Another distro picker without Trisquel
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here, just came across this:
http://tuxradar.com/content/distro-picker-0
F.
- --
Fabián Rodríguez
http://trisquel.magicfab.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlF5Px0ACgkQfUcTXFrypNXbhgCg+DtXp1AYe6RyEWVKmbUpTOAJ
yNEAoL8aJ0m+79/6lachxfNghZ/QIpue
=YI+U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Looks like that picker is biased toward really only few upon looking at the website source.
That tool is useless. There's no way anyone who has no idea what distro to pick could possibly quantify what they want the way that tool asks.
They must have used Wikipedia for their research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions does not have any entry for Trisquel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_Distributions Here, there is an entry for Trisquel. But, it doesnt attract viewer's interest. It has a very small description. And, it is listed along with 51 other 3rd party unofficial Ubuntu variants and with 14 Official variants listed above them.
I think there should be a differentiation based on criteria like (Free Software), (Binary blobs present), (Recommends proprietary components), (Free ware), (Proprietary).
That will definitely make Trisquel very attractive to casual wikipedia viewers.
I think so to. Trisquel is one of the very few 100% free distros.
Among all other distros, Trisquel is kind of lost, but with the free software criteria it has the chance to get noticed.
People who get into Gnu/Linux often start at distrowatch.org, though there is little significance.
A separate list "only free distros" would be fair. Most users of GNU/Linux don't care much about freedom, they don't even know that it matters. And of course trisquel can't compete with all the full-of-proprietary-software distros if one only thinks of functionality and hardware support.
Having a 'separate' list will be of not much use. And, it also cannot be added to the comparison page.
The criterion i suggested, will pit all distributions against each other and the real Free Software Distributions will shine.
But, atleast the basic thing to be done is to first make an entry for Trisquel on the comparison page. If someone here has the required knowledge (& whose ip is not blocked by wikipedia) should make an entry there.
If correct & detailed information about Trisquel is not provided in the places on web where users most likely visit to know about distributions, then we cannot blame them for not knowing about Trisquel.
I have just filled out Trisquel's information in Wikipedia's "Comparison of Linux distributions". I added a tag "free software" among the purposes (and appended this tag to the other distros complying with the FSF guidelines).
DistroWatch actually has a category "Free Software". Trisquel is, according to DistroWatch, the most popular among them.
Thanks for doing that!
Atleast now, if someone is using the comparison page for research, Trisquel wont be left out.
However, there is still an issue of making Trisquel standout amongst all(not just amongst other Free software distributions). Free Software distributions should not be a novelty, instead it should be basic or default.
Its weird that there is redundant information about Cost of the distributions, but no classification table to reflect which ones are Free Software Distributions, which have binary blobs, which recommend proprietary, which ones are mostly proprietary.
It will take a collective effort to come up with suitable way to show that; without breaking up things & maintaining an unbiased comparison. But, the easiest one that can be included is 'Blobs present'. As, its not only a free software issue but also a security issue.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios