Hi newbie questions.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
Hi, I've installed Triquil Linux, it is very good I got some questions:
Is it based on Ubuntu?
How do I install flash instead of gnash, at adobes website it stands that adobe is free, and isen't trisquil all about free software?
Can I help with development, I got very good knowledge about Linux, I've used Ubuntu for 1 year now so I'm quite elite.
Thanks, I hope to get some answers.
PS: Trisuil Linux is great, thanks for creating this fantastic distribution.
1. It is based on Ubuntu but it is a filtered version where the kernel and some packages are either removed or replaced. You can use Ubuntu PPAs and even run a server like an Ubuntu machine.
2. Flash is proprietary software or "non-free" and people here won't want you to use it. Gnash and Lightspark aren't that good and if you really need Flash for school or something, there's always the archive.canonical.com repo or directly installing "flashplugin-installer" from an Ubuntu multiverse repository. Watch out though... the people here will chew your head off talking about it.
3. What development languages do you know?
I do have a question for you though... where did you find out about Trisquel? Was it the Linux Action Show or a recommendation from a friend?
name at domain
Congratulations for using a GNUoperating system with linux-libre distro.
It protects your freedom by including and recommending only software
that respects it.
Adobe's Flash Player is free as in price but not free as in freedom.
Ubuntu has both free and non free software. It does not respect the
user's freedom. If you want to reproduce Youtube videos I suggest you
activate html5 at youtube.com/html5 . You be able to see most videos
without the nonfree/heavy Flash.
tegskywalker
Please do not suggest the user to use non-free software.
We do not chew anyone's head off. We only suggest the user not to give
up his/her freedom. Trisquel does not prevent the user from installing
non free software. What Trisquel does is not include it in its repos or
recommend its use because it undermines his/her freedoms.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
Please explain, I thought it was free as in free-speech, which means I'm allowed to talk about the software, I'm allowed to talk about Flash. And why do you say he can't recommend non-free? That's against free-speech, but now you say as in freedom, i dont understand please explain, please!
What we're talking about is Free Software, or software that respects essential freedoms that the user of software should always have. All software in Trisquel's repositories respect these four freedoms.
These freedoms are:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Now, let's take a look at Adobe Flash. It gives you the ability to run the program. It doesn't give you the freedom to study or redistribute modified or even unmodified copies of the software. That makes the program non-free. Therefore, we won't endorse or help out with installing the program. If you're going to rely on proprietary software, maybe it'd be better for you to stick with Ubuntu for now.
Are you purposely trying to scare away a person who may contribute money back to the project down the road?
Run Trisquel and don't use Flash, but if it is a life or death situation where your college needs you to use it for 20 minutes, then use it. Once you are done, disable it.
I am not.
I'm just saying that if he doesn't want to stick to freedom, what's the point of using Trisquel?
El 03/09/12 10:53, name at domain escribió:
> Are you purposely trying to scare away a person who may contribute
> money back to the project down the road?
>
No, I am trying to scare you from making users lose their freedom. The
fact that he puts money or not is secondary. His freedom is the most
important issue here for everybody except you.
> Run Trisquel and don't use Flash, but if it is a life or death
> situation where your college needs you to use it for 20 minutes, then
> use it. Once you are done, disable it.
>
Good suggestion...... Life is more important than freedom.....sometimes ;-)
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
I am a member!
Whilst I understand this (I think!) there is one freedom not mentioned ,
the freedom of the non technical user to be able to use Trisquel add infinitum,
by that I mean the repositories are on the developers own website, should that disappear - no more Trisquel, where is the freedom in that? If the repository's were on something like launchpad it would be different surely?.
You can mirror the repositories if you wish. There already are five mirrors you can use to fetch packages for your Trisquel system. You can also easily download everything on http://devel.trisquel.info/ too.
El 03/09/12 10:41, name at domain escribió:
> Please explain, I thought it was free as in free-speech, which means
> I'm allowed to talk about the software, I'm allowed to talk about
> Flash. And why do you say he can't recommend non-free? That's against
> free-speech, but now you say as in freedom, i dont understand please
> explain, please!
>
>
It doesn't matter if you talk about it or not. Recommending it is a
different issue.
The freedom we are talking about is the freedom to use your computer as
you wish. This can only be done with free (as in freedom) software. We
do not encourage people to give up their freedom and ask the people in
this list to do the same. This makes Trisquel benefit users instead of
attacking them.
If we suggest that you install non free software we would be attacking
you. Of course, if we attack you to save your life that would be ok. But
I do not think that is the case. Is it?
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
tux1111, the "think free speech not free beer" statement is made for those that confuse the "free" in "free software" with being zero price, a confusion that you yourself seem to have made from the beginning. It's an analogy only.
Why don't we recommend or provide information about how to install proprietary software? Because proprietary software is unethical. It shouldn't exist, and it's wrong for you to subjugate yourself to someone else. We wouldn't be very good people if we were to help people do that.
You should read the article "Avoiding Ruinous Compromises" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html.
But you miss some freedoms =o, such as:
-The freedom to distribute however you want(freedom4)
-The freedom to sue people using your software(freedom5)
those are the ones big companies like apple have with their software, please, I don't understand? FREE=0 PRICE OR DOES IT MEAN FREE=4 FREEDOMS!?!?!?
sry for being angry, i'm angry on myself cause I don't understand. Why can't I study the software, figure out how to use it etc?
> -The freedom to distribute however you want(freedom4)
Unclear for me how it should be understood. Sharing software without
making source available to users gives developers control over user's
computing that they should not have.
> -The freedom to sue people using your software(freedom5)
It's an artificial restriction, not a freedom.
> sry for being angry, i'm angry on myself cause I don't understand. Why
> can't I study the software, figure out how to use it etc?
Due to restrictions like above and not having access to its source code
(with which anyone skilled enough could help you with these, not only
the developer of that software). (There are also other restrictions
that aren't important in this case.)
If you are developing software and releasing it to people, I suggest going for Apache 2.0 or a BSD license (2 or 3 clause) to get the broadest appeal. The BSD licenses are the most lax and Apache 2.0 has some patent protection written into it.
The problem with using these non-copyleft licenses is that your software can have its license changed and put into proprietary software. Companies will often steer clear of GPL due to the restrictions and opt for these more permissive licenses. More often than not if you run a company, your lawyer will tell you to stay away from the GPL and even the LGPL at that.
Realistically though if you have an amazing, world changing piece of software that you want to get out there, there is one method. You can release the libraries and core application under a BSD or Apache license and then make additional or custom plugins proprietary. That way you can please both the free software and corporate customers.
El 03/09/12 11:33, name at domain escribió:
> Realistically though if you have an amazing, world changing piece of
> software that you want to get out there, there is one method. You can
> release the libraries and core application under a BSD or Apache
> license and then make additional or custom plugins proprietary. That
> way you can please both the free software and corporate customers.
>
>
I think that your promotion of nonfree software proves that you attack
not only other users but yourself. Don't you realize that this promotion
might get back at you by taking away your freedom to use that software?
As a friend once said: "A troll doesn't mind making a wrong to himself
as long as he does it to someone else. It is similar to fighting a pig.
Both get muddy but the pig doesn't mind."
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
The thought is about monetizing free software. In the traditional sense, free software relies on donations, a big company willing to give their code away for free, or creating custom software for a company. That is totally understood.
With having your libraries and core software as free software, you are already being generous for giving away the source code for your hard work so someone can take that and do what they want with it. Especially if you weren't paid or making any profit in creating that core software.
Let's say you create this core software and 5 companies hire you to create a software application. By having the core application in a permissive license you are able to give them peace of mind that they wont have to release ALL of the code for final product due to a license like the GPL while still having that core software compatible with the GPL.
On top of that you may have a free library that connects to MySQL but didn't have the time or resources to have one that connects to Postgres or Oracle. Maybe you didn't want to pay a license to Oracle. Whatever. That could be the situation where you create a plugin for Oracle and offer it as a seperate paid for and proprietary plugin that you charge the consumer for since they are the exception and you can reuse that plugin in the closed manner.
I'm seeing it where the majority of the customers will use the free software but when something beyond that is needed, you create it and make it non-free without comprimising the original core application due to it being a plugin and that non-free component isn't included or even talked about in the one you host on Github.
El 03/09/12 12:23, name at domain escribió:
> The thought is about monetizing free software. In the traditional
> sense, free software relies on donations, a big company willing to
> give their code away for free, or creating custom software for a
> company. That is totally understood.
>
> With having your libraries and core software as free software, you are
> already being generous for giving away the source code for your hard
> work so someone can take that and do what they want with it.
> Especially if you weren't paid or making any profit in creating that
> core software
>
> Let's say you create this core software and 5 companies hire you to
> create a software application. By having the core application in a
> permissive license you are able to give them peace of mind that they
> wont have to release ALL of the code for final product due to a
> license like the GPL while still having that core software compatible
> with the GPL.
>
> On top of that you may have a free library that connects to MySQL but
> didn't have the time or resources to have one that connects to
> Postgres or Oracle. Maybe you didn't want to pay a license to Oracle.
> Whatever. That could be the situation where you create a plugin for
> Oracle and offer it as a seperate paid for and proprietary plugin that
> you charge the consumer for since they are the exception.
>
> I'm seeing it where the majority of the customers will use the free
> software but when something beyond that is needed, you create it and
> make it non-free without comprimising the original core application
> due to it being a plugin and that non-free component isn't included or
> even talked about in the one you host on Github.
>
>
You are mixing 2 separate issues: freedom and cost. Monetizing something
does not mean restricting users' freedom. Giving up something for free
does not mean you have to trap the user with another software to make
money. The freedom a student has to use the knowledge the teacher gives
him does not mean the teacher will charge or will not charge. The
teacher should charge before teaching the class so he/she doesn't have
to restrict students from using that knowledge or else just suck it up.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
I am getting tired of your trolls. Anyway, quickly:
- Donations to free software projects are nothing compared to the money made through support (I wonder how many times you were told that on this forum);
- You wrote "Peace of mind" but you obviously meant "will of user subjugation" (an unfortunate typo).
El 03/09/12 10:53, name at domain escribió:
> But you miss some freedoms =o, such as:
>
> -The freedom to distribute however you want(freedom4)
>
You have that freedom but if it not free software the way you
distribute, you are taking away someone else's freedom.
> -The freedom to sue people using your software(freedom5)
You still have that freedom.
>
> those are the ones big companies like apple have with their software,
> please, I don't understand? FREE=0 PRICE OR DOES IT MEAN FREE=4
> FREEDOMS!?!?!?
>
Everybody has those freedoms. I think nobody should have the freedom to
enslave someone else, though.
> sry for being angry, i'm angry on myself cause I don't understand. Why
> can't I study the software, figure out how to use it etc?
>
Don't be angry. You are on the route to enlightenment if you ask and try
to understand. We want to help and have a lot of patience.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
I'm sad, what if I make a software free, then someone who i don't like uses it I can't sue them :,(, that's what big corparation does, why does we not have the freedom to do that? =,'(
"Freedom" refers to your control of your life, not to control of
activities of other people (unless they restrict your freedom).
Others can dislike other activities than you, there is a longer essay
against such restrictions
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom.html
(there are other informative essays about software freedom there).
El 03/09/12 11:13, name at domain escribió:
> I'm sad, what if I make a software free, then someone who i don't like
> uses it I can't sue them :,(, that's what big corparation does, why
> does we not have the freedom to do that? =,'(
>
>
If you use the AGPL or GPL then you can sue them and and they can sue
you. But they cannot sue you for the quality of the software because
there is no warranty for that. And that is specified in those licenses.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
EDIT: Ups posted wrong forum,sry...
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti