"Please don't be ridiculous. How can you compare Debian's open source stance
of 20 years with Trisquel's "minor issues" (your words) which are being taken
care of?
YOU CAN'T."
Hmm ok now I got it. You value "the free software stance" above any outcome
in reality.
An organization doesn't do anything for free software except of calling
themselves a "free software organization" - just fine, they have the right
attitude.
Debian made a whole operating system; they're the only one who offer a
release with the hurd kernel;
trisquel just took a debian-based os and applied - compared to the original
work of debian - minor changes.
But yes, they have the right attitude. So Trisquel is good, Debian is bad.
You're using an operating system which only exists because of the debian
project.
But if you like to occupy yourself with attitudes, ok. Debian might have an
open-source touch, but just look at the debian page debian.org .
They call Debian a "free OS" and give also Credit to GNU on the about page.
I don't understand the moral accusations of some members of the trisquel
community towards debian; Trisquel didn't manage to do the same thing like
Debian in a 100% pure and ethical way - creating a popular gnu/linux
distribution *on their own*.
It's like blaming the national railroad company who built the railways
because of environmental issues while driving on a tiny
environmental-friendly train, feeling happy because we're behaving so
ethical.
Real hypocrisy.
