If I sounded so, I didn't actually mean to race them against each other. They
are all parts of the same ecology of course. GNU makes the base, while Debian
getting them all and putting together to form a yet another product built on
GNU products. Still, there is a niche ("Debian Libre")
"If there is no unacceptable issues with Debian/main then why reinvent the
wheel?"
Well, there needs a base. Debian couldn't have existed without the GNU
Project to make the wheel back in 1983 in the first place. It's called Debian
GNU/Linux for a reason. :)
"There is an immense manpower
[QUOTE]"A project to make an operating system needs to start by first going
to someone else and use theirs? Wait, what?"[/QUOTE]
:)
I am a bit more on the pragmatical side of it. More specifically I happen to
be against duplication of effort. Afterall, apt or guix or GNU projects are
all
"Which reminds me of GNU having no OS distribution of their own (so far as I
know). Seriously, wouldn't it be nice if GNU rolled out such a libre distro
of its own"
They've already got one, distributed directly from gnu.org. Go download it
here: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/download/
Which reminds me of GNU having no OS distribution of their own (so far as I
know).
Seriously, wouldn't it be nice if GNU rolled out such a libre distro of its
own? Built on top unmodified Debian/main, having a free ride on it and adding
libre solutions on top of that, might be a good
You're probably refering to GNU FSDG, instead of Debian's DFSG.
FSF won't and shouldn't ever compromise. Compromising for 'completeness' can
be found in any given distro. In fact it is why Debian isn't DFSG. So yeah,
don't hold your breath
A distro cannot have GNU FSDG status if its name makes it easy to confuse it
with a non-FSDG distro.
If only gNewSense were to adopt the free-rider approach I've been talking
about, which is my main point, then they could be regarded as "Debian Libre"
as well. Unfortunately gNewSense seems to be going the hard way too. While
they get close, with the aim of "the difference with Debian should
If **their** "main-equivalent" repository (i.e. the base/default system) is
also FSF cleared, which I doubt,...
This begs a clarification. With "their" I meant Arch, and not Parabola.
>A task-force within Debian, composed of libre software enthusiasts and
dedicated to libre OS idea, can roll out a sub-Debian distribution as "Debian
Libre".
^^
"Yes, a "Debian Libre" distribution sounds sensible. Why didn't I think of
this before?"
Round and Round we go.
You were told this already, its called gNewSense, it is Debian Libre or a
Liberated Debian. Contact them via iirc and their mailing list and have fun
with it. The lead dev.
Honestly I have no idea about Arch Linux and Parabola - never used a pacman
based distro. If their "main-equivalent" repository (i.e. the base/default
system) is also FSF cleared, which I doubt, if and Parabola is using it
as-is, than Parabola could be analogous to Debian Libre. Otherwise,
If this community is stablished, care must me taken such that this
subproject doesn't end up referencing support resources from the parent
project, as one must remember that the GNU FSDG also serves to evaluate
the behavior of the cummunity and their support resources.
Maybe it would make better sense to bring this up in Debian community.
A task-force within Debian, composed of libre software enthusiasts and
dedicated to libre OS idea, can roll out a sub-Debian distribution as "Debian
Libre". Most of its members, I presume, would also be taking roles in
I had clicked on the link at your first post. :)
You are right in giving the link (and the implications thereof), but I
believe I am also right in ignoring it.
The thing is, my approach is radically different. I am more interested in how
to achieve the best compromise regardless of the
Or simply evaluate their repositories separately, calculate their full distro
status by logically AND'ing all their repositories (Free:TRUE, Nonfree:FALSE)
and list it all in each distribution's explanation sub-paragraph. If there
are other variables (ATM I can't think of one) to be taken
Regarding whether the work of software liberation could as well be done in
Debian, since it's already the upstream:
With upstream, I mean primarily the developer, secondarily Debian. There are
things within Debian sphere, and those that are beyond it.
- Take IceCat for instance - it's not
I might be wrong here (of course I might, because I don't/can't speak
for the FSF, and I don't participate on the workgroup for free/libre
distribution evaluation), but perhaps the whole point of the GNU FSDG is
to answer questions such as: "Once a user sits in front of the system
dinstribution
Yes, that's what I meant ;)
The work of software liberation could as well be done for Debian (which is a
better idea since it's already upstream).
