Trisquel 5.0 LTS alpha images ready for testing
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
The first development release for Trisquel GNU/Linux 5.0 STS, codename
"Dagda", is now ready for testing. All the artwork comes from the 4.5
release unmodified, so it qualifies as an alpha release.
The files can be downloaded from here:
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110719_amd64.iso
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110719_amd64.iso.md5
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110719_i686.iso
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110719_i686.iso.md5
Please list bugs and suggestions here:
http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/dagda-development and comment your changes
at the development list or the #trisquel-dev freenode channel.
What's new:
- Based on Ubuntu 11.04
- Linux-Libre 2.6.38
- GNOME 2.32
- Firefox 5.0
- LibreOffice 3.3.0
Known bugs:
- Icons in GNOME tray have no fixed size
- The default manual in yelp is the Ubuntu user guide
- Exaile doesn't come preconfigured
- The recovery menu lets you login as root with no password
I am a member!
Hello,
first of all cool news, I'm glad to hear "it" started and "it" is closer.
I was wondering, is there a way to add encrypted LVM as an option in the GUI installer for this or any future releases ? At this time, from what I'm aware this option is only available from the netinstall cd. I don't mind the "CLI" install but the net dependency can be a rather big inconvenience.
I am a translator!
Awesome! Hopefully I can get my friend's sandy bridge to work.
I am a translator!
My friend's i7 seems to work (Compiz and 2D work) but it isn't as smooth as my netbook. I guess I'll need to add a PPA of the latest Intel drivers to fix it.
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 12:37 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 22/07/11 09:48, name at domain escribió:
> > My friend's i7 seems to work (Compiz and 2D work) but it isn't as
> > smooth as my netbook. I guess I'll need to add a PPA of the latest
> > Intel drivers to fix it.
> >
>
>
> That is as good as not using free software. Are you willing to give up
> freedom?
>
What? The Intel drivers are free software...
El 22/07/11 18:07, Daemonax escribió:
> On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 12:37 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
>> El 22/07/11 09:48, name at domain escribió:
>>> My friend's i7 seems to work (Compiz and 2D work) but it isn't as
>>> smooth as my netbook. I guess I'll need to add a PPA of the latest
>>> Intel drivers to fix it.
>>>
>>
>> That is as good as not using free software. Are you willing to give up
>> freedom?
>>
> What? The Intel drivers are free software...
>
>
If they are free it is astonishing not to have them in Trisquel.
Probably they are not free. Have you checked that all the code is free
and that there are no blobs camouflaged as source?
--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517
"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
I am a translator!
Maybe I should clarify: what I wanted to do was to add a PPA (https://launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/+archive/ppa) and write "aptitude upgrade" in the terminal in case the driver provided there is newer. I did not mean that I would install proprietary drivers and am sorry if I was misunderstood. Anyway, the repository does not contain a newer driver.
I am a translator!
The link is dead but was working earlier so I only got 100 MB (I wanted to finish in the morning instead of keeping the computer on) :(
I am a member!
I just used the link from Distrowatch for the 64 bit image and had no issues. checksum matched. I'm gonna have a new OS to test on my new Intel 320 120GB SSD...Provided I'm not one of the ones hit with the "data loss" bug they've been having. Oh well, it's alpha software and Intel has vowed to replace any wonky drives, so no big loss if it goes belly up.
I am a translator!
If you update the date (to 20110720) it works :)
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110720_amd64.iso
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110720_amd64.iso.md5
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110720_i686.iso
http://devel.trisquel.info/dagda/iso/trisquel_5.0-20110720_i686.iso.md5
I am a member!
I was under the impression that the next Ubuntu lts was going to be 12.04. Is trisquel forking from Ubuntu?
I wonder where this "impression" comes from. Trisquel 5.0 will be based on the last Ubuntu release (11.04 Natty Narwhal) and the next Ubuntu release (11.10 Oneiric Ocelot) will be released in October this year (as usual). In fact the Alpha 2 version of this release was published less than two weeks ago: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2011-July/000868.html
12.04 will be the next "Long Term Support" version though.
The thread title has a mistake; it should say STS.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:36:50 +0200 (CEST), name at domain wrote:
> The thread title has a mistake; it should say STS.
Also that :P
--
Luis A. Guzmán García
http://ark.switnet.org
¡Se Libre! -- http://fsfla.org/selibre/
The Hardware Database Project -- http://www.h-node.com
Distribuciones libres de GNU/Linux -- http://ur1.ca/3e8gu
Oh! Now I understand ewlabonte's post! Since he wrote "lts" (and not LTS), I read "its" and took it as an English grammatical mistake. Just forget about my last intervention.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:29:35 +0200 (CEST), name at domain wrote:
> I wonder where this "impression" comes from. Trisquel 5.0 will be based
on
On identi.ca there was a message saying that alpha version of LTS was
released, but it was a typo.
Dagda is a STS release.
>
> 12.04 will be the next "Long Term Support" version though.
--
Luis A. Guzmán García
http://ark.switnet.org
¡Se Libre! -- http://fsfla.org/selibre/
The Hardware Database Project -- http://www.h-node.com
Distribuciones libres de GNU/Linux -- http://ur1.ca/3e8gu
I am a translator!
I noticed that the browser is called Firefox on Trisquel 5.0. Will it be renamed to Web Browser?
El mié, 20-07-2011 a las 18:13 +0200, alonivtsan escribió:
> I noticed that the browser is called Firefox on Trisquel 5.0. Will it be
> renamed to Web Browser?
AFAIK no, it will be Firefox.
As always on Trisquel it won't recommend non-free software.
--
Luis A. Guzmán García
¡Se Libre! -- http://fsfla.org/selibre
The Hardware Database Project-- http://www.h-node.com
Distribuciones libres de GNU/Linux -- http://ur1.ca/3e8gu
No, no me encontrarás en Facebook -- http://www.fsf.org/fb
GPG Key: EB153FAF
I am a translator!
How can I disable Compiz in Trisquel 5.0? I could not find desktop effects in System->Preferences->Appearance. By the way everything seems to work on my Asus 1001PX EeePC (wireless, ethernet, Compiz, camera) but this isn't surprising as it works on Trisquel 4.0 after updates as well.
I am a member!
Can we even do that? Wouldn't that be violating Mozilla's trademarks? Plus IIRC the official Firefox branding itself (the logo and associated graphics) is non-free, and we can't use the Firefox name without the logo.
(edit: this was in reply to "AFAIK no, it will be Firefox.
As always on Trisquel it won't recommend non-free software." Must have hit the wrong reply button by mistake)
El jue, 21-07-2011 a las 04:25 +0200, adrian.malacoda escribió:
> Can we even do that? Wouldn't that be violating Mozilla's trademarks? Plus
> IIRC the official Firefox branding itself (the logo and associated graphics)
> is non-free, and we can't use the Firefox name without the logo.
Why would that be violating the trademark?
IIRC, we can't use the logo or name if we make changes to the source
code, and i think that no changes are applied to source code just
disable some "features" like requesting non-free plugins.
Then i think that there is no problem about it.
But maybe it would be better if we talk without the IIRC, and start
reading the documentation of mozilla and asking the distro developers
(quidam) about this.
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
--
Luis A. Guzmán García
¡Se Libre! -- http://fsfla.org/selibre
The Hardware Database Project-- http://www.h-node.com
Distribuciones libres de GNU/Linux -- http://ur1.ca/3e8gu
No, no me encontrarás en Facebook -- http://www.fsf.org/fb
GPG Key: EB153FAF
I am a member!
Mozilla allows its trademarks to be used only for "unchanged official binaries" which it defines as the installer files available from mozilla.com/mozilla.org. Any modification beyond that requires explicit approval from Mozilla to use the trademarks. The Trisquel version might not have directly altered the source code, but changing it to use a different addons site instead of Mozilla's is clearly enough of a change to fall afoul of this policy.
It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ubuntu has a separate trademark agreement that allows it to use the official Firefox branding. Whatever agreement Ubuntu has with Mozilla will most likely not apply to us, since we'll do further modifications.
From https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html,
You may distribute unchanged official binaries (i.e., the installer file available for download for each platform (code + config) and not the program executable) downloaded from www.mozilla.com or www.mozilla.org to anyone in any way, subject to governing law, without receiving any further permission from Mozilla. If you want to distribute the unchanged official binaries using the Mozilla Marks, you may do so, without receiving any further permission from Mozilla, as long as you comply with this Trademark Policy and you distribute them without charge. However, you must not remove or change any part of the official binary, including the Mozilla Marks.
Trisquel's version is not an "unchanged binary" according to this policy, because it is configured to use Trisquel's addons site instead of Mozilla's. Therefore, Trisquel's Firefox is not authorized to use the Firefox trademark according to this policy.
Also, from the same policy:
In addition, if you are distributing Mozilla binaries yourself, and wish to use the Mozilla Mark(s), you may not (a) disable, modify or otherwise interfere with any installation mechanism contained in a Mozilla product; (b) use any such installation mechanism to install any plug-ins, themes, extensions, software, or items other than the Mozilla product; or (c) use or provide any program, mechanism or process (other than an installation mechanism contained in the Mozilla product) to install such product. Any use of a meta-installer would require our prior written permission.
The last part of this paragraph bothers me. To me, apt certainly qualifies as "a program, mechanism, or process (other than an installation mechanism contained in the Mozilla product) to install such product" Any other code that we ship, possibly to disable non-free addons and suchlike, would probably be barred by this clause of the policy.
Furthermore, according to this policy,
If you are using the Mozilla Mark(s) for the unaltered binaries you are distributing, you may not charge for that product. By not charging, we mean the Mozilla product must be without cost and its distribution (whether by download or other media) may not be subject to a fee, or tied to subscribing to or purchasing a service, or the collection of personal information. If you want to sell the product, you may do so, but you must call that product by another name—one unrelated to Mozilla or any of the Mozilla Marks
To me, this is unclear as to whether it refers to specifically distributing the Mozilla program by itself for a fee, or distributing the software at all for a fee. The widest possible interpretation of this paragraph implies that the mere act of distributing the software for a charge is prohibited by this trademark policy, which means that a DVD of Trisquel 5.0 which contains officially branded Firefox being offered for sale would infringe on it. The four freedoms as defined by GNU explicitly allow for distribution at a fee, and in fact GNU even encourages it (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htm)
El jue, 21-07-2011 a las 08:11 +0200, adrian.malacoda escribió:
[...]
> To me, this is unclear as to whether it refers to specifically distributing
> the Mozilla program by itself for a fee, or distributing the software at all
> for a fee. The widest possible interpretation of this paragraph implies that
> the mere act of distributing the software for a charge is prohibited by this
> trademark policy, which means that a DVD of Trisquel 5.0 which contains
> officially branded Firefox being offered for sale would infringe on it. The
> four freedoms as defined by GNU explicitly allow for distribution at a fee,
> and in fact GNU even encourages it (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htm)
Now we might hear/read what our developer would say/write about this
situation.
Until now, this is an Alpha release so many changes will be applied.
Cheers!
--
Luis A. Guzmán García
¡Se Libre! -- http://fsfla.org/selibre
The Hardware Database Project-- http://www.h-node.com
Distribuciones libres de GNU/Linux -- http://ur1.ca/3e8gu
No, no me encontrarás en Facebook -- http://www.fsf.org/fb
GPG Key: EB153FAF
I have an RT2870 based wireless card that works natively in Ubuntu 11.04 and Debian testing. When I load the live CD for Trisquel 5.0 alpha, I get a warning about the rt2800usb driver missing. When I do an iwconfig in the terminal, it sees that it is there for wlan0 even though there is no RT2870.bin in /etc/firmware.
On Ubuntu 11.04 and Debian, I choose to blacklist the rt2800usb and use the rt2870sta driver which seems to be more stable. Loading up hardinfo, I see that they are both listed in the kernel AND are under a GPL license. Being GPL, I hope it qualifies for free software.
If I manually add the .bin file, restart, and modprobe rt2870sta, would I get it back or will I have to recompile the driver for both rt2800usb and rt2870sta?
I am a translator!
I noticed Midori and MPlayer are missing in 5.0. Can Midori simply be installed from PPA or does it recommend non-free software which require repackaging it?
On the topic of mplayer, does the standard one work with split mkv files
yet? I've been using this fork of mplayer for sometime now.
http://repo.or.cz/w/mplayer-build.git
It supports split mkv files, and has other improvements such as not
unpausing videos if you switch from fullscreen to windowed or other
basic things that really should be part of standard mplayer.
On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 10:32 +0200, name at domain wrote:
> I noticed Midori and MPlayer are missing in 5.0. Can Midori simply be
> installed from PPA or does it recommend non-free software which require
> repackaging it?
I am a translator!
Also Firefox can't be opened on the live CD from the menus (but it does work from the terminal). Epiphany crashes when selecting the back button. Icecat works fine. I didn't test any other browsers like Arora (although I should as my phone uses it).
I'm thinking that for home use, Ubuntu may still be the way to go because I would want to use a wireless card and an Ati/Nvidia video card and not get the feeling that I am going back in time by using Trisquel. The traditional desktop is considered to be on its death bed with the smartphone and tablet craze and anything else that cripples my computer and requires manually compiling drivers in 2011 seems more work than it is worth.
If I were to use Linux in a corporate enviroment, Trisquel would be the better choice becuase I would be using ethernet for internet and not concerned about decent video drivers.
You don't need to compile anything. Compiling or no compiling your
wireless card still won't work in a free system. You can use AMD and
Nvidia video cards, but without 3D acceleration. Ubuntu will indeed
give you more convenience immediately, and will be a preferred choice,
if you don't care about your or other people's freedom.
I don't agree that Trisquel is the one who cripples your computer. You
and the companies who you bought your wireless adapter from cripple your
computer. The people who run those companies care only for their
immediate well being and think of you solely as there provider of that,
and you bought from them without caring.
The people in this Trisquel and free software community work hard so you
may have control over your computer, and therefore have more freedom in
your life.
Mampir,
I got this wireless dongle a few years ago from a friend and it worked fine in Windows XP and when I eventually switched over to Linux, I wanted to keep what I paid for instead of having to rebuy it.
I do understand you have your viewpoints and I have mine, but your mentality is borderline cultish. I bought a piece of hardware from the store because it was priced well and a good brand. I wasn't thinking that buying something as a consumer meant I didn't care about my "freedom" because in reality it is the freedom of the United States that I can buy anything and it is capitalism that keeps the industry competitive.
I appreciate the work that goes into Debian, Fedora, SuSe, and Ubuntu in advancing Linux. I just get this feeling that people like Richard Stallman are leading this cult of blind idealism.
EDIT: I really want to use Trisquel. I think it is one of the best looking distributions and besides my issues with the wireless card, I use free software for about 99% of my activities. I've been using Linux Mint Debian for the last 6 months and although it is workable, the look and package selection of Trisquel is much better.
Ok a few points that came to mind for me.
1) No one can make the choice to have you rebuy a piece of hardware for you. However all we can tell you is at this point in time you won't get your current piece of hardware without some non-free software. If you choose to rebuy or install that non-free software it is up to you.
2) Yes I totally agree you can buy anything you want (assuming you have the capital for it). I also had a computer before I became interested in Free Software. Not all of my hardware worked, I can think of a TV tuner in particular. In virtually all cases on this forum when someone comes to us with a piece of hardware (usually wireless cards) that doesn't work with all Free Software we will in almost all cases recommend they get one that does work with all Free Software.
3) As I said in statement (1) pretty much your two choices at this point is if you want your wireless to work are buy a card that works with Free Software or install non-free software (which people here would obviously not recommend). If you don't mind me asking if you don't follow RMS and Free Software why are you using Trisquel vs Ubuntu? Don't get me wrong I love it when people use Trisquel. But if you consider following RMS a cult of blind idealism why would you use a GNU/Linux distro in which its primary goal is to follow that "blind idealism"? That is Trisquel's advantage over Ubuntu.
I noticed your edit after my previous post.
I'm sure Ruben (et al.) appreciates that compliment about how nice the distro looks. If you use Free Software for 99% of your activities we can support you with those. Unfortunately for that other 1% we can't be of much help because our nature as a Free Software project.
That 1% is generally for Flash (I watch a lot of online videos) and Sun Java which has better performance than OpenJDK when I use Eclipse for programming. It would be great to not use Flash, but Gnash is still rough around the edges and I may give OpenJDK another try down the road. Some Java based programs are hardcoded for sun-java5-jre or sun-java6-jre and I have to nab from the Ubuntu partner repositories.
I looked at your link and really want to switch over to a free wireless card. Is the TP-Link TL-WN821N a good choice? Going with an Atheros based firmware may be the best route and even when I used the rt2800usb in Ubuntu and Debian, the connection quality was terrible.
As for RMS, he is perceived sometimes in the media as destructive with his comments towards Linux creator Linus Torvalds with ultra liberal and communistic viewpoints. He is definitely a voice for a lot of people, but sometimes I feel like him and his ideals will be counter productive with mine and I am the enemy if I down the road own a software company and want to make software and get paid to feed my family.
I've been the full time college student where money wasn't a super concern and once lived in the mentality that everything should be free and given away. Its just that there is a sense of urgency once you are married and have kids and I start to understand why some companies like Linksys choose not to open source some drivers. On the other hand, I understand the other side of the coin where a poor family wants a computer to educate their children. I'm all for organizations like Free Geek and using Linux to better their lives.
I apologize now about the "cultish" comment and REALLY REALLY REALLY want to wipe my Linux Mint install and replace it with Trisquel 5.0. Heck, I even like that they offer a 64-bit LXDE version which neither Lubuntu or Linux Mint have. I may just end up going with a free wireless card or connect via ethernet. This OS has been on my radar for a long time and I just want to fully experience it.
I have not heard about RMS being communist for long time. It is simply wrong. For example, the Freedoms of Free softwares includes the ability to change the software (e.g., to fix a bug) and redistribute the improved version. In a proprietary world, the user has no choice but to beg the company behind the software to make the change. This company somehow has a monopoly on the support since it is the only one to have access to the source code. On the contrary, Free softwares entails a Free market for support (anybody can get paid to fix/improve any Free software). Is that communist?
And , indeed, when it comes to being paid, many people involved with Free softwares *are*! Most of this money comes from support contracts but not only. Free softwares can even be sold: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
I am a member!
I do not appreciate your remarks, and I'm sure several others are hurt by them too. The free software movement was started in the 1980s by Richard Stallman, with the goal of creating a world of software that would give its users full command and control over their computing experience. His vision was one where companies and individuals alike could form and participate in communities, on near-equal grounds, unlike the proprietary software model where the company controls the community and the individual users participate in it under restrictive "end user license agreements."
"Open source" is something else entirely, which resembles free software in a superficial way. "Open Source" is about collaborative development with the goal of creating more powerful software. That "Open Source" developers choose free licenses for their work is a recognition that free software has a high quality of development, but the quality is more or less a side effect of the wide variety of freedoms its users enjoy. It is not the same thing as RMS's free software movement, which is evident if you note that Microsoft and Apple can wholeheartedly and truthfully embrace "open source innovation" while simultaneously disregarding their users' freedoms.
Your assertion that wireless card manufacturers lose money by freeing their drivers and firmware is unfounded. Please show us one company that lost money as a result of making all of its driver and firmware code free, or that lost money as soon as a free driver becomes available. Your assertion that it is impossible to earn a living off free software ignores the many developers and companies who do exactly that. It might be more -difficult- to do so (certainly if your mind is stuck in a Microsoft-esque business model) but it's by no means impossible, and many times choosing the easiest way to make the most money is not the most ethical way to make a living too. RMS himself earned a living hacking on Emacs, and the FSF funded itself early on selling tapes of Emacs (this was more viable before the Internet became more widely used). Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity that makes money off its free browser.
Your remarks about Richard Stallman's comments toward the "Linux creator" show an incomplete understanding of the argument between Torvalds and Stallman. You imply that you think, or believe, that Stallman takes potshots at Torvalds unprovoked and just for fun. In fact Torvalds attacked him several times because Torvalds doesn't agree with the goals of the free software movement. Torvalds also referred to critics of Microsoft as "diseased" at one point (and no, Torvalds and Microsoft aren't buddies, and there's no evidence Torvalds shills for Microsoft or anyone else). The part about him being "the Linux creator" is also deserving of a rebuttal, too. What you're using was created not solely or even principally by Linus Torvalds. The thing called Linux, the thing that Linus Torvalds created and continues to maintain, is a piece of a complete system. The person responsible for beginning a project to develop the free operating system you and I use today is none other than Richard Stallman. To call the complete work "Linux" is misleading, just like calling it "Firefox."
Your belief that his ideals will be counter-productive leads me to put forward the question, what -should- our ideals be? Richard Stallman's movement is a social one, and his views tend to align with ours; hence, we join in support of his movement. If you don't agree with Richard Stallman's movement of course you're welcome to use the output of that movement (which includes not only Trisquel but also Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, and other products based on Richard Stallman's GNU system). Some people don't get this aspect of his movement, because they're from the proprietary software world where a program is something that -solely- exists to make its owner money. Some people will swear that financial success is the only possible measure of success (indeed, I saw someone assert that Ubuntu was very unsuccessful because it did not make Canonical much money, despite its popularity). I personally think there are other measures of success aside from wealth, and Richard Stallman's ideals fall in this area. He wants to make software a social, rather than economic, item.
2011/7/27 <name at domain>
> I do not appreciate your remarks, and I'm sure several others are hurt by
> them too. The free software movement was started in the 1980s by Richard
> Stallman, with the goal of creating a world of software that would give its
> users full command and control over their computing experience. His vision
> was one where companies and individuals alike could form and participate in
> communities, on near-equal grounds, unlike the proprietary software model
> where the company controls the community and the individual users
> participate in it under restrictive "end user license agreements."
>
> "Open source" is something else entirely, which resembles free software in
> a superficial way. "Open Source" is about collaborative development with the
> goal of creating more powerful software. That "Open Source" developers
> choose free licenses for their work is a recognition that free software has
> a high quality of development, but the quality is more or less a side effect
> of the wide variety of freedoms its users enjoy. It is not the same thing as
> RMS's free software movement, which is evident if you note that Microsoft
> and Apple can wholeheartedly and truthfully embrace "open source innovation"
> while simultaneously disregarding their users' freedoms.
>
> Your assertion that wireless card manufacturers lose money by freeing their
> drivers and firmware is unfounded. Please show us one company that lost
> money as a result of making all of its driver and firmware code free, or
> that lost money as soon as a free driver becomes available. Your assertion
> that it is impossible to earn a living off free software ignores the many
> developers and companies who do exactly that. It might be more -difficult-
> to do so (certainly if your mind is stuck in a Microsoft-esque business
> model) but it's by no means impossible, and many times choosing the easiest
> way to make the most money is not the most ethical way to make a living too.
> RMS himself earned a living hacking on Emacs, and the FSF funded itself
> early on selling tapes of Emacs (this was more viable before the Internet
> became more widely used). Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity that
> makes money off its free browser.
>
> Your remarks about Richard Stallman's comments toward the "Linux creator"
> show an incomplete understanding of the argument between Torvalds and
> Stallman. You imply that you think, or believe, that Stallman takes potshots
> at Torvalds unprovoked and just for fun. In fact Torvalds attacked him
> several times because Torvalds doesn't agree with the goals of the free
> software movement. Torvalds also referred to critics of Microsoft as
> "diseased" at one point (and no, Torvalds and Microsoft aren't buddies, and
> there's no evidence Torvalds shills for Microsoft or anyone else). The part
> about him being "the Linux creator" is also deserving of a rebuttal, too.
> What you're using was created not solely or even principally by Linus
> Torvalds. The thing called Linux, the thing that Linus Torvalds created and
> continues to maintain, is a piece of a complete system. The person
> responsible for beginning a project to develop the free operating system you
> and I use today is none other than Richard Stallman. To call the complete
> work "Linux" is misleading, just like calling it "Firefox."
>
> Your belief that his ideals will be counter-productive leads me to put
> forward the question, what -should- our ideals be? Richard Stallman's
> movement is a social one, and his views tend to align with ours; hence, we
> join in support of his movement. If you don't agree with Richard Stallman's
> movement of course you're welcome to use the output of that movement (which
> includes not only Trisquel but also Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, and other products
> based on Richard Stallman's GNU system). Some people don't get this aspect
> of his movement, because they're from the proprietary software world where a
> program is something that -solely- exists to make its owner money. Some
> people will swear that financial success is the only possible measure of
> success (indeed, I saw someone assert that Ubuntu was very unsuccessful
> because it did not make Canonical much money, despite its popularity). I
> personally think there are other measures of success aside from wealth, and
> Richard Stallman's ideals fall in this area. He wants to make software a
> social, rather than economic, item.
>
Just saying +1 !!!!!!! Excellent post/mail!!!!
Obviously, nobody wants non-functional hardware. That is why we choose the hardware in consequence (and not the opposite: choosing the OS in consequence of the hardware). That is also why we encourage the constructor to release Free drivers and why some of us actually code drivers. In fact, the liberation from the proprietary world started with a driver issue, that of a MIT's printer: http://www.faifzilla.org/ch01.html
Unfortunately, you do not seem to value your freedom as much as most of us do. The risk *is* the tablet/smartphone world where you need to "jailbreak" (the metaphor is appropriate: these devices are "jails") to gain some control over the hardware. I do not want my computers (more precisely the proprietary software developers) to control me. I want to control them. Trisquel is pushing in the right direction. Ubuntu is not.
Your first sentence has some issues with it. I am currently using a wireless card (Netgear WG111v2) with Trisquel and an Nvidia video card. There are many wirless cards (http://www.h-node.com/wifi/catalogue/en/1/1/undef/undef/yes/undef/undef) and video cards with 3d (http://www.h-node.com/videocards/catalogue/en/3/1/undef/undef/works_with_3D/undef/undef) that work with Trisquel. What is most likely happening in your case is that you have non-functioning hardware because free drivers are not available. In those cases there are pretty much 3 options. 1) Reverse engineer the drivers and release them as free software which is difficult and only certain people have the skill to do this. 2) Wait/pressure hardware companies to release their drivers as free software 3) Purchase hardware that does work with Free Software. While 3 may be slightly unappealing because spending money when you already own hardware can be hard but I was able to find my wireless USB stick for approximately $10 which I consider a bargain for the price of my freedom.
Secondly, as a project the primary focus is software freedom. We do acknowledge that some non-free software is powerful/useful. The non-free software that may power your wireless card is obviously useful but we will reject it every time (unless it is freed) and not include it. While we like free software to be of good quality that focus comes second.
Although I know very few cases where you would have to compile your own drivers only you can determine if your computing freedom is worth the work.
Additional note: If you look above user Adrian Malacoda has verified that your card requires non-free firmware and that is the reason it won't work.
I think you slightly misunderstood my resolution. I do want to use this OS and it will probably be the one that's installed on my main development machine when 5.0 comes out. I'm willing to swap out my wireless card and embrace what Trisquel offers.
I do understand the difference between free and proprietary. One requires donations from its users and the other supplies jobs to 50,000+ people in the Seattle area.
I am a translator!
Free software requires donations and does not supply many jobs to people just because it is the underdog right now. There is a business model that is perfectly compatible with free software and few companies are actually applying it. But as long we have those huge mega corporations that are proprietary and pushing against freedom in the software merit, free software will remain an underdog and require donations from it's users in many cases. The free software business model will actually create new jobs in contrast to what needs to be done today. It just needs to be applied everywhere and be embraced by the government.
Indeed, you do not understand what is Free software. Here is the common definition and the rationale behind it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I believe you do not understand much what is the IT job market either. Most of these workers are either people:
* with one single "stakeholder": their own company only (whose business usually is not directly related to softwares);
* selling technical support (the so-called "IT consulting").
Both of these categories of employees, and their employers, love Free software and are increasingly using them because the freedoms they grant entail many advantages (such as the free market I was talking about in my previous message).
The developers in companies distributing softwares represent a far smaller proportion of jobs... and there are more and more people that are paid to produce Free software (for instance people in hardware companies developing drivers for the Linux kernel).
I am a member!
Apples to oranges. Proprietary software is an industry. Free software is a social movement. Economic gains are not the goals of free software, but as many in this thread have demonstrated, free software does indeed create jobs. Check out some IT jobs board, such as on this one
http://jobs.37signals.com/categories/2/jobs
and note all of the Ruby jobs, PHP jobs, Rails jobs, Python jobs, GNU/Linux sysadmin jobs etc. Each of these jobs is possible due to free software. Heck, 37signals itself was made possible by free software (Ruby + GNU/Linux) and contributes back to free software (they created Rails).
In addition, the reason free software (more specifically, community projects like Trisquel, since you seem intent on comparing a small community project to a Fortune 500 company like Microsoft) relies on donations so much is because we deal with the economic reality that a copy of software is a non-rival good. Rival goods are those that can be used up. A piece of food, for example, is rival, as is a car. Non-rival goods include digital goods like software. Proprietary software attempts to treat a non-rival good as a rival one, and is successful at that to some degree. It creates artificial scarcity, and allows a stream of almost pure profit because there are no production costs.
However, as you yourself note, since free software doesn't impose any artificial scarcity, it can't generate money the same way non-free can. The "trick" works only as long as people (and lawmakers) are willing to play along with it, and some will. Some people are perfectly willing to drop $200 for a Windows license yet refuse to donate $10 to their favorite GNU/Linux distro (Mint, Ubuntu, Trisquel, what have you). They want to pay as little as possible for as much as possible, so we have to rely on those who are willing to go the extra mile.
The other problem with this is that must not only legally, but also technologically, make their products "act" like they are rival, by means of "digital restrictions management" (DRM). DRM is supposed to stop those evil pirates and no-good crooks. In practice, though, DRM is very defeatable, and causes problems for legitimate users. DRM is lose-lose, for the legitimate licensed user (who has to go through extra hurdles to prove they are a licensed customer) and the software company (who must spend the time and money to develop a mechanism that is breakable). In DRM, the only people who don't lose are the "pirates," because once they break it, they tell everyone else how to as well. Because free software is made to be shared, we don't have the overhead of DRM, nor are we required to spend resources to implement DRM.
I understand the money is in the services. I've been developing for the web for over a decade now and much of my income comes from PHP and JavaScript development. I have felt liberated in the past 6 months by no longer using Adobe based programs inside a Windows environment. I have the right to create without paying $600 for a yearly update.
In your response, you are basically saying that a service is ok to be proprietary, but anytime a software is, the creator is the bad guy. Well maybe not as extreme as being the bad guy... but moreso losing his freedom by creating something with his creative talents and chooses not to share with others because he wants to protect his investment much like a movie studio with their intellectual property.
My initial questioning is the requirement of releasing source code for the public in this ecosystem. I know that it is encouraged and many times legally required to release the code under the GPL infrastructure if you choose to use GPLd code in your software. I've been following the progress of OpenOffice being donated to the Apache product and how IBM and other companies are happy that they can be protected under the Apache license and not required to release source code.
If I put the manpower into developing something that generates my company money in a proprietary sense, then I need to use as little to no GPLd code. On the other hand, if I want to release the source code, it allows a competitor to steal your code and potentially get a leg up with half the effort since the work is already there.
First and foremost, I understand the benefits of free software in that it is educational and gives freedoms in the usage of that software. I want to thank most of you who have cleared up some fuzzy issues in what free software is and I appreciate your work on this project.
Free software needs to have source code available because without it, users can't modify the software for their needs, or even verify that it does what it's supposed to do.
Actually most licenses don't require you to give the source code to the public. It can also be very beneficial for companies to use Free software.
Lets say I am running a supermarket or shop. And lets say I use open bravo (POS cash register software that is GPL). So lets say your competitor also uses the same software. However lets say the program lacks some feature you wish to have (and would help you gain an advantage over your competitor). You can put that into the program and have no obligation to share that improvement with anyone. The only time you are required to share source code is if you give someone a copy. So if you were to decide to give your competitor a copy then yes you would be required to share that change.
Secondly, depending on the business Free Software might save you money. In the same above scenario with the store if I was to use proprietary software and I wanted some feature implemented I would have to go to a 3rd party and beg and plead for them to add the feature/fix the bug. However with free software you can fix it or have an employee fix it.
I followed much of this discussion, which I find interesting.
Here follows my contribution to this discussion...
To me, the gap between free software and proprietary software is indeed related to the way humanity acts.
Originally, I think copyright and intellectual property fit their job : protect authors from being spoiled. Today, in many cases, it has been turned in a tool for getting more and more profit in the industry. So, the tool doesn't fit its original purpose anymore, I think it's getting obsolete (I know free software is legally based on copyright, but maybe someday only credits would be sufficient -- let's dream for it ;).
Meanwhile, we have to work with it.
Free software is a response for that in the software world.
As far as I am concerned, I would be happy if everything could be free (as in "freedom"), but after many discussions and self-thoughts, it appears to me that I can't force freedom otherwise it's not freedom anymore. If I am right, RMS only insists for "home-software" for domestic computers and devices (nowadays smartphones, ...) to be free (developping being a home-activity of course ;)
My conclusion is that :
- Proprietary software exists, it's a fact !
- I would love software creation to be in the spirit of free software in any place wherever possible, but I am patient for that.
- There are solutions that are in-between, mainly free with non-free (eg: Ubuntu). I think they role is valuable because they help spread free software in places where it might not have spread otherwise.
- There are 100% free software initiatives such as Trisquel. They are important because they guarantee that a fully free core will always exist.
I don't speak of "open-source only" and all other share-related forms, otherwise we'll get lost...
So, I think every piece of the puzzle as its role. To me, the important question concerns each of us only and is "where do I want to go ?".
Then, "how can I go further from where I am ?".
For example, I am a long-time FS user but only recent donator (not **yet** for Trisquel, sorry).
It's my current IT job (non-FS) that allows me to be a donator.
Also, I realized, I can't donate for every piece of FS I use...
And my contribution is already higher than the one I have for ecology for a long time, so sometimes it sounds strange to me... IT is not everything in life, even tough I like it ;-)
Well, that's just for being able to look at the whole thing.
A consequence of free software, beyond the ability to access and modify the code, is that it is calling into question the economic model.
Maybe it's not free software that does not suit the economic model, maybe it's the main economic model in place that does not suit well human development.
I explain... Major industries in the IT world (and not only) are seeking a never-ending profit. Proprietary software has become a tool for that and it's even more efficient since everything in our life is related to IT, even for the food to be brought in our local shop !
I don't blame "profit", I think it's normal for anybody to earn money from what it does. The problem rises with this "never-ending profit" race. Smaller companies, might be seeking prosperity solely, but feel stuck within the way the market runs, so I understand your point, "t3g".
In free software world, as you said, *mainly* (didn't say "only") services are valuated. But it might change. The wind is turning towards looking solutions for ways to finance FS creation.
How can it be ?
Let's have an example for a (distributed ?) FS company or freelance ressources.
A customer has a specific need.
They can hire FS developpers to make the software free at their cost.
In the end, as stated by some others earliers, there are all the benefits from FS : many testers, bug reporters, improvements feeders and community support brought together.
What might refrain the customer to do it, is to grant their competitors from the newly-nice-crafted-app' and benefit from it at their expense.
But ? If 2 other customers need about the same app', what happens ?
With proprietary SW, all 3 will pay for the app:
- either ordering 3 apps with 3 different SW makers
- either paying a SW maker that sells licence for an already-made product that fits their needs
If they gather and decide to hire FS developpers to build one free app', they just share the price and divide it (roughly, even if not exact) by 3.
Currently, such gathering exists for ordering proprietary SW, why not for FS ?
One might argue "yes, but then, there is only 1/3rd of the people working..."
I would say "no". If the money is there and ready to be spent, then for the same price, 3 different apps' can be made instead of 3 about-the-same apps'.
And of course, if there is no need for anything else, nothing is done, and it's good for the sake of the earth !
Well, I realize that my post has been fairly long, thank you all if you read it !
Have a good day,
Christophe S.
Talking about money to "justify" Free software is missing its point. Users of Free softwares (they say "open-source" softwares) who only see its technical benefits are missing the point too. These users (e.g., most Ubuntu users) may switch back to proprietary softwares as soon as there are features absent from the Free universe.
Now, talking about economics, here is basic concept: if copying an item does not cost anything, its price must drop down to 0. That is the case with any digital production such as softwares. As a consequence, charging per copy does not make any economical sense. In the case of softwares, the value is in the support (new developments, bug-fixing, integration, training of the employees, etc.) and a company that wants to be competitive pays for that. Even with proprietary softwares, the main cost is the support, not the price of the licenses. As it was written earlier, this company does not have to redistribute the work achieve by the developers it hires. Most developers are working for one single "stakeholder": her employer. That is why a job market world with only free softwares would not be much different from the one we have today. Nevertheless it would be healthier because Free softwares entails a Free market for support (any programmer/It consultant can work on any Free software). Liberal people should therefore advocate for Free softwares!
Sorry if I seemed to miss the point.
I realize I didn't talk about giving to the community for the sake of giving away. I was a bit focused to address the question regarding the economics.
I mostly share a close view as many of you since I wholeheartly believe in Free Software as you mean it.
However, if not the core of the question, I think it's not *bad* to talk about money or costs. If the price for distributing is "almost" 0, the creation is not 0 (whether in money or hours). And if it's true it can be covered by support or time-giving, this effort is worth being recognized. Otherwise, in some cases, we can fall in situations where the software is free software, but overly complicated, almost on purpose (to be able to bill support), which is not satisfying to me. Don't make me say that everything complicated is on purpose because I know IT is complex by itself ;-)
The vision I tried to give in my long text was one where companies would be working in the same spirit as the FS communities today : instead of trying to sell each its share or to have its own share made by another company for itself only, their goal would be to put the effort in building something of common interest for everybody, themselves as well as end-users. Even if, in the end, several declinations come to appear (eg: Subversion, Mercurial, Git, Bazaar, ....).... And I was trying to give an example of how it could be *viable*. That was it ! But we still have a long way to go before that time....
:-)
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires