Metal Rat does have a nice soothing ring to it. I was thinking "Andy's Little
Shop of Horrors" might be good. Or just simply "This Distro is Completely
Unsupported and Only a Fool Would Try It" - kind of a truth in advertising
kind of a thing.
I can't wait for the first release of Triscuit 1.0 xyz
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/return-son-show-your-desktop-again?page=1#comment-149934
How do you plan to name your release versions? Following the Chinese calendar
would give Triscuit 1.0 Metal Rat.
> PureOS was an oversight and those problems should be addressed there too.
It's not just that there are some problems to address. It appears that
PureOS has barely even begun to work toward FSDG compliance beyond choosing
to start from an already mostly-free base distro. I don't know how
I'm not proposing a different standard. PureOS was an oversight and those
problems should be addressed there too.
How could we check that there is no relationship between this:
https://libreplanet.org/2018/sponsors/
and the fact that PureOS has been added to the fsf list in December 2017, if
I am not mistaken?
I could just add firefox to the apt preferences file and permanently block
it, I presume.
To be clear, I don't personally see the FSDG as the be-all and end-all, and I
would not fault Purism for making some strategic compromises, such as that
needed to support the hardware needed for their phone. I just want to see
one standard applied consistently and fairly to all distros who
> Sounds like my personal libre-tized version of Devuan with jxself's
Linux-libre installed and all non-free repos and firmware and microcode and
firefox removed (and anything else recommended by vrms) is a lot more free
than PureOS.
Not sure I'd say "a lot more". Firefox is still
Sounds like my personal libre-tized version of Devuan with jxself's
Linux-libre installed and all non-free repos and firmware and microcode and
firefox removed (and anything else recommended by vrms) is a lot more free
than PureOS.
> and I believe the FSF should not endorse it
It should be obvious at first glance to anyone with an understanding of the
FSDG and familiarity with Debian-based distros that PureOS does not follow
the FSDG. Many of the most basic freedom issues in Debian can be checked and
confirmed in
> Does it distribute a kernel with nonfree firmware? If so, PureOS looks,
freedom-wise, not different from Fedora
No, it uses Debian's kernel, which does remove firmware blobs. However,
removing blobs is not the only thing that the Linux-libre scripts do. From
[here][1], mainline Linux
> "using the Linux-libre kernel and using Canonical-supported free and
open-source software repositories that does not contain non-free packages and
closed programs"
> Excluding programs is not the only thing. Some need modification, not
outright banning.
Purism doesn't make these
Do you mean Uruk would directly use the Ubuntu repositories in the
sources.list? That means would automatically fail
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
"using the Linux-libre kernel and using Canonical-supported free and
open-source software repositories
We believe that "Simple change can make a big difference", which is what made
us work to this moment despite all the difficulties that we faced, and keep
Uruk project and the Uruk GNU / Linux distribution until now .
Uruk wouldn't have continued had it not been for Trisquel and its community
14 matches
Mail list logo
