A new ConnochaetOS release
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
https://forum.connochaetos.org/viewtopic.php?id=17
I hope it gets the approval thingie this time!
Wasn't that distro discontinued? Nice that it's back, it's good to have some variety.
What are the system requirements?i have a Pentium III 500mhz and 64 Mb ram i wonder if is gonna work on this old machine
Here's another project that's trying to free Slackware.
The two should co-operate and get the FSF seal of approval.
Hi, developer of ConnochaetOS here.
- Hardware requirements were released with RC1, see https://forum.connochaetos.org/viewtopic.php?id=13
- Yes, the distro was discontinued, but was brought back - this time not build entirely from scratch but based on repos of Slackware and Salix, because building an entire distro from scratch is too time-consuming.
- It still would be nice to get the FSF approval, but I don't think I will actively apply for one again
- Freeslack is 64 bit only, ConnochaetOS is 32 bit only (although I maintain a 64 bit flavor of the slack-n-free repo), so they complement each other. There are also some differences regarding non-free and libre packages. I use freeslack's list of non-free packages plus the list from libreplanet plus Parabola's blacklist to exclude non-free packages. Additionally ConnochaetOS provides libre replacements where possible (e. g. the entire Mozilla product line).
Please feel free to join the ConnochaetOS forum, since discussing other distros is a little off-topic here :)
Excuse me for replying here but maybe applying again won't hurt? (Anyway might you know why it didn't work last time out?)
Honestly - I don't know why it didn't work out last time. Technically ConnochaetOS was examined in great detail and it was confirmed that it meets all requirements of the Free System Distribution Guideline. Then suddenly someone spotted that one of the users used the term "open source" in the forum or in the wiki (which one I don't remember) instead of "free software". That was the point were the entire application process was halted.
That is one of the reasons I will not apply again actively. I will not dictate terms to the users regulating which language they should use.
I am a translator!
ha! if what you say is true, that's plain stupid!
Trisquel is open source!!
Now I'll send the link to this page to the FSF. I expect Trisquel to be taken out of the fsf approved list by tomorrow!! I used "open source" as word related to Trisquel just now!
I really don't think what you are saying is true though..
name at domain wrote:
> Honestly - I don't know why it didn't work out last time.
I suggest you ask the FSF why so they can help you understand the
reasons. I'd be surprised if they didn't give a list of reasons in response.
> Technically ConnochaetOS was examined in great detail and it was
> confirmed that is meets all requirements of the Free System
> Distribution Guideline.
Did the FSF provide you with this information? If so, what else did they
say about this? Echoing what another poster said, I too am interested in
seeing more Free System Distributions.
> Then suddenly someone spotted that one of the users used the term
> "open source" in the forum or in the wiki (which one I don't
> remember) instead of "free software". That was the point were the
> entire appication process was halted.
You are now contradicting yourself above which is confusing.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
doesn't make requirements on the general public's participation in
published media. The closest thing that applies is a request, not a
requirement -- "Please see our list of words to avoid, which are either
biased, misguided or misleading, and try to avoid them in your public
statements and discussions with the public." which also points to
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html. I also see nothing
in the FSF's guidelines that would hold you responsible for what others
say about the system you developed.
> That is one of the reasons I will not apply again actively. I will not
> dictate terms to the users regulating which language they should use.
I hope you don't think the FSF is dictating such terms. You've provided
no evidence that the FSF is dictating such terms.
In order to avoid spreading falsehoods it would be good to get the real
story from the FSF.
>> Technically ConnochaetOS was examined in great detail and it was
>> confirmed that is meets all requirements of the Free System
>> Distribution Guideline.
>Did the FSF provide you with this information?
Here is the related post:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2012-01/msg00007.html
You can read the entire thread at https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00026.html
However, I accepted that ConnochaetOS was finally not endorsed for whatever reasons. I got no message with "No, we will not endorse your distro" - the entire process simply came to a halt. I will not pursue it further.
name at domain wrote:
> Here is the related post:
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2012-01/msg00007.html
Thanks for the pointer to the article and thread, and thanks for
distributing free software!
> However, I accepted that ConnochaetOS was finally not endorsed for
> whatever reasons. I got no message with "No, we will not endorse your
> distro" - the entire process simply came to a halt. I will not pursue it
> further.
That's a shame you gave up because the above article quotes RMS saying
exactly the opposite of what you concluded -- "We don't make upholding
our political views a condition of our endorsement, but we appreciate it
very much if you do it." (from
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00059.html
where I believe "do[ing] it" means "upholding our political views").
I'm still not clear why your GNU/Linux distribution wasn't accepted to
the list of Free Software Distributions, but please stop telling people
the rejection was due to "someone spotted that one of the users used the
term 'open source' in the forum or in the wiki". That appears not to be
the case at all.
"I'm still not clear why your GNU/Linux distribution wasn't accepted to
the list of Free Software Distributions, but please stop telling people
the rejection was due to "someone spotted that one of the users used the
term 'open source' in the forum or in the wiki". That appears not to be
the case at all."
Exactly. While there was some initial concern over the wording, RMS quickly put the kibosh on that as shown in the mailing list archives.
And even though I had said it wasn't an issue (see https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2012-01/msg00007.html) Henry brought it up again in a reply to that very message (see https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2012-01/msg00008.html which even quotes that part of the message) and continued discussing it as if it were. I'm not sure why. That he continues to this day to present it to the public that this was the reason nothing happened seems troublesome because the mailing list archives clearly show that, while there had been some initial concerns over the wording it was in the end determined that it was not -- repeat not -- an issue.
From my perspective, ConnochaetOS completed the community review process which is the only part of the endorsement process that the gnu-linux-libre mailing list is involved in - making sure that the distro actually is a feasible candidate, which I did and posted my results in the message I've linked to. The FSF staff are supposed to take it from there. If nothing else happened after that, it is best to follow up directly with the FSF staff for further information.
On Fri, 15 May 2015 05:34:33 +0200 (CEST)
name at domain wrote:
> And even though I had said it wasn't an issue (see
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2012-01/msg00007.html)
> Henry brought it up again in a reply to that very message (see
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2012-01/msg00008.html
> which even quotes that part of the message) and continued discussing it as if
> it were. I'm not sure why.
Because you wrote "... calling themselves "open source" rather than
free software"
This wasn't the case and I had to clarify that.
> From my perspective, ConnochaetOS completed the community review process
> which is the only part of the endorsement process that the gnu-linux-libre
> mailing list is involved in - making sure that the distro actually is a
> feasible candidate, which I did and posted my results in the message I've
> linked to. The FSF staff are supposed to take it from there. If nothing else
> happened after that, it is best to follow up directly with the FSF staff for
> further information.
This is the first time I hear about that. It was unclear to me, that
"the FSF staff are supposed to take it from there". Of course I
contacted them in the first place - but I got no reply.
I got no message from the FSF at all, so I could only conclude that
ConnochaetOS wasn't accepted because of that issue - or other reasons.
Yes, you and others said, that this isn't an issue regarding the
endorsement process - but nevertheless it was mentioned several times
by different people again and again. It even led to a small dispute
between RMS and the president of the FSF Europe, from what I heard
(http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00063.html)
Being such a "hot" topic I doubt that ConnochaetOS was simply
forgotten by the FSF staff.
It's still unclear to me, what went wrong.
> I could only conclude that ConnochaetOS wasn't accepted because of that issue - or other reasons.
> It's still unclear to me, what went wrong.
That is at least a better thing to say, rather than incorrect information such as "That was the point were the entire application process was halted" because the full review was actually completed, as shown in the list archives, and the wording was not an issue. It's better I think to say that you don't know what happened, rather than positioning it as "then suddenly someone spotted that one of the users used the term "open source" in the forum or in the wiki (which one I don't remember) instead of "free software". That was the point were the entire application process was halted" because that is not true. I did do the full review and provided the results on the list.
So the best answer is to say you don't know, rather than saying it stopped because of naming because I can show from the list archives that the process did not -- repeat not -- stop there.
"I doubt that ConnochaetOS was simply forgotten by the FSF staff."
This is more likely. It took LibreWRT 2 years to get on there, as I recall but unless you hear, from someone with an @fsf.org email address, their exact reasons for not adding it, spreading other stuff is only spreading misinformation because it's only pure speculation on your side about what happened. If you're going to speculate, fine, just make sure it's clear that it's your own speculation and not an official response you got from the FSF.
Like "Then suddenly someone spotted that one of the users used the term "open source" in the forum or in the wiki (which one I don't remember) instead of "free software". That was the point were the entire application process was halted."
Because that that statement can be shown, in the list archives, to be a factually untrue statement.
On Fri, 15 May 2015 14:08:26 +0200 (CEST)
name at domain wrote:
> > I could only conclude that ConnochaetOS wasn't accepted because of that
> issue - or other reasons.
>
> > It's still unclear to me, what went wrong.
>
> That is at least a better thing to say, rather than incorrect information
> such as "That was the point were the entire application process was halted"
> because the full review was actually completed, as shown in the list
> archives, and the wording was not an issue.
No, your words were:
"Has anyone else taken a look at this GNU/Linux distribution? It took me longer
than I had planned but I eventually made my way through all of the ConnochaetOS
packages and I think that the meet the FSF's criteria at this point."
This doesn't sound to me, that the review is completed, much less the
whole application process. You stated only, that you think, that
ConnochaetOS "meet the FSF's criteria at this point". You didn't state
"The review is completed".
Instead you did speak about a "point" in the process as well. And further you added
"The exception is calling themselves "open source" rather than free software"
(which was a false observation by you. Correct would have been "A
community member used the term 'open source' instead of 'free software'
in the wiki").
And since from this point on no progress occurred, it is correct to
say, that the process was halted at this point.
> "I doubt that ConnochaetOS was simply forgotten by the FSF staff."
>
> This is more likely. It took LibreWRT 2 years to get on there, as I recall
> but unless you hear, from someone with an @fsf.org email address, their exact
> reasons for not adding it, spreading other stuff is only spreading
> misinformation because it's only pure speculation on your side about what
> happened. If you're going to speculate, fine, just make sure it's clear that
> it's your own speculation and not an official response you got from the FSF.
I stated several times now, that I got no official response.
"No, your words were..."
Yes. I was really the only person doing the in-depth source code reviews at that time. But I still post the question anyway to signify that I'm done and to get the ball rolling.
"And further you added"
But I also said that RMS has said the naming wasn't an issue, so it cancels out the issue. I'm only pointing out that cancellation and nothing more, leaving only the first part of the message.
"This doesn't sound to me, that the review is completed, much less the
whole application process. You stated only, that you think, that
ConnochaetOS "meet the FSF's criteria at this point". You didn't state
"The review is completed"."
The community review process was completed. One of the things that the gnu-linux-libre mailing list does is to act as a filter for distros that seek FSF endorsement. The distro did make it through there, because I was really the only person working on the reviews back then and it did seem to meet the FSF's criteria at that time. (I can't speak to the future which is why I refer to a point in time.) Once that has been determined it is up to the FSF staff to take it from there.
"And since from this point on no progress occurred, it is correct to
say, that the process was halted at this point."
It was halted after saying it seems to meet the FSF's criteria since, as I pointed out, the matter of naming was cancelled out by RMS himself and I mentioned that cancellation in the message.
"I stated several times now, that I got no official response."
Precisely. We can point to the completion of the community review process though but you can't really say what happened beyond that. I suspect it's just a matter of being lost. Feel free to bring it up with them, although given the amount of time that has elapsed and that it seems to be essentially a new distro now I imagine that it'll need to go through another community review process.
After reading that thread it seems to me that the true reason was not having community guidelines that said something like "Avoid certain misnomers and propaganda terms". But you now have rules on the forum[1], so if you add the no misnomers and propaganda terms thing, they will endorse Connochaet for sure.
By the way, I find weird that they started some kind of "free software vs open source" instead of telling you what should you do to fix it and get the endorsement. If this happens again just ask them what should you do.
I'm saying this because I obviously want ConnochaetOS being endorse by the FSF. Why? Because the free GNU/Linux distributions list don't have any distro based on Slackware (which is a great distro)and ConnochaetOS has a lot of potential, so I can only think that ConnochaetOS will be make an excelent addition to the Free GNU/Linux distributions list.
"Then suddenly someone spotted that one of the users used the term "open source" in the forum or in the wiki (which one I don't remember) instead of "free software"."
Hmmm.....that's a tad odd. Maybe they just wanted you to politely advise the user to use free software instead?
Because...I can't help but think there's no way that, when Trisquel was being applied, "open source" wasn't being used at all in its forum.
Or you can always do a Parabola and maintain a forumless distro.....:(
> - It still would be nice to get the FSF approval, but I don't think I will actively apply for one again
How come?
Henry, it seems the FSF's complaint was not that someone in the forum used "Open source" (which is simply not "punishable", if you like the term).
It was that, according to them, you used the words "open source" to describe the project yourself (inadvertantly or otherwise, of course).
If you don't call yourself open source (or at least not do so without explaining the diferences between what open source and free software mean, and perhaps the similarities as well) and re-apply, things should work.
(Of course it could also be that the FSF wrongly decided that you used open source at a part of your site where free software should;ve been instead......looking through archive.org now). If you don't use "open source" in the site itself why not ask for a reappraisal?
Am 14. Mai 2015 11:45:02 MESZ, schrieb name at domain:
>Henry, it seems the FSF's complaint was not that someone in the forum
>used
>"Open source" (which is simply not "punishable", if you like the term).
>
>It was that, according to them, you used the works "open source" to
>describe
>the project yourself (inadvertantly or otherwise, of course).
If you read the thread you'll find out, that it wasn't me, but a user who edited the wiki. I said that countless times in the thread. I only pointed out, that I will not admonish users for using the term "open source"
That's one other reason I will not apply again. I don't have time for this childish "You said Jehova" games.
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
the name its not good
its must be Connochaet gnu/linux
The name is good. As http://www.connochaetos.org says: ConnochaetOS is a fully free/libre GNU/Linux distro...
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires