Why does the GNU foundation promote uncommon distros?

[andrew.46]

They aren't concerned with marketing. They want people to use only software that meets their (IMO rigid) definition of free software. It's really about ideology.

In modern times we have perhaps lost the old ideals of really free software. It is nice to be reminded from time to time...

[sffvba[e0rt]

It is the FSF's right to believe what they do and to promote what they please. As it is everyone in this threads right to agree or disagree, as in most things in life there isn't anything black or white about this issue, just 50 shades of grey...

[forrestcupp]

One thing to keep in mind, the Free Software Foundation only cares about promoting GNU. They don't care about promoting Linux. The only reason they're using Linux as a vehicle is because that's the best choice. If what they saw as a better opportunity came along, I guarantee they'd jump ship in an instant.

[mips]

As it is everyone in this threads right to agree or disagree, as in most things in life there isn't anything black or white about this issue, just 50 shades of grey...

Now you're just getting kinky

[grahammechanical]

Proprietary software by its nature of being proprietary does not necessarily present a security risk. Likewise, open source code by its nature of being open source does not necessarily make it more secure. Consider, openssl as an example.

The potential for risk comes from the fact that other developers cannot legally audit the code for security holes/flaws. Or patch the code if flaws are found. Again, openssl comes to mind.

Here is an area of insecurity that I never, ever thought of before I read this blog.

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1332

Regards.

[mips]

One thing to keep in mind, the Free Software Foundation only cares about promoting GNU. They don't care about promoting Linux. The only reason they're using Linux as a vehicle is because that's the best choice. If what they saw as a better opportunity came along, I guarantee they'd jump ship in an instant.

That Hurd kernel of their's (or the March others are working on) is taking ages to materialise into a worthwhile substitute for Linux

But yes I agree with your statement. I just don't ever see them gaining any traction, it's been 31 years already (not much younger than I am)...

[forrestcupp]

That Hurd kernel of their's (or the March others are working on) is taking ages to materialise into a worthwhile substitute for Linux

But yes I agree with your statement. I just don't ever see them gaining any traction, it's been 31 years already (not much younger than I am)...

I seriously doubt if there will ever be a better base for GNU than Linux. But I do think they're using it grudgingly. They definitely don't care to promote Linux, just GNU. And there's no way they're going to promote a distro that even has one line of proprietary code in it.

[buzzingrobot]

I seriously doubt if there will ever be a better base for GNU than Linux. .

Not trying to be snarky, but what, exactly, is the GNU base other than the collection of command line tools ported/created years ago? Those are also available in their BSD guise.

Perhaps I'm forgetting something, but it seems GNU needs Linux to substantiate their notion of "GNU/Linux" much more than Linux needs GNU to have a funtioning OS.

[Delberate snark] Isn't 25-or-so years long enough to wait for GNU to produce its own OS?[/Deliberate snark]

[sffvba[e0rt]

The FSF have never had anything against linux, they do however try and promote only free software and not proprietary. If it wasn't for the merger of GNU and Linux there would be no distro's.

[buzzingrobot]

. If it wasn't for the merger of GNU and Linux there would be no distro's.

I'm not so sure. The choice might have been made to go with the BSD tools. (I'd need to check what was available when to be certain about that was a possiblity for young Linus, et al. But, the point remains.)