In theory, using Debian's repo shouldn't change Trisquel's goals.
And yet, as long as the non-free repos exist, and as long as Debian makes
From the link you posted (from Alberto):
While the FSF does not include Debian on this list because the Debian project
provides a repository of nonfree software, the FSF does acknowledge that
Debian's main repository, which by default is the only place packages come
from, is completely
Oh, I think you meant something else by dropping the name.
If all the downstream modifications are accepted by upstream, then after a
while, there would be no difference left between upstream and Trisquel
packages. So Trisquel would be ditto Debian, and its mission would come to an
end.
Sure, Takumi not Alberto, which by the way is a very polite and decent mate
(unlike me).
I have seen the pages you referred to. But that doesn't invalidate the older
link Alberto has given. The difference is that, the pages you refer deal with
distributions as a whole, whereas the older link deals specifically with the
main repository of Debian. This is precisely why I wished
If you want a Libre OS that is based on Ubuntu then use Trisquel.
If you want a Libre OS that is based on Debian then use gNewSense.
Each has its merits, each has its reasons for choosing the distro they are
based on.
There are a few official FSF/Libre distros and a more distros that are
First of all, no loosening or compromise on FSDG seems to be needed as per
the link I've referred to.
Secondly, regarding "What would be Trisquel's raison d'être?" it would be
that Trisquel would become just like Debian (as you have pointed out) but
with better free solutions. That is,
OK, so loosened in this specific way, as in:
- letting non-free suggestion be (I guess this won't pass, but for users in
the know, it's manageable. Until you want to install it for a newbie I
suppose).
- What else?
Yeah, I see what you mean now.
But then what's the point of Trisquel if
My point is, Debian/main can be used *without modification* by Trisquel (or
gNewSense for that matter). The whole rationale behind a loosened FSDG idea
was to be able to get a free ride on Debian/main in the first place.
BTW the fact that gNewSense is based on Debian doesn't guarantee that
Oh, but it's already considered that way regarding Debian.
It's just that for new or inexperienced users, it's possible to install
non-free firmware by accident. Hence Debian as a whole being suggested to
experienced users preferably.
But we're splitting hair here. Yes, in theory, Trisquel
With a layered approach, I mean the same FSDG rules applied separately per
each repository. So, in Debian's case the outcome would be like this:
Debian/main = free
Debian/contrib = non-free
Debian/non-free = non-free
instead of Debian = non-free
The FSDG rules are the same, no compromise is
I definitely think Debian as a base would be potentially better, simply based
on the fact that there's one less intermediary layer (whatever Ubuntu adds),
which potentially means less things to fix.
But I'm more worried about the little bugs I encounter sometimes on Trisquel
(I have yet to
Regarding "FSF should not compromise" opinion expressed by CalmStorm, hack
and hack and others;
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-users-find-the-hardware-they-need
Upon this link (thanks to Alberto) I take my "loosened FSDG" suggestion back.
Still, a
Thats not what i thought at all.
I tryed to be kind with our new friend Abdullah. I understand he wants to
participate.
I would like him to try trisquel of course, but i never say to him to shut
up or to stop asking questions or talking with us.
And I absolutely not meant to be rude
I third this with really intentions.
Liberating software is no trivial task.
As for loosened rules, non-free is non-free, there's no way around it.
It's up to the user to decide if compromise is an option, and to which
extent/in which conditions. I personally will stay with free software.
Mass adoption can't be achieved when
I don't think the fsf should or will compromise,
but... I also think that a debian trisquel would be a good idea to switch to
not now, but whenever debian 10 comes out.
That's just my thought though.
I second this!
Abdullah Ramazanoglu why you are such a pain in the ass. Shut up for once and
install/use Trisquel you smart-ass!
p.s. I am just saying what everybody starts to think at this point about you!
"I didn't know FSF supported a blobby BIOS"
They don't. It's actually libreboot, which is coreboot minus the blobs.
"firmware blobs are in hardware domain"
See https://jxself.org/free-firmware.shtml
Hello Alberto, thank you for your friendly reminder.
From my point of view, however, I was not criticizing at all, nor was I
asking for any change from anyone. I was just suggesting, brainstorming,
rather trying to be helpful. Yes I am not a Trisquel user yet, and perhaps
this gives me a
you nailed it. Thank You.
How many times do you plan to repeat yourself?
Both my friends Magic Banana and Onpon4 are pointing something really
important here:
There technical details that you are not taking in consideration.
Now, I want to say something (keep in mind I am saying this in friendly
manner :)
I think you have to learn more about Trisquel before
Thank you for reminding debian installer's FSDG status. I had forgotten to
state that in the presumptions, added an edit note for that.
I just want to point out that following Debian Testing would be largely
pointless, and it's not what Ubuntu does. Testing freezes non-security
updates at some point so that it can become Stable, then that release becomes
stable and a new Testing release is made, so it's not a smooth rolling
So let me summarize.
Suppose for a moment that Trisquel is built in such a way that...
* Trisquel follows Debian testing (therefore also stable) main repository in
a tight lockstep. Since Debian's main repository is composed of -wishfully-
FSF cleared packages, there's no need to create a
Re, Debian vs. Ubuntu. (I'll be partly reiterating myself)
1. Debian is the kitchen, Ubuntu is the restaurant. Ubuntu itself follows
Debian. The original recipe cooks in the Debian kitchen and then Ubuntu
serves it with a time lag. So, following the leader itself is always a step
ahead
Re, plain distro strategy.
A quick question. I got this whatever distro, customized it to my own taste
and re-released it as Abdullah Linux 1.0 - actually what have I achieved? Not
much really, just converted it from Ali's taste to Abdullah's taste. Both
tastes turns out unpalatable to
Hi Alberto, +1 for all your points generally. Things tend to get more
complicated depending on the details, though.
Hi Soon,
I too haven't tried gNewSense yet, and I don't know its release policy. But
all I say here in this forum should equally apply for them as well.
Let me go backwards from 3 to 1. :)
Such a compromise is one way, without turning back for corrections. So yes I
agree, due care should
I can see your point about moving to Debian, and am largely inclined to agree
with you. That said, there is already the free software distro gNewSense
based on Debian, which I haven't tried, so I'm not sure it would be necessary
to switch bases.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but
You are making a very easy distinction complex. Debian in its current form
is not libre. It is Debian that would need to make changes to meet that
standard, stop hosting non-free and contrib, remove recommendations and
instructions on how to enable them, etc... You are advocating for FSF
Trisquel is what it is and its a distro for those who value the ethics of
libre software and more current software, neither too old or too bleeding
edge. gNewSense and Parabola fit the other ends of the spectrum.
Sorry, but it will most likely never be a distro for the masses. Its more of
1.- Debian is already free software by Default.(Just use with caution do not
add non free repository)
2.-I think you are talking about Trisquel development but I am not sure. I
think a developer has all the right to work in a way that feels comfortable.
One of the great things about Free
In my first couple of posts I've erroneously used DFSG (Debian Free Software
Guidelines - by Debian) where I actually meant FSDG (GNU Free System
Distribution Guidelines - by FSF). Please read them all as FSDG. Sorry for
the confusion.
>I believe that Trisquel should follow Debian, instead of Ubuntu.
I haven't read the rest for I am very lazy right now (will read more
tomorrow), but..
... my man! welcome! :D
Hi Magic, I should say upfront that I'm not criticizing Trisquel, nor am I
trying to derail it. I just liked the idea and am trying to find some ways
for mass adoption. That's all. I'm aware of the question of producing a free
OS with best user experience with as low workload on developers
Thank you Majin :) also thanks for gNewSense pointer. I'll be looking at
there too.
As for Debian vs. Ubuntu, I didn't mean to favor being leading edge over
stability or freeness, just wanted to point out that there is a possibility
of being both LTS and rolling distro at the same time.
Hello, and welcome to the forum! :)
1.If you want a FSF-endorsed GNU/Linux distro based on Debian, you can see
for gNewSense: gnewsense.org
Ubuntu LTS also has 5 years of support.
The Trisquel main goal isn't be steps ahead in technology. Instead, is to
provide a fully free operating system
Anticipating that Flidas may not be available for some time, let me expand a
bit more on preliminaries. In future I intend to start a separate thread on
each one of them.
1. I believe that Trisquel should follow Debian, instead of Ubuntu. Reasons
being;
* Debian is the kitchen and Ubuntu
60 matches
Mail list logo
