trisquel 6
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
when will trisquel 6 be released
When it's ready.
I am a member!
Meanwhile, you can try a fresh iso's from here :
http://devel.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/
It is pretty stable. And of course, try to report bugs here :
https://trisquel.info/en/project/issues
Please release the damn thing already.
I think Ruben is removing some of the packages that have freedom-related issues (but they can be added later on).
There are quite a few of them:
https://trisquel.info/en/issues/5311
Trisquel 6 has still a lot of issues unsolved (and not related to Ubuntu) that need to be solved.
Other than that I am quite sad to see the non invisible bar like the 5.5 release (but I didn't found a solution myself to this).
I have asked Ruben about it and he said transparency is not possible anymore without indirect hacking.
I hate to recommend this again since it isn't Gnome like the current Trisquel, but if you want to recreate the Gnome 2 look in Trisquel, you are going to have to use MATE with the Trisquel themes and icons.
dunno
I am a member!
I really don't mind the fact that it takes a lot of time and dedication to develop a really great distribution like Trisquel with only a 1 or 2 man developer team running the show.
But a simple 50-100 word update from Mr. Rodríguez certainly wouldn't hurt if community transparency is on the todo list.
Regardless, is Trisquel 6, in its current state, stable enough for daily use?
5.5 has been a pleasure to use, and I can't wait to install 6.0 on my new notebook
Regards
I am a member!
I've had Trisquel 6 for daily use since November 2012, and recommend it
to friends.
-Dave
>
> Regardless, is Trisquel 6, in its current state, stable enough for daily
> use?
I am a member!
I have to admit I've forgot what the hold up was it has taken so long.
Works well? Is it not completely free yet? I think that might have been the issue... although from the meeting notes I thought they were thinking it was almost ready. Guess not.
One of the things that have been forgoton since the first release of Trisquel 6.0, and is also silly if you think about it, is the "Use Only Free Software" on the grub menu... I'm wondering what it does to the Trisquel installation...
Some bugs still need to be solved. The problem is when those bugs can't or won't be solved... As an example we have the sound problems affecting the 5.5 version on some Intel HDA sound boards (like mine), but they have been solved in 6.0, where another problem is persitant (again on the hardware that I have on my laptop). Those bugs are still today available in 12.04 and have been solved in 12.10. But if the goal is to keep "almost the same" rythm and updates, then people will have to wait more.
I personally would have solved that if I could of course.
Other than that, I start to agree more and more with you on the economic side of the Trisquel's development question. It really needs a strong and stable investement in order to have an also storng and stable totally free distribution.
Because... let's face it... there no other excelent and easy to use totally gnu-compliant/free Distribution like trisquel (even knowing that the other have all very good).
I am a member!
I think the hardware compatibility bugs you are referring to are not the kinds of bugs that Trisquel is ever going to fix. They are going to fix those upstream. The things that they are working on fixing in Trisquel relate to the non-free sofware inclusion and/or bugs that are specific to Trisquel (ie abrowser, linux-libre, etc).
If this version doesn't get released by April, then that means the codebase it is based off of is one year old and 2 versions behind Ubuntu.
Obviously this distro has turned into a secondary priority for Ruben and it shows. No updates and the founder rarely communicates with us.
I've said this before and I will say this again. The Trisquel team, due to being small and lacking resources, should probably only release versions based off of Ubuntu LTS releases. This allows more time to add polish to a distro that may attract those looking for a stable totally libre distro.
Having Ubuntu releases every 6 months is obviously time consuming and stressful for Ruben to keep up. Maybe it is about time Trisquel gains some focus and direction?
I am a member!
Isn't this what I was saying earlier?
I'm not 100% positive this would work perfectly although I believe Redhat does basically this for RHEL. It is really just a few critical packages that probably need back-ported. The ones that I feel would need back-porting would be hplip, linux-libre, and abrowser. I'm not sure what else Rubén packages so there could be other critical pieces I don't know about or am just not thinking of.
It wouldn't satisfy all users although I think it is a good compromise for the majority. Users would not have a problem getting hardware and at the same time would have an up to date system (for critical components, abrowser, security updates, etc).
This doesn't solve the problem of financing which is the underlying problem here. What would solve the problem better is this + a funding campaign.
I like this idea, too, partly because Trisquel 5.5 is significantly behind anyway (GNOME 3.2, ScummVM 1.3, etc), so I don't think being just a little more behind would be that noticeable.
Or, perhaps rather than having three STS releases, have just one, halfway between the LTS releases. Or perhaps allow STS releases to be slightly sporadic, so that there might be one, two, or three depending on what's been going on in Ubuntu's development and how much time Ruben has.
I am a member!
I was thinking that would be problematic because of the time frames for which the STS releases are supported. However taking a 2nd look Trisquel probably could release a LTS version off 12.04 and then a STS version off 13.04 technically. The 13.04 release would be supported 6 months after the 14.04 LTS based release so it does give him time to work. However it is less time than he currently has to work on the STS releases.
Here is the Ubuntu release secdule:
10.04 LTS 29 April 2010 April 2013
10.10 10 October 2010 10 April 2012
11.04 28 April 2011 28 October 2012
11.10 13 October 2011 April 2013
12.04 LTS 26 April 2012 April 2017
Right now Rubén has up to one year to get out each new STS based release.
If it was based off only LTS releases he would also have up to one year to get out each new LTS based release.
If it was based off LTS releases AND one STS release inbetween he would only have up to 6 months to get out the next LTS release. So this would actually reduce the amount of time he has to work on it unless your gong to simply accept that there will be a certain amount of time where there will be no security updates for the STS released versions.
There is one other possibility. It would be an odd one although you could release a version off 13.10 (the release just prior to the LTS release). That would give him up to a year for each LTS release and it would still give users a refresh just as the packages are going from old to *really old*. So while it would be a really bizarre schedule it might just work. I haven't thought about it though in terms of time though. That is if back-porting the critical packages takes a lot of time and effort he is now adding to the work load unless he stopped back-porting toward the end of each LTS cycle to focus on just the STS releases.
I don't know. It's all such a messy situation because ultimately Rubén doesn't have the time to even keep the abrowser package up to date. We need to figure out if back-porting all critical packages is going to be less work or more work. He is probably the best person to figure this out.
In my opinion Trisquel has two problems:
1. based on Ubuntu
Ubuntu add more, more and more proprietary software in the repository, kernel and everything. It demand more time to clear the code. Fedora for example doesn't has this, the problem is with Firefox and Linux non-free firmware. I think is more easy to clean Fedora with Linux-libre than Ubuntu.
2. Windows-like panel with GNOME 3.
I don't like the Trisquel default look(I use GNOME Shell). It's remember the more known proprietary system from the world. And with recent GNOME it's terrible and annoying. And also demanding more time to do the change. Or change for XFCE or KDE or use default GNOME (but Ubuntu does not have the "default GNOME")
Fedora's short life cycle would probably make it difficult to use as a base. Just look at BLAG; their current version is still based on Fedora 14, and they're stuck with IceCat 5.
> Fedora for example doesn't has this, the problem is with Firefox and Linux non-free firmware. I think is more easy to clean Fedora with Linux-libre than Ubuntu.
+1, Freed-ora[1] already does a good job at blacklisting non-free kernels. Main problems I can think of with Fedora are (1) lack of LTS release and shorter release cycle, and (2) it might take a lot of effort to change scripts to rebrand. There might be other problems as well.
> And with recent GNOME it's terrible and annoying.
The problem is that fallback mode is not as well tested (by upstream). It's usable, but there's annoying things like when windows open, the text in the window list covers the icon.
I'm interested to see what direction Trisquel goes for Ubuntu 13.10 if it uses GNOME 3.8 without fallback mode.
1: http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-libre/freed-ora
One other thing: Ubuntu 11.10, the version that 5.5 is based off of, is at the end of its lifecycle in April of this year.
I am a member!
Right... basically Rubén has 2-3 months max to get 6 out before the security updates which come from Ubuntu upstream run out.
I believe Trisquel 5.0 is still supported (interestingly), even though Ubuntu 11.04 is now unsupported. But I'm not sure what level of support that is.
Maybe support != updates?
After April, I'm guessing that at least two Trisquel versions (2.x and 5.0) will be unsupported. I'm not sure how much effort it takes to support a version, but at least Ruben might have more time then.
I am a member!
Just taking a look you would appear to be right (that is at least the download page, wikipedia page, etc all say it is still supported) although I think that should be wrong. This should be updated to say it is unsupported and it should be removed from the download page.
Trisquel gets security updates from Ubuntu 11.04 for the 5 release and Ubuntu 11.04 stopped receiving security updates 28 October 2012. People should not continue using this version. They can use version 4 or they should upgrade to 5.5.
Well... this is not a comment. but is related to Trisquel 6.0...
What are the differences between:
trisquel_6.0-20121201-fsf_amd64.iso 01-Dec-2012 09:57 1.5G
trisquel_6.0-20121201-i18n_amd64.iso 01-Dec-2012 10:15 1.2G
First difference is obvious, the size!
and the (fsf) could be "Free Software Foundation"
but what else is differente among the images?
Thanks!
BTW - This is my first post.
> BTW - This is my first post.
Welcome. :-)
> What are the differences between:
> trisquel_6.0-20121201-fsf_amd64.iso 01-Dec-2012 09:57 1.5G
> trisquel_6.0-20121201-i18n_amd64.iso 01-Dec-2012 10:15 1.2G
I heard the FSF version has different packages on it. They use the same repositories though. The FSF version is the one distributed during FSF campaigns.
http://devel.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/
trisquel_6.0-20130203_i686.iso 03-Feb-2013 00:03 704M
http://packages.trisquel.info/toutatis/
toutatis (6.0LTS)
To answer this topic there is the roadmap:
Wow, just ten more days!
I am a member!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
If I'm running a pre-release version (20121201), can I upgrade to the final release via apt once it's out on the 15th, or will I have to re-install?
Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlETvhYACgkQgijxUCZnvls1mwD+NmKXOL35Bi5vjeD5yjesUgl4
XU5GlrJbH4j2D5IpFy0BAK6BOoC3JXzPB4RJQ7pzYTdpg05ncoUY4FVyqvOPST8/
=iBVx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am a member!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I know this is looking ahead a little bit, but what are the plans post- Trisquel 6? Personally I think it would be a good idea to skip Ubuntu 12.10 all together, and focus on getting a trisquelised version of 13.04 out the door as Trisquel 7. Thoughts?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlEUyBAACgkQgijxUCZnvltDawD/bUAR/6u6dvlCiidOtEVTMXPo
VbXVBRmYqjQhfRj0TVcA/1Bg+RHDOk+4Ju60z4CHhZGxTizij7Ie7RffvETh6S4H
=fBaN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You might want to read the 2013-01-29 meeting. [1] Quidam said that he would not skip 6.5.
PS. nice to see a GPG user once in a while. There aren't enough around. :-)
1: https://trisquel.info/files/trisquel-dev.2013-01-29-17.05.log_.txt
I am a member!
It's only possible to upgrade an installation of a STS (short-term support) version of Ubuntu (therefore Trisquel also) to the very next version, be it STS or LTS (long-term support). (LTS installations can be upgraded either to the very next STS version or to the next LTS; LTS versions are launched every 2 years.)
I am a member!
Where is the final RC? I thought quidam said it would be released today...
name at domain wrote ..
> Where is the final RC? I thought quidam said it would be released
today...
But he didn't say what time zone that would be -- And there are still
(roughly) 14 hours left somewhere in the world where it's still
considered to be February 8.
Those issues would be solved if he moved from a LTS to LTS release so 6 will be 12.04 and 7 will be 14.04. At the pace right now, the Trisquel releases will always be 4-6 months behind the Ubuntu release.
But this is Ruben's distribution and his rules and we are just users waiting for whatever he puts out there. Are we consumers? Are we the product? If not, how much pull does the "community" really have in the development of Trisquel?
Just had a quick look at the RC using VirtualBox. I think I remember quidam mentioning somewhere that it was impossible to keep a transparent task bar in the main edition, which is really too bad. So how come the Trisquel Mini task bar is transparent (and very nice looking)?
Main edition in 6.0 uses Compiz, Mini uses Openbox.
All previous main versions used Metacity which was why transparency was possible on gnome-panel.
I am a translator!
Here the wallpaper: http://devel.trisquel.info/toutatis.jpg
Wow, very nice! Like the 5.5 wallpaper. You could losslessly shave a few kB off with jpegoptim, tight is good. :)
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti