flidas/helpers
[3] https://devel.trisquel.info/trisquel/package-helpers/tree/flidas/helpers/DATA/linux
[4] https://trisquel.info/en/forum/freedom-fridays-development-meetings-2018-plans
It has been investigated that deriving from ubuntu is more clever than from debian? Sound strange.
As I told you: quidam used to base Trisquel on Debian. See the oldest news pertaining to Trisquel on DistroWatch for instance: https://distrowatch.com/index.php?distribution=trisquel
I would think getting the required software from debian would be the most efficient solution?
Define "efficient". As we told you: the development effort would be similar, Trisquel would have less free software, in older versions, the project would become redundant with gNewSense.
But if the fsf has the numbers then there is no reason not to give them to me.
As I wrote and as a consequence of freedom 2, nobody can have the "real" numbers.
That does not say fsf has no expenses regarding trisquel.
Obviously financial reports do not list the ways the money is *not* spent!
Is it not the non free firmware and software in ubuntu which depends on non free software?
Yes, Ubuntu is clearly worse than Debian w.r.t. the kernel. The Trisquel project deblobs Ubuntu's kernels with a script that is similar to Libre-libre's. It could also simply copy the packages in jxself's repository (accepting not to have the same versions Ubuntu tested... which is probably why quidam keeps on deblobbing Ubuntu's kernel): https://jxself.org/linux-libre/
Asking people to use and support free software and hardware which can run on free software only also if it is inconvenient and then refusing to spend 2000usd on getting a talos computer and have it tested such that interested people can inform themselves is a wrong decision.
If Raptor Computing Systems wants the RYF label, it will have to send the hardware for the FSF to test it.
Who covers the expenses for hosting trisquel? Who covers the expenses regarding the trisquel forum? If it is fsf then your answer is not correct.
That is twice the same question. The answer is the Trisquel project itself. It has funds through one-time donations and monthly donations (members): https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/financial-information
$ whois trisquel.info
(...)
Registrant Organization: Asociacion Trisquel para el desarrollo y la promocion del Software Libre
I have heard fsf has set an amount of time he can spend on trisquel.
Is that true? Pardon me to ask for a reference but given the amount of things you make up in that thread (to somehow prove that that the Trisquel project is stupid/not clever and so is the FSF)...
If trisquel have few users and fsf cannot spend 2000usd on a computer and because other systems are available then no.
Trisquel is certainly the most popular GNU/Linux distribution the FSF endorses. By your logic, the FSF should spend money on Ubuntu (probably the GNU/Linux distribution with the highest number of users) and on computers she does not need. Fortunately, that is not the FSF's logic.
> Define "efficient"
It is not more efficient to derive from debian than ubuntu considering ubuntu is a debian
derivative which adds non free software?
Trisquel should explain why they have chosen ubuntu over debian on their faq.
> redundant with gNewSense
It looks like nothing is going on about gnewsense.
Programming on both gnewsense and trisquel would be a waste of effort
and money. The user base does not justify two systems.
> nobody can have the "real" numbers
That is why I also asked for an assessment.
> money is *not* spent!
If fsf covers trisquel expenses I do not think they will be listed on the
document you listed.
> https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/financial-information
You are right. It appears trisquel do not spend more than trisquel earns.
There is no link to the website on trisquel's homepage?
> send the hardware for the FSF to test it.
Fsf is taking a back seat. Fsf should be up front on free software
compatible computers and themselves buy and test the hardware.
> ask for a reference
https://trisquel.info/en/new-cycle-what-we-achieved-and-whats-come
Does ruben say he gets paid by the fsf but works on trisquel in his
free time? Or does ruben say he is able to work on trisquel during his fsf
hours? I read the latter.
> make up
Making up is an overstretch. I was not able to find the wiki site you listed. And
if fsf is providing servers for trisquel and lets ruben work on trisquel on
fsf's payroll then fsf have has trisquel related expenses.
> spend money on Ubuntu
No. If fsf does not want to spend money on testing free software computers they
should not spend money on trisquel because there are other free software systems
recommended by the fsf.
> Why would the FSF know that?
I assumed some of fsf staff is keeping themselves informed about trisquel. Then
maybe they could tell what they know?
> The FSF has never spent money to fund Trisquel
If the money trisquel receives covers the trisquel expenses then you are
right. In that case it should be easy for fsf to answer my email and
tell me fsf are covering no trisquel expenses. Fsf has not
answered me.
> he is not paid for the time he spends on Trisquel
Then I misread what ruben wrote.
> Where did you hear otherwise?
https://trisquel.info/en/new-cycle-what-we-achieved-and-whats-come
> to use every single piece of free software and hardware that exists in order to recommend it.
We are talking about the only new mainboard which is able to run entirely on
free software. That is not every single piece of hardware. If free software
mainboards were many and tests available I would not ask fsf to promote or
test any given mainboard.
> they should talk to the FSF
Raptor should. If they have not then fsf should buy one and test it.
> David is probably the one to contact
Not ruben?
> most people to use a free system.
What about pureos?
> it should not be a priority now.
Fsf should buy and test the only new free software mainboard which is for sale.
> It is not more efficient to derive from debian than ubuntu
No, and it has already been explained to you why. Feel free to examine the package helpers[1] yourself.
> considering ubuntu is a debian
> derivative which adds non free software?
Ubuntu might add some non-free software, but they probably get most of their non-free software from Debian. The fact that non-free is disabled by default in Debian is only relevant to Debian users, not to downstream.
> https://trisquel.info/en/new-cycle-what-we-achieved-and-whats-come
> Does ruben say he gets paid by the fsf but works on trisquel in his
> free time? Or does ruben say he is able to work on trisquel during his fsf
> hours? I read the latter.
He only says that he no longer requires a stipend because he is able to support himself with his salary as sysadmin at the FSF. He does not say that he works on Trisquel during hours for which he is paid to be a sysadmin.
> Not ruben?
Either. Why haven't you messaged one of them yet? I'm not responding to your other points about Trisquel/FSF because if you had evidence for them you would surely have produced it by now. Hopefully David or Ruben can answer your questions about Trisquel's finances.
> What about pureos?
Is PureOS targeted at beginners? I hope not, because Purism's forum is a bad place for beginners to be. Users often ask for and receive help installing proprietary software, usually with no warning that this would be bad for their freedom. I discovered this when I briefly browsed the forum after stumbling on this thread[2] while researching a WiFi card. In the thread, a Purism employee advises a user to add Debian non-free in order to install non-free firmware. Beginners would be better off with a community that values freedom and will not steer them in the wrong direction. For advanced users who know better or do not require the forum for support it might not be such a problem, since PureOS itself will not steer them toward non-free software assuming it adheres to the FSDG.
> If free software
> mainboards were many and tests available I would not ask fsf to promote or
> test any given mainboard.
Fair enough.
> Fsf should buy and test the only new free software mainboard which is for sale.
I assume that by "test" you mean evaluate for RYF endorsement. If you mean something else then correct me. I agree with you that the Talos, and non-x86 architectures in general, are important, but no one needs the FSF's permission to use it. The purpose of a RYF endorsement would be for Raptor to use the endorsement to help promote their product. If Raptor doesn't want to do this, then it is not worth spending the FSF's money on. If you want to see this happen, you'll first have to convince Raptor, not Trisquel users or the FSF.
[1] https://devel.trisquel.info/trisquel/package-helpers/tree/flidas/helpers
[2] https://forums.puri.sm/t/wifi-not-working/1249
Trisquel doesn't have support for ppc64el. It does have cross-compilers (sudo apt install crossbuild-essential-ppc64el.) So I am hopeful that one day it will.
What is ppc64el?
It's the package manager's name for this system: 64-bit POWER, in little endian mode
Okay I don't understand this language. When you say "this system" are you referring to Trisquel?
and what is "little endian mode"?
Anyway, they say that it works with Ubuntu though, why wouldn't it work with Trisquel?
"When you say "this system" are you referring to Trisquel?"
To the hardware. The package manager has a unique name for all the different kinds of hardware. On distros that use apt you can put this in the terminal and see: dpkg --print-architecture
Things you might see on Trisquel: amd64 (for a 64-bit x86 processor) or i386 (or a 32-bit x86 processor.) On non-Trisquel systems you might see arm64 or armhf if it's some kind machine with an ARM processor. Or any number of other possibilities.
and what is "little endian mode"?
It refers to how bits are stored. Options are "big endian" and "little endian." A simple illustration might be: In English we normally write numbers from left to right. Imagine the number 271. That would be an example of big endian. Little endian does it in other direction: Right to left. That same number would be stored as 172. But because it's read right-to-left it's still the same number. My understanding is that the POWER CPUs can work in big endian and little endian mode. Knowing details like this is important when making operating systems.
"Anyway, they say that it works with Ubuntu though, why wouldn't it work with Trisquel?"
Ubuntu also supports other things like ARM processors and big IBM mainframes (s390x), but Trisquel doesn't. That doesn't mean it *can't* but each new type of system requires work in Trisquel to get going (grabbing the source packages from Ubuntu, modified for Trisquel, and then using them bootstrap the new architecture which also means having to set up project infrastructure) and then ongoing work to keep going. It's definitely work. Work that hasn't happened but I hope will happen in the future before the Titanic sinks out from under us.
dpkg --print-architecture
There is the 'arch' command too. It works on any GNU/Linux system.
Knowing details like this is important when making operating systems.
More precisely, all binaries must be compiled taking into account the endianness of the processor (among other things). That is why supporting a new architecture requires turning available new pre-compiled packages for all those that include executable binaries. In contrast one single package for all architectures (the architecture is then named "all", in APT's jargon) is enough if that package only provides interpreted programs, fonts, data, ... but not executable binaries.
Sorry, I've been away from these forums for a while.
Thank you for answering my questions and trying to explain.
Hope I didn't come off as an ungrateful discussioner.
Your reply though, is unfortunately a little too technical for me at the moment.
But I just wanted to thank you for taking time to reply and try to explain to a non-hacker :)
I now got a reply from Raptor on my follow-up question:
While there is no technical reason Trisquel cannot work on POWER9, the Trisquel maintainers currently only support x86 machines. We would love to see Trisquel on POWER, so if you would like to ask them to support POWER9 please let us know what they say!
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires