Simple guide to make happy a GNU user
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Here's what I want for 2014
1.I want the Trisquel project to unite with GnuSense and Debian.
2.The project that results will be based on the latest Debian Sid packages (unstable).
The project which will result has sponsorship from FSF, Debian, Gnusense and Trisquel.
3. The House of united project will be Trisquel website because it has an active community and has a strong connection with
end users through its forum.
The project will encompass the latest technological software (eg GNU Guix)
Ubuntu is not a part of the community because it follows the path of one man for the proprietary software for whom the closed source code is not a problem.
Therefore the simple fact that Trisquel is based and brings credit to Ubuntu (and advertising) is not good.
I am a member!
1) Considering gnusense uses packages that, I'm pretty sure, are older than anyone alive today..
2) And also considering that Trisquel doesn't seem to aspire to bleeding edge instability, which is more or less what Debian sid is, blood of the users and all that..
Well, honestly, that seems like a contradiction in terms.
And anyway, if you want debian sid, go get debian sid? It's entirely free, just don't enable the non-free repo..
There is nothing wrong with debian as long as you do not enable the propriatory repos.
whether the fsf endorse it or not does not matter. what matters is whether it runs free software
Here's the FSF stance http://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html
I am a member!
Hmm.. Cool, this must be one of them little forum bots I keep hearing about.. Just scanning through threads, looking for certain keywords, and then providing irrelevant links everybody's already seen a million times..
Well, that's the only explanation I can think of, seeing as the nonissue of FSF endorsement was already explicitly mentioned.
There's nothing wrong with running Debian, geez.
It seems to me that that link is extremely relevant. While there isn't anything wrong with running Debian without non-free software, Debian does include non-free software. Therefore, we should not recommend Debian to the general public. And since these forums are readable by the general public, we should not recommend Debian here.
I am a member!
Debian does [I]not[/I] include non-free software.
There is a way to enable non-free software for Debian if you know how, but if you don't explicitly search out a way to enable it, it will not be there. Kind-of like Trisquel - you can install non-free software on Trisquel, including via apt repositories, but it's not included by default. Or recommended. Same as Debian.
[opinion] I'd actually very much like to see Trisquel based on Debian stable. It has about the same release cycle as Ubuntu LTS, is more free (therefore less work to "Trisquel-ize") and imo more stable. [/opinion]
Debian-the-distribution doesn't include nonfree software, except for
software under the original Artistic License which they consider free
and FSF doesn't (the official reason is that it's unclear, I think the
issue is that it requires bundling other software to sell copies, like
the FSF-free OFL, it might have other problems).
Debian-the-project distributes and develops nonfree software, see
http://jxself.org/debian-doubletalk.shtml for a detailed explanation.
Both recommend nonfree software, the expert installer asks to enable the
nonfree and contrib repos, documentation and wiki mention nonfree
packages. This makes Debian-the-distribution different from gNewSense
and Trisquel: these distros don't recommend such nonfree software, so
users won't install it unless they explicitly look for it.
I am a member!
Nothing wrong with letting people decide for themselves. Debian simply gives you the choice.
On 04/12/13 22:34, dudeski wrote:
> Nothing wrong with letting people decide for themselves. Debian
> simply gives you the choice.
You are missing the point. People are free to have the choice to, say,
run proprietary software such as Windows, yet that is something the free
software movement should not recommend. Similarly, if the Debian project
is hosting and at times recommending* proprietary software, the free
software movement should also not recommend it.
Trisquel gives users a choice to run proprietary software, but it does
not host, nor support, nor recommend doing so.
* As I understand it, Debian sometimes asks users if they want to enable
the non-free repo on installation.
Andrew.
I am a member!
Oh, well that's okay, I'm not the "free software movement". Just a guy stating his personal opinion about Debian being a perfectly fine OS to use.
..Possibly excepting how damn slow apt-get seems to be on it.. I'll take pacman any day... xD
Yes, if you have some WiFi chip that needs firmware microcode or whatever.
I think you're missing the point.
Hosting proprietary software or asking whether user want to use it or not is not the same as recommending it.
Anyway, the differences between the goals of the fsf and debian are so extremly tiny compared to their similarities that it's almost a crime that they don't work together.
It's like Gondor and Rohan fighting against each other because of some minor issue. This way, mordor will win.
Trisquel's servers do not host proprietary software. Debian's do.
Of course you can install proprietary software (fetched elsewhere) on Trisquel. If Trisquel would not let you do that, it would be censorship (probably through DRMs!). However Trisquel does not endorse the installation of proprietary software in any way, whereas Debian makes it as easy as checking a box.
That is what the FSF say, but as long as you do not add the non-free library, it is fine.
One thing I believe should be considered is this: if Debian did not exist then gnewsense, trisquel, ubuntu, tails, mint, and a lot of other distros, would probably not exist either. If we read the social contract of debian, we see they are serious about helping the society to have freedom and mutual respect (if one sees computers as tools and not an end). Now, we can say that we want "community" and not "society", I might agree with that, but for what it is, Debian is great. And we should all be thankful debian exists. As for the fsf... I have to say that Debian would not exist too if it was not for the work of the FSF and RMS. But that is no excuse for them to "reject" debian. Putting debian on the same list as ubuntu, is a little offending.
I have to say that I like trisquel, and I like debian. I prefer debian because it is more "rock source" than trisquel that is "worked over ubuntu worked over debian work". More room for errors and such.
Now, clearly EVERYONE who has ever worked on free software and open source software has given something to the whole picture. Canonical for example, they also gave us a lot, let's be honest. Many people might not have tried "linux" if it wasn't for ubuntu. Myself included. BUT the choices one makes along the way are also important. Canonical has turned their work into something I dislike and disagree. Debian has not. Debian actually gives us the choice to use 3 different kernels (linux, freebsd, hurd) which is something no other distro does. Debian brings free software to tablets, lemotes, and other devices. I don't see anyone complaining about running debian on a tablet, but when it comes to pc, they say "only fsf endorsed distros are good, debian is evil". Truth is we probably should make a petition for the fsf to accept debian as a fsf endorsed distro, because it is a lack of respect for all the work they have done not to do so. Debian does not provide non-free software and they have made things very simple to avoid mistakes and pitfalls.
I have been thinking about using Trisquel once again, but when I think of the stability and security of debian I can't go back to trisquel. I appreciate all the work of Trisquel, and hope it goes on (when is a new update coming along??) but for me debian is the way to go.
>Debian does not provide non-free software
Please read Michał's comment above.
>Putting debian on the same list as ubuntu, is a little offending.
Debian put Debian onto that list. Shame on them.
>Truth is we probably should make a petition for the fsf to accept debian as a fsf endorsed distro, because it is a lack of respect for all the work they have done not to do so.
No, it's simply lack of freedom.
"No, it's simply lack of freedom."
Hmmm I'm currently running debian wheezy with 100% free software in it.
I'm searching for the lack of freedom... ah, now I've got it!
I'm not free because on some debian server proprietary software is hosted, and in some installer there exists an option I don't use.
Yeah, it's clearly the lack of freedom, you're right!
"I'm not free because on some debian server proprietary software is hosted, and in some installer there exists an option I don't use.
Yeah, it's clearly the lack of freedom, you're right!"
Allow me to intervene although this is my first post here. I don't think anyone argued about whether you are using free software or not. I think the main point to debian is whether it endangers / protects freedom. And as pointed before the goal of FSF is not only to get people to use free software but also teach them about the importance of freedom.
So FSF would probably agree with "running Debian using only with Free Software" (that's what they do with gNewSense) but not with "running Debian" because the presence of non-free software endangers the freedom of the users. That beeing said, if I install Debian on my mother's machine, she would probably end up running non-free software at some point without understanding what that really means, and not even thinking about who might control that piece of software.
PS: I currently don't run 100% free software but I'm on my way to do so, I recently bought a ThinkPenguin Snares and requested them to donate 25% of profit to Trisquel. I'll be moving the rest of my files and work habits from Mint14 to Trisquel in the following months.
I will support Trisquell and Free Software community as much as I can; and the most important I'll support software that *DOES NOT* endanger freedom in any way.
No.... if you install Debian in your mother's machine and don't manually add the non-free repository, she will hardly do so herself, because she will probably trust the installation procedure her son did. Debian installs without non-free, it's a choice of the user, the same that exists in Trisquel, to install or not the non-free stuff.
That being said, when installing GNU for other people, you should always take Gnash out and:
a) let only html5 do the trick or
b) install some greasemonkey scripts (like viewtube) so online media will play nicely;
Also, I find it funny that people choose to ignore the work Debian has given to GNU (developing Hurd, maintaining lots of free software packages, making it secure, etc).
Show me the user who is able to install a gnu/linux system by himself but knows so little about technical stuff that he is "by mistake" running proprietary software.
Maybe there will be one such person in the next ten years.
There are millions of persons who still have to run proprietary software for some reasons, and plenty of them could be freed by the collaboration of debian and the fsf.
Well, if the person does not understand the difference between "gratis" and "libre" software, that could happen. I think it's important to keep educating people. But, as you say, Debian should be considered free and libre, because it's what it is. Telling someone "you either use Trisquel or you are not running free software" is not going to help.
and distros like gnewsense are not really usable, c'mon, they still use openoffice! Where is libreoffice? :S
I don't really know the details of Debian and gNewSense but from what you said so far it seems resonable to make a Recognize Debian petition to FSF. But I think they would start looking at the "brand" as a whole and might question some documentation that refers to non-free stuff (if that exists). So I guess it must be hard for FSF to say something like "we endorse Debian software but not Debian documentation" (or any other small thing that creates an issue).
I've been looking into Free Software debates for a half an year now.. and I realized that FSF mostly endorses projects that cannot become non-free. By that I mean something released under GPLv3 in contrast to something like WTFPL: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ which gives you absolute freedom but that freedom might be used to release non-free software.
Another thing to notice is that they are more restrictive in the distro area than in the software realm. For example you can find a software with many different licenses in their software directory: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page even though some of the teams that develop those programs are promoting non-free software in some way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I might very well be
I am a member!
Well of course it doesn't help, but that all or nothing, holier than thou is kind of a theme with the FSF, so what can you do? That's their thing, apply sodium I guess.
And what's wrong with OpenOffice? It's still around and under active development, under a nice permissive license no less.
Openoffice vs LibreOffice... really, do we need a Super Power Beat Down? LibreOffice is the clear best choice. Also, because it is developed by the Open Document Foundation, supporting it is supporting a freer society. And OpenOffice was not being actively developed last time I checked (long time ago to be honest).
I am a member!
OpenOffice, or Apache OpenOffice as it's formally called now, is being actively developed, with version 4 now out and stuff.
And more to the point. LibreOffice has a crap logo and a greenish theme. OpenOffice is all pretty blue. Obviously that's what matters. =o And one should always root for the underdog. And so on.
"Well, if the person does not understand the difference between "gratis" and "libre" software, that could happen. "
If a person doesn't understand this difference, it clearly *will* happen someday anyway.
And how should such a person end up using trisquel instead?
I think teaching people about freedom is the only way;
Then the question becomes: can a project "teach about freedom" when many of its developers maintain non-free packages, document their installation on the official site, etc.? I would say "not convincingly".
I am pretty sure many Debian users believe their distro is about being gratis. I doubt it happens that much with Trisquel's users. The reason may be in my previous paragraph.
"Then the question becomes: can a project "teach about freedom"(...)"
Well I think here we start to disagree already.
You're exaggerating the educational importance of some details of a project most users hardly know anything about.
I don't think a project has necessarily to teach anything to anyone, neither positive nor negative. As long as the software people use is ethical.
The fact that most Debian users think it's about being gratis is not debians fault. They mention free software on their page and even refer to the gnu project, which shows clearly their relation to free software.
The users who don't value freedom didn't develop this attitude because they saw that some debian developer maintened a non-free project.
And still: I'm not claiming that their are no problems with debian.
I claim that those problems are extremely tiny compared to the problems that arise because we refuse to cooperate with debian and become one strong force.
Gnu doesn't have the power by itself. We have to provide *one whole and popular* operating system with a huge developer base under the flag of free software. This goal can be achieved by the cooperation with debian.
Gnu is no whole operating system by now. The fsf and gnu endorsed versions of it are not popular and the developer base is tiny.
There will never be a success if we have to explain too complicated and weak positions of gnu.
The users who don't value freedom didn't develop this attitude because they saw that some debian developer maintened a non-free project.
It is not really that "users don't value freedom". They usually do not even know that proprietary software denies them freedoms because their distribution does not tell them so. Quite the opposite: the Debian installer/community/documentation/etc. invites its users, without much of a warning, to enable the non-free repository.
I really think the stance of the GNU/Linux distribution matters a great deal for the overall goal of the free software movement: liberating all computer users... what requires them to be aware of the freedoms they deserve (otherwise, they may abandon them anytime).
> I have to say that Debian would not exist too if it was not for the work of the FSF and RMS.
We should also recall that Debian was originally funded by the FSF. :)
"We should also recall that Debian was originally funded by the FSF. :)"
Yeah, and then that funding mysteriously stopped.
In addition, the Debian Project began developing and distributing proprietary, user-subjugating software. Is there a connection? People are allowed to make mistakes and fund things that don't go they way they had hoped.
And some weird FSF nitpicking mysteriously started.
Sometimes I think if some people with "free software hate" didn't infiltrate the FSF to distance it from other free software projects, to weaken the free software world. -.-
Ten years from now, when Hurd is fully developed, a capable usable kernel, people will incorporate it into Trisquel and say "now I am using the GNU system!", forgetting that most of the work came from Debian.
No one has given so much to free software development like Debian. Canonical, Red Hat, Trisquel, bla bla bla... They all owe to Debian A LOT.
Now, like I said, Debian came into existence thanks to the work of RMS and FSF. But Debian did not reject FSF, it was the other way around. If they the FSF can't stop nitpicking on Debian just because they are not "proprietary software haters", maybe Debian is doing the right thing in ignoring them and keep on working to bring freedom and choice to the people.
"Want a different kernel? Here, pick one of three"
"Want only free software? No problem, use only main"
"Want a different machine? No problem, run Debian on PC, Tablet, MIPS, ARM, etc etc"
That's freedom.
No. That's choice. Freedom is not maximizing choice. It is being in control. With free software, users are in control of the work they achieve through computing. With proprietary software, the software owner controls the users.
Being in control is power, not freedom.
Debian provides you with a FREE as in speech Operating System. ONLY if you want will you add non free software to it. Saying that "the Debian operating system is non free software" is stupid. Trisquel operating system and Debian operating system are equally free when you have just finished installing them.
Now, yes, Debian gives a lot of choice. Why is it bad???
Also, proprietary software is a very vague term. One thing is for a company to never show the source code and restrain you from using your own copy of the program through laws and DRM. Another thing (totally different) is for a software to have an open source, and a license that allows for any use except commercial use. While it is not the preferable way, I don't see the last as "the software trying to control the user".
But then again, I am not a proprietary software hater, I am happy in being PRO free software. Hate usually generates more hate (towards free software in this case).
I meant "being in control of your *own* life" (you own computing when it comes to free software).
I never wrote that "the Debian operating system is non free software". I wrote:
Trisquel's servers do not host proprietary software. Debian's do.
Of course you can install proprietary software (fetched elsewhere) on Trisquel. If Trisquel would not let you do that, it would be censorship (probably through DRMs!). However Trisquel does not endorse the installation of proprietary software in any way, whereas Debian makes it as easy as checking a box.
And:
[Many Debian users] do not even know that proprietary software denies them freedoms because their distribution does not tell them so. Quite the opposite: the Debian installer/community/documentation/etc. invites its users, without much of a warning, to enable the non-free repository.
I really think the stance of the GNU/Linux distribution matters a great deal for the overall goal of the free software movement: liberating all computer users... what requires them to be aware of the freedoms they deserve (otherwise, they may abandon them anytime).
The FSF has a list of "free distros". And the FSF has another list of "common distros" that are non-free partially or as a whole).
If the Debian distro is free (and you said so yourself) the distro should be there. With a warning about the non-free repos maybe, but the DISTRO itself should be there!
I did not say that "the Debian operating system is non free software" but I did not say either that it "is free". Debian, like most GNU/Linux distributions, is partially free.
It is the distribution on this list that is the closest to meet the criteria to be on the list of FSF's recommended distributions.
But I do not see any reason why Debian should absolutely be FSF-approved. That would mean the FSF would renounced to some criteria (in favor of Debian's). The FSF is entitled to its own opinions!
>If the Debian distro is free (and you said so yourself) the distro should be there. With a warning about the non-free repos maybe, but the DISTRO itself should be there!
"This makes me wonder: If the project behind a distribution is able to support, develop and distribute proprietary software while at the same time redefining what constitutes their distribution so as to be considered 100% free then can't all distros do the same thing and make the same claim? Would we then not be required to accept them as being 100% free if they do these very same actions that Debian has done so as to avoid being hypocritical? Is it not becoming too easy for a distribution to say that they're 100% free?" -- http://jxself.org/debian-doubletalk.shtml
> No one has given so much to free software development like Debian.
> That's freedom.
Freedom is not about promoting tools that enslave users. Debian has hurt
free software as much as it has helped it.
Mind telling me why having different kernels and arquitechtures hurts free software? Again, I don't see anyone complaining when they run Debian on their tablet or e-book reader!
And mind telling me how did Debian hurt the free software world?
What I said about Hurd still holds true
I will answer this one because I guess no one else shares this opinion.
> And mind telling me how did Debian hurt the free software world?
Lets start at the beggining:
- The free software movement was born to give freedom to the user.
- Debian gives choice, not freedom, to the user.
- This hurts the free software movement. (This is true regardless how much
free software Debian contributes.)
Is my position clear now? It is not an attack on Debian. It is just being
clear about the objectives of each project and the effects it produces.
Debian has great people. Heck, even MS and Ggl have lovely people. But
that is not the point; is it?
> Mind telling me why having different kernels and arquitechtures hurts free
> software? Again, I don't see anyone complaining when they run Debian on
> their tablet or e-book reader!
That is because the person that uses those devices either does not value
freedom that much or is migrating and in fact does complain about the
nonfree software installed. If you really value freedom, you reduce some
piece of nonfree software every day.
I think the problem in English derives from the fact that free is used for
freedom and for gratuity. Why not use libre and gratis? That would
decomplicate comunication matters.
Some people do not value freedom. Some value some freedom. Others make it
a priority. All people have the right to think the way they do. The
problem is the people that use software or any other tool to impose
conditions on other people. Non-free users are not evil people. They are
the victims, wether they know it or not, wether they value our defense of
their rights or not.
"And mind telling me how did Debian hurt the free software world?"
1. At boot, Debian displays a message that my network card driver is missing proprietary firmware. Essentially, Debian is ADVERTISING proprietary firmware for my network card. What is so ridiculous about this is my network card works PERFECTLY with the free driver, so the proprietary driver Debian nags me about is completely unnecessary.
2. Iceweasel's menu entry for Tools>Add-ons takes you to the mozilla addons website, which contains free and closed addons for the browser. I do not wish to use closed addons in my browser. When using Debian, I have to read licenses for whichever addon I wish to install, in order to know whether it is a free addon or not. I do not wish to read licenses. I wish to see a list of free addons that I may install.
3. Debian does not contain the Parabola patches for KDE, which remove all references to non-free software like built-in Palm Pilot support or references to closed software like Flash.
Those are only the ones I am personally familiar with. I am sure there are many more. All of the above are true, even on an install from the main repos only.
Oh yes - All hail Debian, for without it nothing would have happened. (Ignoring that, in this alternate universe, had Debian never existed something else would likely have happened.)
"Ten years from now, when Hurd is fully developed, a capable usable kernel"
Please don't overlook at that GNU actually has two kernels: HURD and Linux-libre (the second was made official about 1.5 years ago or so.) So, GNU has a perfectly functional kernel and a release is forthcoming. Keep an eye on the packaging of GNU 1.0 at http://gnu.org/software/guix.
"That's freedom."
Just because you're able to use the word in a sentence doesn't mean it's about the same thing. The free software movement is not about freedom of choice. The social, ethical, and political issues are not addressed by the slogan of "freedom of choice."
I agree. I do not really understand why many users seem to care that much about the Hurd. We do have another perfectly functional kernel that is free software (Linux-libre). The Hurd has been developed for 22 years and basically is, today, in an alpha stage. I personally would not bet that it will be "fully developed ten years from now".
Do not get me wrong: I would be happy to have the Hurd working... like I am happy whenever a free software project is successful. I just do not feel it is a priority since a perfectly functional alternative already exists.
This "perfectly working" kernel is brandmarked with a name which doesn't convey the ideas of the free software movement.
We are forced to mention (and in my view, promote) linux every time we talk about the operating system.
We are forced to lead a completly useless name-fight we can never win.
Oh yes - All hail FSF, no matter if they nitpick and do nonsense stuff like rejecting a free software distro.
I don't hail FSF. I respect them, which is different and better. I just happen to disagree in some points (such is life...)
Yeah sure... GNU has 2 kernels:
1. Hurd: the only people who have made available a usable distro using this kernel were... Debian.
2. Linux-libre: Which is based and relies on Linux. Linux is not developed as free software project, although it is licensed as such, Linux is treated like a commercial project and Linus Torvalds shows clearly he cares little about freedom. Other important people there are also ready to add any kind of blob just to make it with big companies. You are relying on the work of a non free project, but you don't look at that in the same light you do with Debian. I am not against linux-libre, I am a supporter of such a project, but I am aware that if Linux stopped being developed, Linux-libre would be doomed. How can you use Linux-libre as an excuse to overlook all the work Debian has put into Hurd and the kfreebsd kernels??
So you believe one can be free without freedom of choice? Lol, that would basically make you a slave of other people decisions regarding free software. "You are only free if you follow what we, the FSF, write in our website. If you attempt anything against our writings and opinions, you are not free. Now rejoice in the freedom we thrust upon you". That's what you seem to support -.-
Again, I respect the fsf. But sometimes, I feel something is not working properly, and think.... could someone be causing damage from the inside??
Still, just like Debian, I don't overlook all their work, and try to support and spread their campaings among my friends and family.
The fundamental problem is the definition of what is a "free software distro". Here is the FSF's answer and why Debian does not satisfy it (yet?). Why would the FSF have to lower its demands for the Debian project? It is entitled to its own opinions!
1. As far as I know, Arch Hurd is still active. Gentoo used to have a Hurd edition too. And, again, why does the Hurd matter that much to you? And why would it matter to the point of making a difference in defining what is a freedom-respecting distribution?
2. Linux-libre does not have the blobs you mention. For the user, that is what matters. Of course, it would be better to have free software replacements for those blobs... but I do not see how the Hurd, which currently supports close to no hardware, represents a solution. If you are afraid that the development of Linux stops and are sure that the Hurd will be fully-developed ten years from now, then you should read more about those two projects!
You should read the definition of the word "freedom" too. It definitely has nothing to do with choice. If you are forced to follow what a third organization writes (as you suggest), then you are obviously not free: that organization controls you. Nobody here is "supporting" that. Stop mocking us.
I am a member!
"You are only free if you follow what we, the FSF, write in our website. If you attempt anything against our writings and opinions, you are not free. Now rejoice in the freedom we thrust upon you."
Well. Yeah? The FSF tends to equate freedom of choice with convenience, what else is new?
Which in fairness is totally reasonable, it is pretty damn convenient when grandma doesn't complain because her WiFi card doesn't work or whatever..
Point is, that's always been their thing, so doubt it needs sabotage. Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of important work, but then so does the salvation army, and I'd advise taking their philosophical underpinnings with a fair chunk of salt too.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios