is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
It's not on the approved distro list. Is that because it comes with proprietary software, recommends, or facilitates?
The Debian distros can be used in freedom if you're careful. The FSF won't put their name on it though since it's conditional (if you're careful) and because they have issues with what the project behind the distro is doing (distributing proprietary software as a side activity) and they don't seem to see an easy way to draw a line between "Debian-the-distro" and "Debian-the-project-behind-the-distro" - See their explanation for Debian at https://gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
See also "Optionally Free Is Not Enough" (for FSF endorsement) at
https://gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html
Debian GNU/Hurd isn't a stable and usable for average users yet- it's testing, I believe. That may be why it's not on the list.
I find it unlikely that there's any non-free software for Hurd, or that Debian has a non-free repository for Hurd, but it's possible.
You should be able to run that Hurd OS in freedom.
The Hurd is to today as Linux is to 2004.
Anyway, about Debian, I think their relationship with the FSF is something a wee bit like:
FSF: You're starting to use proprietary software, we'll drop our support"
Deb(no, not Ian's girlfriend): Alright, we'll be cool with that. Don't worry.
FSF: Alright then. Good luck!
A bit later
FSF: We're making a list of approved distros, you're not in it and you know why.
Deb: Yes, we're cool with that. Don't worry, we understand.
FSF: Good, then, mate. Have a good day.
Deb: You too. BTW, se the absolutely mad arguments, at times even flame wars, about our exclusion from the approved distros list?
FSF: Yeah, let's leave them alone.
Deb: Let's.
The truth is: who cares about this list anyway? Most users don't know about it, they don't even know about the fsf.
And what really matters is the software running on my computer.
I do care. And anybody that respects their own freedom will do too.
Well, not Debian (for the good and for the bad, I think it's mostly good, though).
Well, not most people (as you've said, or implied). They've got to get steered a bit to free software first, and bundling it with proprietary software isn't how one does it in my opinion. I think a government (of a decently high level, i.e. an entire G20 country rather than Dull, Scotland, alone) should start it - and for the right reasons.
"And the men who hold high places, must be the ones who start....."
But I guess a list of fully free distros (I'm getting more & more into the opinion that "approved" isn't the right word) can't really hurt, can it? :)
Honestly, why can't they list debian as 'partially approved', explaining with a little '*' that they don't endorse the use of the non-free repos and the 'evil doings' of the debian project?
I still think this would be ridiculous but at least one big popular distro would be on that list.
But no, make instead way for 'ututo' and 'blag' which are practically unusable.
I am a member!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I see your point, but this is a mathematical issue. How can you be
partially 100% free? :)
Best,
Lev Lazinskiy
https://levlaz.org
On 11/24/2014 01:07 PM, name at domain wrote:
> Honestly, why can't they list debian as 'partially approved',
> explaining with a little '*' that they don't endorse the use of the
> non-free repos and the 'evil doings' of the debian project? I still
> think this would be ridiculous but at least one big popular distro
> would be on that list. But no, make instead way for 'ututo' and
> 'blag' which are practically unusable.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUc5YcAAoJEGdDlSTynDmsCvkP/0Jz9VhzM6/nFwhC8utrPtv4
Hols7pxTIy/YIdRnGI9xjbPTC3SCwc8juXotzKpPOley4Fa+JLGTBdP/oiGwlvnm
A3qfhSgVBQripoI3SNpcwDSnFOtpQMngg4A9/F7x+rAq7NNrox3rO9N0OTspBQm6
+mnaRy3kz0Ie5ofq63bZji2ELecBBwHerZQbXfBmNO1gKbDn3Rr0Q68fIj3AAcjM
VNMHaHmoTokfeDrNfhBg6zJAcjDukJFUFxICTjOA5zW8tjYFrm5jHYlbW2cepWir
qwMRCKq7R+C29mx2bg8x5uYPJv6UFVsTYvlEo28hZtIwt9Nh7dZsbH0QA4j0WU8Y
k15nse0L3GweuM6UQJvS1wfrMfDBlsIYrj/KV4IHo+ow3j4JW8pEPbTYpysIHm7I
abBBBGH+dg4jSJxROiUn1dasTIpDqoQRWkYAX2FJXwcTIPbsPupVTZczG7DwPIBa
Rw609KIf3/E7j6s42/tncWvn+j0GYTUp8YZR+6ZruW0ji6lgliWodw71I9j0jT8z
BbEPjRuLVVtPGJWhBp8hPe6ABH9iDFKm0jrvXWDXNr/D9drsqCjbTPyZIvD3BeUp
Ha4QLzzWFMafTKDaNOB0VhGs+BSMuyIoDL0ShLEyl7vu9RNVxg8JIIykiPqoGVr7
BI73EEwqXJgzbxpDdmUP
=Qrg2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html documents the problem every common distribution has. It is pretty clear Debian has fewer problems than the other common distributions.
As for the list of free software distributions, some editing work would be good to put emphasis on Trisquel and, to a lesser extent, on Parabola.
@quantumgravity "Honestly, why can't they list debian as 'partially approved'" Good question. I don't personally mind though, and Debian seems to also be cool with that. So maybe there isn't really a need for that anyway.
And BLAG is Usable - a bit ugly but changing themes isn't a difficult thing to do. Not a fan of it, though.
But then I don't think (now that there's Trisquel, Gnewsense, etc) the FSF actually recommend distros like Ututo and Dragora for use - they just want to show that they're fully fine with what the distros are and how they're maintained, and want distos to be maintained that way (freedom-wise).
Anyway, Quidam, I don't think hiding comments based on rating is a very good idea :(
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios