Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Canonical's restructuring moves ahead. Shuttleworth back as CEO, Canonical seeks going public. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/ubuntu-creator-takes-ceo-role-again-after-layoffs-and-death-of-unity/ Canonical says it is still committed to the desktop, but the company's financial success is coming from cloud computing, servers, and Internet of Things workloads. The company "axed more than half the team who worked on Unity," reassigning some employees to other parts of the company and laying off others, The Register reported last week. Shuttleworth spoke to The Register about his plans for Canonical, saying the company might eventually go public.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Yes :) Sadly it is also kind of heavy so Trisquel won't ship it :(
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
oh, I
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
>why a DE would depend on an init? It's really simple, mate: because Pottering can!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
$ sed -e 's|the maker of Linux distro Ubuntu|the maker of GNU/Linux distro Ubuntu|' Better :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
I agree, I don not like it too, latest versions depend hardly on Systemd, why a DE would depend on an init? because Systemd it is not really an init, it does things that are not related in what an init must do. This may be a different topic, but anyway, it is true.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Axing Unity means devs must go. Canonical, the maker of Linux distro Ubuntu, is axing staff and closing projects under a sudden commercial get-fit regime. [...] The cuts came after Canonical founder and millionaire Mark Shuttleworth's decision to seek potential outside investors. These investors determined that Canonical was overstaffed and some projects lacked focus. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/06/canonical_cuts_jobs_with_unity_bullet/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Android is a huge success... it overtook Windows NT in number of users in 2014, and now it has even overtaken Windows NT in number of world wide web page views even though Android devices lack proper keyboards and big screens. This success was so much self-evident that six years ago everybody wanted to do things more Android-like. And of course, GNU/Linux developers thought they were the ones more ready to do it, because they already shared the Linux kernel. So there was this trend to design desktops for GNU/Linux as if they were for Android. GNOME 3 succumbed to it. Unity (Ubuntu's customized GNOME) went even further - here is the short review I wrote about it: http://www.grafotema.com/agullo/articulos/ubuntu/ubuntu.html#5 I remember being at an GNOME 3 presentation asking "So you cannot have two applications at the same time onscreen so you can copy things from one to another?". It was unbelivable to me. So we computer users with GNU/Linux had to withstand desktops that were obviously worse to use, because desktop developers happened to have the expectation that convergency with mobile devices would lead GNU/Linux to massive success. Moves intended to multiply the user base at the cost of disappointing the old users show how little the developers cared for their users community. And guess what, sucess never came - I suppose new users never come when they see the old ones are unsatisfied. So, the move only succeded at betraying their old users' trust. So I am happy to read that Unity is to disappear, and wish this lesson would be learnt once and for all.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
I personally like mate over gnome anyday. But LXQT and LXDE are my favorites. ps, still using stretch debian but like you guys if you used it, I have kept the nonfree area closed tight.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
How about these ideas for trump: Make America Crazy Again! Make America Broke Again! Make America Break Again! and of course, MAKE AMERICA RAGE AGAIN! tehehehe...
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
According to that article on OMGBuntu the Snaps project will continue for now. As Shuttleworth says in his blog, ultimately its the industry and the community who will decide, whether containered desktop apps are what we want, and if so, which format we want to use. Hopefully we will make that decisions at least partly on technical merit, and not just schoolyard politics ;P Shuttleworth shows a lot of integrity in admitting that Ubuntu's push into the mobile device market has failed, like Mozilla's FirefoxOS before it. It's brave to face up to the fact that the software projects that were started to pursue that goal now fail a cost/ benefit analysis for his company, as he did with Ubuntu One, instead of continuing to throw money at those projects out of sheer bloody-mindedness. I wouldn't write off Unity, Mir, Ubuntu Touch etc just yet though. I've met a few guys that have been working on them professionally for years, who really believe in them. They also disagree with Shuttleworth a lot, although they're smart enough to keep quiet about it at work. I can imagine some of them continuing or forking those projects, whether its under the umbrella of the Ubuntu Foundation, or some other incubator like the Apache Foundation or Software Conservancy or somesuch.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
The way I see it, enterprise editions are bad because they're proprietary-- but at least profits are funnelled into the development of libre software. If Canonical just kept developing convergence etc and died, that's one source of funding gone. Besides, a lot of people and enterprises use Desktop-- it won't be a priority anymore, but development will certainly be active and there'll be less radical changes. Is that so bad?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
"Puppy looks like XP" It's been a while since you say a computer running XP isn't it ;P
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
...
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
>Canonical is killing Unity 8 http://combineoverwiki.net/images/9/9e/Ba_buttugly.ogg
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
GNOME does not do that. Perhaps it would be possible to implement with an extension, but I'm not aware of any one like that. However, GNOME does have a menu on the top bar, but that one typically has but a few options and must be specially supported by the application. It's mostly utilized by native GNOME applications, which, in turn, usually don't have a traditional menu bar. Other applications will only show the “quit” option there.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Unity moves the menubar to the top bar/panel, MacOS style, when a window is maximized / full screened. Does GNOME 3 do that?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
I'm afraid we ain't seen nothing yet. Shuttleworth, I bet, is going enterprise. He's not interested in the desktop anymore because there's no profit there and he's tired of losing money. There's going to be a closed license Ubuntu Enterprise Edition.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
I'm happy that they're ending Mir, but this sucks for the people that use Unity. Although maybe the community will take over.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
GNOME 3 is a fantastic DE, now. It's great that Canonical's going to stop fragmenting the community with Unity & Mir and put some money into a more universal project. (That's also way more stylish!)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Wow, that's good news. Thank you for posting this here.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Well I really like GNOME :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
They should embrace JWM. Puppy looks like XP. What else do we need? ;=)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
With just 1 extension, "Dash to dock", your problem is solved. There are plenty of extension to solve other "inconvenient issues", ;).
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
I do not like GNOME, today is a tablet interface, which is fine for tablet computer. GNOME 2 or flashback version it is not so bad. I still prefer GNOME forks like MATE.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical is killing Unity 8, will ship GNOME as default
Sorry for the trump like comment, making GNOME great again :) I am just happy for this change
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Substitute "Red Hat" with "Oracle" since they own the ZFS copyright and also have a flavor of GNU/Linux.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
> If they can get away with this GPL violation, what's to stop them (and others) with other GPL violations? That's overly paranoid. People get away with copyright infringement elsewhere all the time. The copyright industry has long known that it has to pick and choose its battles. That applies to us even more, because we don't have billions of dollars to sue everyone. Also, copyright doesn't lose force because some other case of infringement is occurring. Suppose Canonical is infringing the GNU GPL and nothing is done about it. Suppose they then infringe the GNU GPL in the same way, but with proprietary software. Someone wishing to take action against the latter case doesn't lose standing in court because he didn't take action in the former case. > Free software isn't just about being able to modify and share software, but about being able to LEGALLY do those things. Taking the position of ignoring problems like this begins to cast that in doubt if people aren't careful about making stuff that can be legally redistributed by others. People are incredibly careless about copyright statuses outside of the libre software community, so I don't think minor license violations are going to "cast doubt" outside of our community. If anything, being so obsessed with being in perfect compliance with all licenses that we are willing to attack people solely for license violations, rather than using license violations as a basis to attack them for legitimately bad things (i.e. what copyleft is supposed to do), would probably make us look like obsessive-compulsive lunatics. What's more, there's already a disconnect between at least the FSF's opinion on what the GPL permits and what the copyright holders of Linux allow to happen. Heck, what about proprietary drivers? I don't know much about Linux, but my understanding is ZFS is being used the same way proprietary drivers are, right? If I'm understanding this correctly, the thing being done with ZFS is already an established practice, the only difference here being that ZFS is not proprietary, just GPL-incompatible. So making a fuss about ZFS now is completely backwards. > If being able to do those things legally doesn't matter we may as well start hacking on proprietary software. Because who cares, right? But the actual code of Linux and ZFS isn't mixing. They're being linked together somehow, but they remain separate. Assuming the GPL is actually being violated, the violation is not going to spread to other code, realistically. > It's an Ubuntu trademark violation to rebuild the kernel without ZFS, so you can't distribute Ubuntu without violating the GPL. Sure, if it's actually a GPL violation. I remain skeptical of this assertion. But let's assume it is. Do you honestly think that anyone would actually have an incentive to start suing small distributors of Ubuntu for whatever pennies of "damages" can be collected from them based on this? Even if they do, how successful is such a campaign of malice realistically going to be? I'm sure there are much better attack vectors for innocent people than this, and some of them probably don't require already having a history contributing code to Linux.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
"Its a given at this point that Trisquel 8 will NOT have the zfs.ko module available by default." You mean "at all." The GPL violation happens just by the distro distributing the software. Whether it's installed by default is beside the point. So yes, Trisquel will not be violating the GPL. "I'd like to see if the FSF statement has changed Canonical's mind in not having it by default, but maybe as a package in the repos that requires manual installation." Same as above: Being installed by default doesn't determine if a GPL violation is happening or not. Distributing the software does, and if it's in the Ubuntu repositories they're distributing for people to download regardless of if it's installed by default or not.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
If all the other 'outrage' from the free software community did not change their mind, ot the statement from the SFLC, then I doubt that the FSF's statement will do anything. Canonical is a corporation; it knows only money and litigation, and will only be swayed by such.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
FSF Issues Fresh Statement Over ZFS On Linux With GPL Enforcement: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Red Hat could go after Canonical and would have legal ground, considering they are the largest corporate contributor to Linux. They are in a similar business model to Canonical so Canonical's loss is their gain. I'm not sure how likely in reality this is, though.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
"People get away with copyright infringement elsewhere all the time." That doesn't make it right. Nor does it mean those those that call violators out on it should be chastised. Ideally Oracle would change ZFS to a GPL-compatible license but I don't expect this to ever happen. The free world doesn't really look to Oracle for pro-freedom activities. "Also, copyright doesn't lose force because some other case of infringement is occurring. Suppose Canonical is infringing the GNU GPL and nothing is done about it. Suppose they then infringe the GNU GPL in the same way, but with proprietary software. Someone wishing to take action against the latter case doesn't lose standing in court because he didn't take action in the former case." I never said they did. The point that I was trying to make is that if this isn't a violation, then proprietary kernel modules aren't either. "What's more, there's already a disconnect between at least the FSF's opinion on what the GPL permits and what the copyright holders of Linux allow to happen. Heck, what about proprietary drivers? I don't know much about Linux, but my understanding is ZFS is being used the same way proprietary drivers are, right? If I'm understanding this correctly, the thing being done with ZFS is already an established practice, the only difference here being that ZFS is not proprietary, just GPL-incompatible. So making a fuss about ZFS now is completely backwards." Proprietary kernel modules are also a GPL violation so nothing's different: shipping zfs.ko is just as infringing as nvidia.ko was. In fact, please take note that they don't ship nvidia.ko because they were threatened with legal action in the mid-2000s. Canonical comparing zfs.ko to nvidia.ko was not a good idea, because they had effectively previously admitted that that was infringing. If your argument is that incorporating pre-compiled proprietary code is just fine with the GPL, your argument is bad. "Do you honestly think that anyone would actually have an incentive to start suing small distributors of Ubuntu for whatever pennies of "damages" can be collected from them based on this?" Proper GPL enforcement isn't about money but solely on achieving compliance. You should read up on https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
> That doesn't make it right. I see we have a disagreement here. I don't consider copyright infringement itself to be unethical, largely because I advocate for the abolition of copyright. > The point that I was trying to make is that if this isn't a violation, then proprietary kernel modules aren't either. You talk bout GPL violation as if it's just a singular thing, but the question isn't whether someone has violated the GPL by distributing a version of ZFS that works with Linux. It's whether Canonical is violating the GPL. Based on what you say here: > In fact, please take note that they don't ship nvidia.ko because they were threatened with legal action in the mid-2000s. It sounds like it's not true at all that Canonical is violating the GPL with the Nvidia kernel module, because they're not distributing it. Would you say that's accurate? I'm not entirely clear on how ZFS is being distributed for Ubuntu, which is both why I'm skeptical of the claim that they are violating the GPL and why i am not claiming that they are not. Matthew Garrett unfortunately chose to only link to a commit in a Git repository, which to me is completely meaningless. But if what Canonical is doing with ZFS is not in violation of the GNU GPL, it doesn't follow that ZFS on Linux itself is not in violation of the GPL, and it doesn't follow that the Nvidia kernel module is not in violation of the GPL. > Proper GPL enforcement isn't about money but solely on achieving compliance. Yes, I know this, but you made a statement which suggested to me that you are concerned about Canonical's actions putting distributors of Ubuntu at risk. Malicious Linux copyright holders who would sue for the wrong reasons are the only potential risk to them I can think of. Let me reiterate my position, in case it isn't clear: - ZFS on Linux may be a GNU GPL violation. However, it should be noted that it's not a new one; it's been in development for years. It's also worth noting that the ZFS on Linux developers disagree: http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue - Canonical may be violating the GNU GPL. This depends on whether ZFS on Linux is in violation of the GPL, and how it's being distributed for Ubuntu. - Assuming both of the above two points are true, I still think it would be both a waste of resources and destructive for us to go after it the way we go after proprietary modifications of GPL programs. We need to focus our efforts on what actually matters. I'm not convinced that this is something that matters, because ZFS and ZFS on Linux are not proprietary, just GPL-incompatible. - Just because we shouldn't fight Canonical on this doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. But discussions should be in the vain of "this is a bad idea", not "what you are doing is wrong". Unless you actually think that any copyright infringement is unethical (i.e. that copyright monopolies are morally a right that people deserve), in which case I disagree with you.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
So we have here a criminal pleading not guilty. I don't think that's enough to close the case. There are no bullies here. Canonical is the one breaking the law. Also, only the copyright holder can go after infringers. What FSF is doing is only being consistent and upholding free software licenses.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
"ZFS is free software, but there is a GPL incompatibility that keeps it out of the kernel tree." Just like a GPLv3 kernel module would be kept out. v2 and v3 are not compatible with each other, without the v2 stuff being upgraded to v3 via the "any later version clause." The kernel lacks that so it, too, would amount to a violation. You could still say that GPLv3 kernel module is free software but it doesn't change that the combination is still not allowed (and who does the linking doesn't matter, as the FSF explained in their article. So Trisquel can't get around that by saying "Oh, the user did it.") The incompatibility keeps it out of kernel.org and also stop Trisquel (and others) from being able to distribute it legally. "If you remove the ZFS packages (which would require the user to take action to install locally for private use), then that means you should remove all other free software from the repositories if it butts heads with the GPL. If you don't it makes you look silly and biased." Not all GPL-incompatible programs form a modified or extended version of the kernel. ZFS does, whether you personally believe it or not. Trisquel can't legally distribute it without running afoul of both the GPL and CDDL. (The Software Freedom Conservancy explained why it's a violation of both licenses simultaneously.) But I don't expect you to believe them either.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
"Removing ZFS packages entirely from the Trisquel repository would be taking it to the extreme" Not at all. It is solving the GPL violation. Nothing less than that will. Even from the same article: "Developers often find this point not quite so self-evident with dynamic linking, but the situation is equally clear: if you distribute modules meant to be linked together by the user, you have made them into a combined work, and you must release the entire combined work under the GNU GPL." So we're not talking about what someone does on their own but what the Trisquel project *distributes*. This is not the same thing, and the only solution to the distribution problem is not to be distributing it.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
/home/gnu/Downloads/Pink Floyd - Tear Down the Wall - Part 1-deCjXe14y7E.mp4 Yet another proof that nothing original nor intelligent for that matter came out of Reginald.. :P TEAR DOWN THE WALL!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
"Mr. Ellison, tear down this wall!" (For those that are too young to remember, they've been called the fou most powerful words spoke in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A but imagine that that Reagan is the free world, "the wall" is the CDDL, and that Gorbachev is Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle.)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I wanted to point out that the Software Freedom Conservancy has published a blog post on this topic today: http://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ and covers things like why the licenses are incompatible, how it doesn't matter if it's static or dynamically linked, etc. And distributing them side by side and letting people combine them on their own? That argument didn't work when Steve Jobs tried it with GCC when he worked at NeXT. On that sort of topic I especially liked their comment about how in that case "there may be arguments for contributory and/or indirect copyright infringement in many jurisdictions ... in our GPL litigation experience, we have noticed that judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to circumvent legal requirements, and they are skeptical about attempts to exploit loopholes." And since it's copyright infringement in both directions (violating both CDDL and GPL) Oracle's copyrights come to bear. This seems to validate the concerns I had expressed about casting doubt that that (referring to Oracle): "given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, and Oracle's recent attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream users should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution."
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
If you think on it, the free world's argument against proprietary software could be expressed as license incompatibility. (And let us not forget that Sun drafted the CDDL specifically to avoid inclusion in the kernel named Linux.) If they can get away with this GPL violation, what's to stop them (and others) with other GPL violations?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I tend to agree. Matt goes around and around arguing with that dude on twitter how loading a module is the same as compiling into a monolithic kernel. I disagree with them, but the most important part of the situation to me is, both GPL licensed code and the ZFS code are FOSS. Worrying about that crap is best left up to lawyers. People are talking about the ZFS code like it is a Microsoft binary blob whose license agreement requires you to appoint Steve Ballmer as your child's guardian.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Canonical Says There Is No ZFS and Linux Licence Incompatibility: http://news.softpedia.com/news/canonical-says-there-is-no-zfs-and-linux-licence-incompatibility-500653.shtml
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
"Equivalent exceptions have existed for many years, for various other stand alone, self-contained, non-GPL and even proprietary (hi, nvidia.ko) kernel modules." The GPL contains no such exception. Their entire argument is that, since other GPL violations are going on (proprietary kernel modules are often GPL violations) that adding one more with ZFS is okay.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
ZOL is probably the abbreviation of ZFS on Linux.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Sounds like more hurdles for Trisquel devs.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Why do you put "amazing technology" in quotes like that? I assume you mean ZFS is not good technology? Do you think that because it is non-free or do you think ZFS is not a good technology?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
More junk from Canonical. Ubuntu already had proprietary software. Now they're shipping Ubuntu with GPL violations. It will be interesting to see how long this lasts.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
That's interesting. I didn't realize that. Wouldn't this just be one more step in the de-blobbing process? Also, why is ZOL not free software? Is the license non-free?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I'll give it a shot. Anything I should look for in particular, or just search for "debian"?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
You're right. I found it. Thanks.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Trisquel does not use Linux-libre. Instead, it deblobs the Ubuntu kernel.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
This can't be legal, GPL2 forbids linking with CDDL, and oddly the Ubuntu's IP police doesn't allow to share the CD's changing the GPL clashing modules. https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/700073945064611841 More information from Matthew Garrett.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
That will probably work.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I don't see how this a problem since trisquel uses a different kernel anyway, right?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Could someone explain why Debian is not considered fully free? By default it doesn't install any non-free software unless you specifically request it to, right?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
In my opinion Trisquel should go back to being based on Debian... Debian main is already as free as Trisquel (except some packages such as Chromium would be removed) and it would be more stable and higher performance. Gnewsense is practically dead. And Debian it isn't rotten like Ubuntu as this proves (although Debian's name does sound like a cleaning product)!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I am sure it is good technology. Instead I am making fun of their marketing-speak.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
No. Plus, even if it did, it doesn't skirt around the GPL.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Have you tried searching this forum, this is something that has been discussed quite a few times already.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I think it should be pointed out that if this is done the right way, it doesn't cause license violations. Copyright law restricts only what you can distribute. On your own computer, it has no force. For example, you could write a program using a library under the GPL and then throw away the source code to the program you wrote. That program would then be proprietary, but it wouldn't be a license violation unless you actually distributed the program to someone else. But even if it does cause a license incompatibility, ZFS is libre. I don't think it's productive to make a fuss about a license violation unless it involves something actually unethical occurring, such as proprietary software or at least plagiarism. Avoiding such license violations is still important (you don't want some jerk who happened to develop the program you're violating the license of), but there's no need to chastise others for license violations themselves. Remember, copyleft licenses are not divine commands, and their restrictions are not morals. Copyleft is a strategy to combat proprietary software, and license incompatibility between libre programs is an unfortunate side effect. of this strategy. So, in summary: if what Ubuntu is doing causes a violation of the GNU GPL or the CDDL, then Trisquel should correct this violation. However, it doesn't look like that is the case. And even if it is, there's no need to chastise Canonical for it.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Doesn't stock kernel basically violate GPL anyway, by distributing compiled parts without source code? So Canonical probably don't care about this.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I cannot agree more!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
The debate in that thread is incoherent though. Just shows how Canonical are banking on the confusion so they can be "the first" to add this "amazing technology" to Ubuntu...
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Do you think the RMS and the FSF are going to go after Canonical legally if they ship Ubuntu with the ZFS kernel? In the recent Linux Unplugged podcast (I posted the .webm link earlier), they talked to Alan Pope from Canonical about it. He didn't see it as a big deal and everyone is overreacting. There was also some commentary from others during the show about how RMS and the FSF are actually being bullies about this. The whole "you will change your licence because I tell you to" approach that the FSF is using against Oracle will not hold up. Sun/Oracle licensed ZFS under the CDDL so it would keep it out of the Linux kernel as to not hurt their prior operating systems. Its funny that Solaris no longer exists and Oracle's "Oracle Linux" is merely a re-implentation of CentOS/Red Hat and they cannot include their own ZFS technology unless they change the license. So will the Free Software Conservatory and the FSF go after Canonical? If they do not, then it opens the door to push around the GPL in the future as it will not hold up in court. If they do take Canonical to court, it will cause bad will between the camps and Canonical will fight back and try to take the FSF to the cleaners. The FSF will still look out of touch and overly controlling regarding the issue and will also be seen as hurting GNU/Linux adoption.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
In the end, this will not affect Trisquel much as it is primarily used for the desktop. If a developer needs ZFS and chooses a GNU/Linux platform, it will likely be CentOS/Ubuntu or one of the BSDs and not Trisquel. I'm sure you wouldn't care about that either since the majority of people here hate the concept of "cloud computing" and would rather everything be as it was with dedicated machines. I still think it was unnecessary on Canonical's end to ship a ZFS kernel with their desktop version by default and should have put it into the server ISO. I'm still not 100% in agreement over the compete purging of the ZFS codebase from the repositories. ZFS is free software, but there is a GPL incompatibility that keeps it out of the kernel tree. If you remove the ZFS packages (which would require the user to take action to install locally for private use), then that means you should remove all other free software from the repositories if it butts heads with the GPL. If you don't it makes you look silly and biased.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Removing ZFS packages entirely from the Trisquel repository would be taking it to the extreme as it is a FLOSS package after all. If a user chooses to manually install it, there should be nothing stopping them. It would be private use as defined by RMS via the "Privately, You Can Do As You Like" section at https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux "The GNU GPL has no substantive requirements about what you do in private; the GPL conditions apply when you make the work available to others"
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Its a given at this point that Trisquel 8 will NOT have the zfs.ko module available by default. I'd like to see if the FSF statement has changed Canonical's mind in not having it by default, but maybe as a package in the repos that requires manual installation.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
I believe the ZFS on Linux project cannot change the license as it is a fork of the original and is bound to it. That is a shame, since ZFS is exceptional and having it on GNU/Linux would be a big deal. Especially since the more liberal BSD operating systems have it and if GNU/Linux vendors can move companies to their platform instead of BSD, they will. In the end, ZFS is free software. It just has licensing issues if included with the restrictive GPL licenses of the kernel. If you are going to fight Canonical on this, there are ways around it. They could just ship a dummy package on their Ubuntu ISOs and bring in the ZFS code on the next update. They wouldn't be shipping an ISO with kernel that violated the GPL (which is up for debate as ZFS is still free software) and since the code would be brought in later via an update, they could still advertise that Ubuntu supports ZFS.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
What if Canonical ships the ISOs with the ZFS package not included, but then brings it in automatically the first time you update your packages? That way your software ships without this GPL restriction.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
As a follow up to my post, I see that zfs-dkms is a virtual package provided by linux-image-4.4.0-6-generic. If Trisquel wants to counter this, wouldn't the .deb files for the kernel have to exclude the installation of zfs-dkms and make sure that the zfs packages are not included on the Trisquel 8 ISOs? Of course the zfs packages should still be installable (as I said above) via if needed.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
ZFS, while GPL incompatible, is still free software. It is one of those technologies that has kept people tied to the BSDs and while other file systems like btrfs have tried, ZFS is still king. The only problem? It cannot be merged into the mainline kernel due to conflicts with the GPL. We all know this. Canonical makes a good chunk of their money from trademark and service contracts. If they put in the effort to include ZFS support, it will keep people on Ubuntu (and GNU/Linux in general) instead of merging to one of the BSDs. I think there is some misinterpretation here. The actual kernel is as-is and will not need any deblobbing. Fully GPL compatible and all that. The only difference with ZFS on Ubuntu is the addition of the zfsutils-linux package at http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/zfsutils-linux that will install the driver as an addon. It is probably a DKMS package (much like the non-free Nvidia drivers and VirtualBox) meaning that it will not affect the shipping kernel. Canonical just makes it convenient to install the package as an additional module if you choose so to please. If the Trisquel team is worried about ZFS, then don't have zfsutils-linux installed by default. You should still keep it in the repositories due to it being free software.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical merges GPL-incompatible kernel module ZFS to the kernel tree for Ubuntu 16.04
Doesn't the package that Canonical includes just install it via DKMS?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical releases Ubuntu One file syncing code
Always makes me glad to see somebody picking the best possible license for web related software.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical releases Ubuntu One file syncing code
It is always good to see a free program, but it'd have been even better if it was when Ubuntu One was actually running. Don't forget this is nothing more than throwing code over the wall now that they're done with it.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical releases Ubuntu One file syncing code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This was my immediate reaction, too. Canonical won't make anything on UbuntuOne, so, they open-sourced it. Well, maybe we'll see some free UbuntuOne type instances running. I'll still advocate owncloud. Cheers, Dave Sent from my word-salad spinner. On 08/11/2015 04:00 PM, ja...@bluehome.net wrote: Don't forget this is nothing more than throwing code over the wall now that they're done with it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVyllJAAoJEPDWzxLwi2tA2poH/0pE0b0Fsq4WM07wK9DqYrFm 1Lp+K6UMW1fwc6bfYAjLLCzpSbFe5LypGVG1zf4FZ3VWhRvHEIb3vulOAuSVAbpi dE0TdZG1lH0NZJ9YvWe5jG9y36vmICU3xSNrdHmXGfqB4vEqEjFzygKvtZGTozYV qbHQKZh+n3X+zNCT9vuBpThoE/Nsa6phH5C06wL14zjkahL7ISA+DgCbbsUDKoTD oBWkyxuumfQtAzVFkvmB2W5bvHv9z5m3lS/tNAFMofoKlar49eIa2SYwcWlqpEVR zy18La6HxfMqQth1fP9e7AKL8xLfSrTTMInoFBYeEg+6yRsWUgI2ocD6Fday2FA= =55i1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
It doesn't make sense to me when people say they are using GNU nano, and think GNU Emacs is difficult to learn. Both programs work the same on a basic editor level. Many of their basic keystrokes are the same. The major difference between them is that GNU Emacs has tons more features, which you don't need to use, if you don't feel like learning. The learning curve is basically the same, if you are using only features GNU nano has. But when you're writing a lot of text and especially code, many of the additional features GNU Emacs has come very handy. Basic commands to get you started: C-b means CTRL+B M-b means ALT+B C-x C-c means CTRL+X followed by CTRL+C (no need to let go of CTRL) | command | nano| Emacs | |--+-+-| | backward | C-b | C-b | | forward | C-f | C-f | | previous word| C-Space | M-b | | next word| M-Space | M-f | | previous line| C-p | C-p | | next line| C-n | C-n | | beginning of line| C-a | C-a | | end of line | C-e | C-e | | page down| C-v | C-v | | page up | C-y | M-v | | delete character | C-d | C-d | |--+-+-| | kill (cut) word forward | ? | M-d | | kill (cut) word backward | ? | C-Backspace | | kill (cut) word backward | ? | M-Backspace | | select region| C-^ | C-Space | | kill region (cut)| C-k | C-w | | copy region (copy) | M-^ | M-w | | kill (cut) line | C-k | | | kill until end of line | | C-k | | uncut/yank (paste) | C-u | C-y | | undo | ? | C-/ | |--+-+-| | search | C-w | C-s | | search and replace | C-\ | M-% | | fill paragraph | C-j | M-q | | comment/uncomment region | | M-; | | spell check word/region | C-t | M-$ | |--+-+-| | save | C-o | C-x C-s | | save as | ? | C-x C-w | | exit | C-x | C-x C-c | | help | C-g | C-h C-h | You can also easily make tables like the one above using GNU Emacs's org-mode.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
true
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
To be fair, I did wrongly call Visual Studio a compiler, too. A quick search shows that MSVC's compiler is called Microsoft C/C++. Anyway, I only pointed out that Dev-C++ uses MinGW because it's possible to use MinGW in other ways.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
a good point i will not use notepad++ untill i can compile it with libre software theres a libre compiler for m$ windows(and so wine) called dev c++ but i dont know how i would compile that! i guess i would see if the gcc port for windows would work then see if i can compile notepad++ from wine or maby do a favore to the world and port it to gtk!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
Dev-C++ is an IDE, not a compiler. The compiler it uses is MinGW.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
both great editors (but emacs dose seem better) That's exactly how it started!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
i use nano aswell but vim looks good if you get used to it and emacs looks good if you spend alot of time learning it notepad++ is a good editor aswell its a windows program but its libre software and runs very well in wine(also libre software)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
And I'm already considering searching for 'unfriend-zoned' definition... So, brace yerselves! :E
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
That was fast... :/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
I would avoid using Notepad++ unless you compile it yourself with a libre compiler; the official binaries are compiled with Visual Studio, a proprietary compiler. This is the case for quite a lot of Windows binaries, actually.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
i dont think you can say the same for apples mobile computers.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
i was attracted by the gnu philosophy this video: but if i had not ever started using non-free hipocritical distros like ubuntu i would of never found out about gnu and libre software i wonder how much publicity libre distros if there were no non-libre ones maby a bsd distro would become what ubuntu is now as weird as it is. if it wasnt for ubuntu i would probberly be using microsoft windows right now using microsoft visual c++ it gives me nightmares -.-
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war Basically, each editor had strengths and weaknesses in the 1980s; Emacs was much heavier, but had more features. The gap isn't as wide today. Personally, I can't stand vi, but I don't really like Emacs, either, If I have to edit text on the command-line, I prefer Nano.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
i rely dont understand how the emacs vs vi war started whats the problem there both great editors
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
Rainteller just got unfriend-zoned. :c
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
well. now i'm confused.. rainteller we are no longer friends! :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
Oh, My Gerd! YooHoo Comics must be an emacser! LOL Seriously, it's amazing what that thing can do; calling Emacs an editor does it an injustice!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
I can only speak from my personal experience, and this won't be as much about ethics as it is of usability but Trisquel is pretty much my first GNU/L, and I have tried a lot of distros in last months using live versions (incl. Ubuntu). Thus far, Trisquel has been the easiest, most pleasant and familiar-yet-different-from-Windows experience for me. And the fact that it's libre only makes me more joyful about using it :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
I completly agree, I use it to calculate and not for programing nor text editing. I heard that emacs was originally intended to unify Operating systems because the one thing they have in common is the keyboard, that could explain why emacs is capable of almost everything.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
Agreed- if it weren't for Ubuntu, I would've never learnt about the Free Software movement if I never used Ubuntu. But hush, for we cannot publicly support Ubuntu in the slightest, lest we be portrayed as hypocritical!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
I started using Atom as Sublime Text replacement. It's incredibly customizable.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
Personally, I fail to see how company's growth (and thus profits) is something more important than users' freedom. I understand how every company needs to make money but not every company decides to do it in unethical way. It's a choice.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
rainteller my old friend... :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Canonical?
A question we need to ask before giving all the dredit to Ubuntu is - did we wanted a Gnu\Linux system or particularly Ubuntu. Were we attracted by Gnu philosophy or the unity desktop?
