[Poll] Should Trisquel 9 be Based on Debian?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I am a member!
Answer at https://www.poll-maker.com/poll1922291xBcBf4686-51
When I have recorded enough responses, I will email to the main developers
Reason to support Debian: Trisquel could be based on Jesse (main branch only). This uses the debian Kernel which already divides free from non-free firmware, plus official backports (main branch only) which will provide a newer kernel.
This could speed up new releases (or a rolling release) a lot because Trisquel will have to provide only helpers for packages such as Firefox or Icedeove in order to avoid non-free adds-on suggested.
I am a member!
This poll requires proprietary software in the form of JavaScript in the web browser, so I did not run it.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
Trisquel should stay on Ubuntu LTS. If you want Debian, go help gNewSense. Also, Jessie is OLD STABLE. If you're going to base it off anything, go with Stretch STABLE.
I am a member!
I heard gNewSense is dead though. And what would be a good polling website then? I agree with you about the Debian version though.
You could try asking David (Trisquel's Website adminstator) to activate a Drupal module (Trisquel.info is run on Drupal)
https://www.drupal.org/project/webform
(Webform is the module for making forms and surveys in Drupal).
This is based on Webform but in French
https://www.framaforms.org/
Trisquel initial quest was to be based on the most popular GNU/Linux distritubion aka Ubuntu.
You can contact gNewSense too, on the dev-list for more info of a Debian based Libre OS.
I instead want to make an gNewSense derivative instead of helping them, an another dead GNU system, Blag, I also need to derive it to my new sources based rolling GNU system (Parabola is binaries based rolling GNU system), Blag was rpm-based and rpm sources are as sources based as Gentoo (Ututo, its derivative, was also an GNU system).
I am a member!
Stop fragmenting labor. What you are doing is harmful and helps nobody. Help an existing project or don't help at all. Your little pet project is a waste of labor, and you should be ashamed.
Keep your hair on Calher. There may be good reasons someone wants to start a new project rather than join an existing one. A friendly suggestion to help with an existing distro is fine. But it's just mean to tell people their efforts to help free software are "harmful and helps nobody", or "a waste of labor", and nobody should ever, *ever*, be told to "be ashamed" for any kind of work on free software.
I am a member!
I may have said it in a mean way, but I have been seeing so much fragmentation lately that nobody is getting any work done.
Let's keep it all together in the same project people! :)
name at domain writes:
> I may have said it in a mean way, but I have been seeing so much
> fragmentation lately that nobody is getting any work done.
As the FSF says:
"[...] if you want to make an effective contribution to free GNU/Linux distributions, we suggest that you join the development of an existing free distro rather that starting a new free distro."
Most of Ubuntu's proprietary software is separated out, too. I don't see switching to a Debian base as advantageous. Heck, I personally would have very little reason to use Trisquel if it were based on Debian.
I agree with you on this one.
I think Trisquel 8.0 should be Trisquel 9.0.
Trisquel, if it is to remain in sync with Ubuntu, should follow the current Ubuntu LTS. Since 8.0 still has not materialized, we should take advantage of this "opportunity", and re-set to release 8.0 based on Ubuntu 18.04. (Bionic Beaver?) Why rush to release before then? There certainly has been no rush to reach where we currently are.
As far as stability goes, I think a lot of that has to do with running a DTE (Desk Top Environment). My experience with DTEs has been appalling, but KDE-Neon has been a revelation. I certainly hope that Trisquel 8.0 comes with a Triskel option *using KDE-Neon*. (Please try it, if you have the opportunity. It is beautiful, apart from being stable.)
I think the issue of stewardship of the Trisquel project needs to be raised, rather than a discussion of what is upstream. The maintainer, to whom we are all grateful for starting this project, seems to have been unable to provide sufficient time to the project to keep it up-to-date. Either an additional or a different maintainer is needed, I believe.
KDE may be beautiful but it also uses more RAM than almost any other Desktop Environment. In fact, with the death of Unity, KDE may now be the most bloated DE.
Having played around with Mint, with both Cinammon and Mate, I think the choice of Mate for Trisquel 8 is a good one.
Since the goal of Trisquel is to be the most user-friendly libre distro, there's a balance to be struck between providing the bells and whistles expected of a modern Desktop Environment, and keeping it useful to people reconditioning old Windows machines to run in freedom. Ideally, Trisquel should run on a PC designed for XP, with a single 32-bit core and 1GB of RAM. Second-hand boxes that old are now ubiquitous and cheap, so if Trisquel runs adequately on them out-of-the-box, it will fly on anything newer. That way, users who are new to libre GNU-Linux will have a pleasant user experience that keeps them keen, rather as stuttering, hanging system that puts them off.
If you really need Qt but dnt wanna engage much RAM you instead need LXQt, it is Qt-only thin client desktop like Lumina from the FreeBSD universe.
KDE instead integrates Qt, Gtk+, Gtk2 which must engage too much your RAM.
Gtk+ desktops like GNOME, MATE, Cinnamon, Xfce, are they thin clients as LXQt vary on do you need large apps too much, like Firefox, Thunderbird, office suites etc.
On 27/10/17 22:12, wrote:
> I think Trisquel 8.0 should be Trisquel 9.0.
I was afraid that this moment would eventually come. That the
delay of Trisquel 8 (more than one year) would grow to the point that it
would be suggested to wait for the next Ubuntu LTS release - and that it
would have a point (75% of the time has already passed, so why not to
wait for the remaining 25%?). Except that there is no reason to think
that Trisquel developers would work faster on the next Ubuntu LTS
release that they were working on the present one. So, my view on it...
it would mean more delay on exchange for nothing.
--
Ignacio Agulló · name at domain
After a decade or so of running GNU-Linux on the desktop, I've learned the hard way that the newest version is *not* always the best version. My first distro was Ubuntu, and I always used to upgrade to the latest version as soon as it come out. But this did not give me the most stable OS, even if I did have more current versions of various apps.
"Trisquel, if it is to remain in sync with Ubuntu, should follow the current Ubuntu LTS."
The whole point of an LTS is that it provides Long Term Support.
https://www.ubuntu.com/info/release-end-of-life
Because Trisquel 7 was based on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, it will continue to get security fixes and other critical updates until early 2019. It's still a perfectly usable OS, in fact it works a bit better now on the same hardware than it did when I first installed it.
As long as Trisquel 8 comes out before 14.04 support ends, we will be fine. Trisquel 8, like Ubuntu 16.04, will get critical updates until early 2021. By that time, Trisquel 9 will be out, and will get critical updates for it until early 2023. How many of us will even be using the same hardware by then?
He is doing work... see the "Code" link in the menu in the right side of
the main page. Also if I recall correctly, Trisquel has a development
mailing list.
name at domain writes:
> I think Trisquel 8.0 should be Trisquel 9.0.
>
> Trisquel, if it is to remain in sync with Ubuntu, should follow the
> current Ubuntu LTS. Since 8.0 still has not materialized, we should
> take advantage of this "opportunity", and re-set to release 8.0 based
> on Ubuntu 18.04. (Bionic Beaver?) Why rush to release before then?
> There certainly has been no rush to reach where we currently are.
>
> As far as stability goes, I think a lot of that has to do with running
> a DTE (Desk Top Environment). My experience with DTEs has been
> appalling, but KDE-Neon has been a revelation. I certainly hope that
> Trisquel 8.0 comes with a Triskel option *using KDE-Neon*. (Please try
> it, if you have the opportunity. It is beautiful, apart from being
> stable.)
>
> I think the issue of stewardship of the Trisquel project needs to be
> raised, rather than a discussion of what is upstream. The maintainer,
> to whom we are all grateful for starting this project, seems to have
> been unable to provide sufficient time to the project to keep it
> up-to-date. Either an additional or a different maintainer is needed,
> I believe.
I vote "stay" in Ubuntu.
I like its user friendly environment that I see in Trisquel. Not Unity of course.
Debian is not user friendly for newcomers.
"plus official backports (main branch only) which will provide a newer kernel."
I thnk jxself already handles that anyway (though the kernels don't come from Debian AFAIK)
I vote "keep trisquel" based ON Ubuntu but under THE FSF RULES.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios