PDA

View Full Version : FSF debuts fully-free Ubuntu/Debian variant



DC@DR
November 4th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Check out this link: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7506163557.html. gNewSense, huh? Seems not a very nice name compared to Feisty Fawn :p

hizaguchi
November 4th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Hey, it's not brown. :)

Klaidas
November 4th, 2006, 04:49 PM
Hey, it's not brown. :)

Wouldn't that be an advantage? ;)

ember
November 4th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Well - I can respect their idea, but the name instantly reminded me of "nuisance" when I thought about how to pronounce it ;)

jpeddicord
November 4th, 2006, 05:13 PM
I can see how they don't want any proprietary software in the distribution, but that is going to be horrible for hardware support.

muep
November 4th, 2006, 05:22 PM
It's not bad at all if you have the right hardware. I selected mine with Linux and other free software in mind, so I can use pretty much any distribution available. Some of us of course can't do that but there's still Ubuntu and other a little bit less free alternatives, so you can use them if they are more to your tastes.

deanlinkous
November 4th, 2006, 05:28 PM
I can see how they don't want any proprietary software in the distribution, but that is going to be horrible for hardware support.

Some would say that freedom is more important than hardware support and those people will research hardware before buying and get something that is supported IMO.

deanlinkous
November 4th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Well - I can respect their idea, but the name instantly reminded me of "nuisance" when I thought about how to pronounce it ;)

Me too actually....:D

thread merge needed - http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=291499

Klaidas
November 4th, 2006, 05:32 PM
I can see how they don't want any proprietary software in the distribution, but that is going to be horrible for hardware support.

And overall usability


Some would say that freedom is more important than hardware support

Software freedom? :mrgreen: Some hardcore zealots :|

argie
November 4th, 2006, 06:53 PM
Well - I can respect their idea, but the name instantly reminded me of "nuisance" when I thought about how to pronounce it ;)

That's it! I was repeating the name again and again and it sounded very weird, but I didn't know what was wrong. That's exactly it!

dakini
November 4th, 2006, 07:18 PM
Hey, it's not brown. :)

Actually, it is brown, until you get to the desktop screen, which is blue.
Other than the blue screen and software restrictions, it looks and acts exactly like the Ubuntu on which it's based.

EdThaSlayer
November 4th, 2006, 07:32 PM
At least they are trying to completely create a free operating system. It is true that they will hit some bricks here and there, but they are trying.

deanlinkous
November 4th, 2006, 08:49 PM
And overall usability



Software freedom? :mrgreen: Some hardcore zealots :|

I take that as a personal attack whether or not you used it in a general sense.

It only affects your usability if you USE something that is not supported. Amazing that you use a OS that is 99% about software freedom and yet you seem to demiss the importance of it.

I realize it is a personal shortcoming but I honestly have never figured out why anyone would bothers to use linux if software freedoms are not important to them. But I am veering off topic.

Klaidas
November 4th, 2006, 09:25 PM
I take that as a personal attack whether or not you used it in a general sense.
I didn't try to do that/expect those results. I'm sorry if that offended you.


It only affects your usability if you USE something that is not supported.

I was talking about my own experience, so yes, I guess I do use those unsupported things.


I honestly have never figured out why anyone would bothers to use linux if software freedoms are not important to them.

Linux is interesting. It's fun to learn it. And yes, software freedom wasn't the reason I've chosen Ubuntu - usability, great support, this forums, etc were my main reasons

zugu
November 4th, 2006, 09:49 PM
For me, using such a distribution would render my desktop unusable. I depend on some non-free formats and drivers. However, we NEED such distros around. We need them because we have to have where to turn back to when things go fishy.

Kudos to the developers, testers and whoever else is involved in this.

Offtopic: I always thought Debian was the most free distro around. Never knew they included binary drivers in it.

BWF89
November 4th, 2006, 10:02 PM
Some would say that freedom is more important than hardware support and those people will research hardware before buying and get something that is supported IMO.
"some people" don't make up 99% of the computer using populace. Congratulations, FSF made a distro nobody's going to use. It's redundent to take the most desktop ready distro (Ubuntu) and remove everything that makes it easy to use.

nalmeth
November 4th, 2006, 10:13 PM
"some people" don't make up 99% of the computer using populace. Congratulations, FSF made a distro nobody's going to use. It's redundent to take the most desktop ready distro (Ubuntu) and remove everything that makes it easy to use.
All thats being removed is proprietary binaries for certain hardware, like wireless right?
Everything else should be the same. Synaptic, GNOME, and all the rest of your 'easy to use' tools will still be there.

I will definatley be checking this distro out.

deanlinkous
November 4th, 2006, 10:24 PM
I didn't try to do that/expect those results. I'm sorry if that offended you.
Well I think using the term zealot is derogatory no matter how you slice it. Even if I am a bit (too) zealous! :) I mean I could say that SOME people are proprietary shills that use a free software product and want nothing more than to turn around and load it with proprietary stuff and turn it into the very thing that they had before. But I would consider that rude and therefore would not say that.



I was talking about my own experience, so yes, I guess I do use those unsupported things.
As was I. It doesn't affect my usability at all.


And yes, software freedom wasn't the reason I've chosen Ubuntu - usability, great support, this forums, etc were my main reasons
As I said, I do not understand that but I respect that it is your reasoning and I would not call you a name or label you based on that reasoning. But I would hope anyone who uses Ubuntu would realize that without software freedoms (GPL) you would not have the choice of Ubuntu. So while you may choose Ubuntu because of what IT provides it is only logical (to me) to also be very aware and respective of the very thing that provides Ubuntu itself.

Just seems to me if you choose something because of what it provides you also have to appreciate the very thing that provides that choice.

Ubuntu was created out of Debian because of someone wanting to do something different with it, the same can be said for gnewsense. What could possibly be wrong with that.

But either way, we cool. If I see the term zealot again I may just break out the term shill. ;)

deanlinkous
November 4th, 2006, 10:26 PM
For me, using such a distribution would render my desktop unusable. I depend on some non-free formats and drivers.

The proper term is that you have chosen to depend on those. Same as we all depend on electricity and so forth now. Is it truly a dependency. NO. We have chosen to depend on those.

But I understand, I couldn't live without electricity either. :D

deanlinkous
November 4th, 2006, 10:35 PM
"some people" don't make up 99% of the computer using populace.
I never said it did. Ubuntu users also do not make up 99% of the computer using populace and yet you seem to support it and recognize there is a need no matter how small.


Congratulations, FSF made a distro nobody's going to use. It's redundent to take the most desktop ready distro (Ubuntu) and remove everything that makes it easy to use.

FSF didn't make it. I use it. Anyone who makes a distro faces the possibility that nobody is going to use it. So what? If I make a distro (my plan) then I am making it to satisfy what I want. If others choose to use it then that is great. If not, then that is fine. It doesn't invalidate the reason I made it.

Then I guess we should all go back to windows since it provides all kinds of stuff that makes it easy to use.

They didn't remove everything that makes it easy to use. They removed everything that makes it non-free per FSF definition.

Isn't it redundant to take a "free" distro and make a "free" distro from it? That would be the true meaning of redundant. Creating the same thing not something different.

nalmeth
November 4th, 2006, 11:33 PM
Pretty well said deanlinkous

besides:

But either way, we cool. If I see the term zealot again I may just break out the term shill. :wink:(a little harsh)
I have to agree with you

I'm suprised by how many in our community seem to scoff at the FSF, even in a slight degree. As if CEO Linus built this entire OS ](*,)
edit: I kind of scoffed at OSS supporters, which wasn't my intention. Ahh, I'm a hypocrite at times, just like everyone else.
I'm just noticing a lot of disregarding attitude towards the FSF, thats all.

deanlinkous
November 5th, 2006, 12:03 AM
If I was being mean then I would say:

They are just jealous that us FSF zealots have a OS and yet they only have a kernel.

(just joking around guys)

Anthem
November 5th, 2006, 04:05 PM
As I said in the other thread, I find the whole issue bizarre.

They didn't take out proprietary drivers from the GPL kernel, because the GPL kernel doesn't ship with them. What they did is take out all of the "shims" that allow proprietary software to be bolted on. The made it so the "kernel-restricted" packages won't line up with the "kernel" packages.

The other thing they did was make it impossible to access the Multiverse or Restricted repositories.

The only thing they added are some GNU utilities to the stock Ubuntu install... these utilities are available but not included in other distros because they're not considered "best of breed."

I don't see how this enhances freedom. It's easy enough to download an all-free distro... what they did was cripple their user's ability to use anything that's not FSF-approved Free Software.

Explain to me again how that embodies freedom.

deanlinkous
November 5th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Not embodies freedom in the general sense but embodies FSF defined freedoms.

If we are going to "shim" everything into linux I will just stick to XP myself. I would rather have it built in than bolted on.

You are welcome to your idea of a free distro, can I not be welcome to mine.

KoRnholio
November 5th, 2006, 05:08 PM
This kind of puts Debian in a weird position, doesn't it?

For a while Debian was the "Free Software" side of the coin, and Ubuntu was the "enhance usability with proprietary drivers" side. Now that there's another offshoot that firmly and strictly occupies the Free Software side, where does that leave Debian?

I don't get why people are bashing this idea. There's plenty of people who feel that complete software freedom is very important to them, and buy their hardware accordingly so its not a problem. This distro is for THEM. They aren't marketing it to the run of the mill Ubuntu user. Its not for me, but if I felt that way, I'd be eager to have an OS that doesn't include any proprietary software/drivers that I don't need.

Kindred
November 5th, 2006, 05:14 PM
I wish them much luck, for some time after I began using Linux I thought Ubuntu and Debian especially were all about the goals of this project. Anyway, I would certainly consider using it if I wasn't happy with what I have.

Shay Stephens
November 5th, 2006, 05:14 PM
It's not bad at all if you have the right hardware. I selected mine with Linux and other free software in mind, so I can use pretty much any distribution available.

This is a project I am currently working on. Upgrading my computer with 100% Linux compatible hardware. So far it is making a difference and I am almost done. The benefits, as you mention is I can use an distro, but also when new versions of Ubuntu come out, I don't have trouble with hardware breaking. I am thinking in particular wireless here.

Shay Stephens
November 5th, 2006, 05:24 PM
I don't see how this enhances freedom. It's easy enough to download an all-free distro... what they did was cripple their user's ability to use anything that's not FSF-approved Free Software.

Explain to me again how that embodies freedom.

The way I see it, this is a distro that on seeing first light is at the bottom of its barrel functionality wise, but at the top freedom wise. It can never loose more functionality based on a non-free software piece being made illegal to use or distribute. The distro can only go up from here in functionality. And as it does so, it will be 100% free.

What if for some reason in Ubuntu for example, some piece of proprietary code has to be stripped out and there is no free-software substitute at the moment. Ubuntu could loose some functionality for a time. So the possible pain is only delayed. With the gnu version, they have decided to get the pain over with all at once, with no chance for it to show, and all up front.

I am not currently interested in the distro right now, but in a few versions, who knows, they may just have something. I know I like the idea. And then again, the way Ubuntu is moving, they may be there at the same time too. They are not standing still themselves.

Yossarian
November 5th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Anthem
As I said in the other thread, I find the whole issue bizarre.

They didn't take out proprietary drivers from the GPL kernel, because the GPL kernel doesn't ship with them. What they did is take out all of the "shims" that allow proprietary software to be bolted on. The made it so the "kernel-restricted" packages won't line up with the "kernel" packages.

The other thing they did was make it impossible to access the Multiverse or Restricted repositories.

The only thing they added are some GNU utilities to the stock Ubuntu install... these utilities are available but not included in other distros because they're not considered "best of breed."

I don't see how this enhances freedom. It's easy enough to download an all-free distro... what they did was cripple their user's ability to use anything that's not FSF-approved Free Software.

Explain to me again how that embodies freedom.

It's simple. It became necessary to destroy the freedoms in order to save them.

Or no, wait. In order to make an OS you must first break a few kernel modules. That's it


Originaly posted by deanlinkus
Not embodies freedom in the general sense but embodies FSF defined freedoms.

If we are going to "shim" everything into linux I will just stick to XP myself. I would rather have it built in than bolted on.

You are welcome to your idea of a free distro, can I not be welcome to mine.

You're entitled to your opinion, and the FSF is allowed to do whatever they want with Ubuntu. No one here has argued otherwise. However, we're all free to debate the merits of their action. I think that's sort of the whole point of this cafe thing.

deanlinkous
November 5th, 2006, 06:42 PM
And my opinion is exactly what I was offering. I never said for someone to shut up or anything. A debate without the other side is not much of a debate.

The FSF defines certain freedoms. Providing hooks in the kernel to bolt on proprietary software is certainly not a appropriate use of free software and goes against those freedoms the FSF has defined and that I agree with.

Why say that a 99% free distro is good but a 100% free distro is not. That doesn't make any sense to me. To me, if 99% is good then 100% is great! IMO <<<-----see

If I personally did not believe in the ideals of free software then I would not want to use free software.

weasel fierce
November 5th, 2006, 06:57 PM
I think these things are important. Software isnt just about 0's and 1's.

prizrak
November 5th, 2006, 07:21 PM
So FSF has the most useless Linux distro out there, got it. Sure the ideology is nice and makes sense but lets face it even Debian includes proprietary software otherwise it would be useless.

Kindred
November 5th, 2006, 07:29 PM
Useless for some/many. Doubt they have much to lose, so why not.

deanlinkous
November 5th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Useless how? I was just using it....

If proprietary is so goood then why stop at a little. If I was going to mix free and proprietary then I would go for the evil proprietary OS and on top of that run free software. Best of both worlds right there. ;)

Klaidas
November 5th, 2006, 09:21 PM
Useless how? I was just using it....

If proprietary is so goood then why stop at a little. If I was going to mix free and proprietary then I would go for the evil proprietary OS and on top of that run free software. Best of both worlds right there. ;)

Ooor, you could just install whatever OS you want, and then install whatever software best suits your needs.

AndyCooll
November 6th, 2006, 12:51 AM
Ooor, you could just install whatever OS you want, and then install whatever software best suits your needs.

You really do miss the point don't you?!

As was pointed out at the beginning, the fact that the FSF introduced the GPL, and the fact that they have staunchly stood by it means that you can have your Ubuntu distro with its "OS you want" approach. The FSF may well be pains in the backsides at certain times, however it is worth admiring their stance because you have in the end benefitted (whether you realise it or not). It may not matter to you but it does matter to others.

Similarly it may not matter to you that some folk are vegans for a purpose. They are willing to refrain from eating certain foods because of their viewpoint. In their minds it is a stance worth taking, and the "sacrifices" they make are worthy ones. They are due respect whether you agree with them or not.

I wish this new distro every success. It isn't suitable for everyone, however I laud their viewpoint. I will certainly be having a look at it. Gnubuntu in all but name! ;)

Many of the most important changes to freedoms in history have been made by those willing to take a stance. I'm not saying the FSF are quite in the same league ...however they're doing a worthy job.

:cool:

Ireclan
November 6th, 2006, 01:48 AM
Pardon me, but I wish to see if my interpretation of this information is correct.

Ubuntu is not composed of 100% free, open-source software?

prizrak
November 6th, 2006, 01:57 AM
Useless how? I was just using it....

If proprietary is so goood then why stop at a little. If I was going to mix free and proprietary then I would go for the evil proprietary OS and on top of that run free software. Best of both worlds right there. ;)

No one said proprietary was good or bad the point is that it is necessary. Wanna watch videos on youtube? You NEED flash and guess what, it's proprietary. That's just one example, I would love it if all of the software was FSF and I didn't have to find a way to get flash to cooperate with Firefox. Even better when you could get everything you need (such as mp3 and video codecs (other than Theora)) out of the box on distro's like Ubuntu. However we cannot as they are not free. FSF's distro might be good for programming or word processing but it will lack in many areas.

kuja
November 6th, 2006, 01:58 AM
For me, using such a distribution would render my desktop unusable. I depend on some non-free formats and drivers. However, we NEED such distros around. We need them because we have to have where to turn back to when things go fishy.

Kudos to the developers, testers and whoever else is involved in this.

Offtopic: I always thought Debian was the most free distro around. Never knew they included binary drivers in it.
I haven't used Debian in about a year, but as far as I know, Debian doesn't include closed source proprietary drives in it, and if it does have them, then they're not available in the main repository. (I remember getting the FGLRX driver running in Debian a year and a half ago was quite the thrill ride.)

jimrz
November 6th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Hey, it's not brown. :)

way too blue ... for me

slimdog360
November 6th, 2006, 02:21 AM
sad thing about it is that everyone installs proprietary software anyway. Nice idea though.

deanlinkous
November 6th, 2006, 04:08 AM
:D
installing proprietary software....YES that is sad

deanlinkous
November 6th, 2006, 04:52 AM
No one said proprietary was good or bad the point is that it is necessary. Wanna watch videos on youtube? You NEED flash and guess what, it's proprietary. That's just one example, I would love it if all of the software was FSF and I didn't have to find a way to get flash to cooperate with Firefox. Even better when you could get everything you need (such as mp3 and video codecs (other than Theora)) out of the box on distro's like Ubuntu. However we cannot as they are not free. FSF's distro might be good for programming or word processing but it will lack in many areas.

Ok, if it is so necessary then why not just use that super-duper proprietary OS. That is what I am saying -Why are you using 99% free software if proprietary is so necessary? If I felt that proprietary was necessary then honestly I would just be using windows.

It may lack in areas that you consider necessary but nobody using gnewsense is going to care about the areas it lacks in because we do not feel those are necessary. For example, I do not install flash even on windows.

I find ubuntu to be lacking in areas compared to windows yet many people seem to find that Ubuntu provides enough to be usable.:)
I think it is all about priorities or what you feel is necessary. Obviously, choosing ubuntu means that you have given up some functionality compared to windows. Something Ubuntu provides is worth giving up some functionality. You consider that a reasonable trade-off, right? I fell the same, yet more so. I feel what gnewsense offers is worth giving up flash and so forth because what it provides is important to me.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks. :D

I just find it funny that anyone slams the distro simply for being free. I mean slamming a distro for being FREE? I wouldunderstand if it was for being proprietary but for free???

:)

Anthem
November 6th, 2006, 04:02 PM
I just find it funny that anyone slams the distro simply for being free. I mean slamming a distro for being FREE? I wouldunderstand if it was for being proprietary but for free???
I'm not slamming it for being free. I'm slamming the FSF for always having to have "their own" version.

This isn't about Debian not being free enough. This is about the FSF having a pathological need to say "This is ours and we control it."

I strongly dislike that characteristic of the FSF.

Sushi
November 6th, 2006, 04:15 PM
I honestly don't see the point. The people who do care about having 100% free distro, can have one with Ubuntu. They can choose to install only free software and such. They don't need to run a special distro for that.

So what't the point? The warm 'n fuzzies if running an "Endorsed by FSF!"-distro?

prizrak
November 6th, 2006, 04:28 PM
Ok, if it is so necessary then why not just use that super-duper proprietary OS. That is what I am saying -Why are you using 99% free software if proprietary is so necessary? If I felt that proprietary was necessary then honestly I would just be using windows.

It may lack in areas that you consider necessary but nobody using gnewsense is going to care about the areas it lacks in because we do not feel those are necessary. For example, I do not install flash even on windows.

I find ubuntu to be lacking in areas compared to windows yet many people seem to find that Ubuntu provides enough to be usable.:)
I think it is all about priorities or what you feel is necessary. Obviously, choosing ubuntu means that you have given up some functionality compared to windows. Something Ubuntu provides is worth giving up some functionality. You consider that a reasonable trade-off, right? I fell the same, yet more so. I feel what gnewsense offers is worth giving up flash and so forth because what it provides is important to me.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks. :D

I just find it funny that anyone slams the distro simply for being free. I mean slamming a distro for being FREE? I wouldunderstand if it was for being proprietary but for free???

:)

I use Ubuntu on some of my machines because it gives me 100% what I want. I don't have any functional tradeoffs between Ubuntu and Windows. I do have a Windows box that is Windows by my own choice (i.e. not a work computer) and that is because Ubuntu (or any Linux) does not provide the functionality needed. No one is slamming the distro it's just that there is already a distro that can be 100% free (Ubuntu) if you so choose. It doesn't make you install anything proprietary. On the flip side people using gnewsense can easily install proprietary software.

lazyart
November 6th, 2006, 04:42 PM
Free-Proprietary vs Free Open Source are kinda like being vegetarian vs being vegan. What were getting with Debian/Ubuntu/gNewSense is varying degrees of such... Maybe you don't meat, but your friend won't eat meat or dairy... then you have another friend who doesnt do either and won't buy anything made of leather or even tested on animals.
What happens then (subconsciously I believe) is that you have someone who espouses the truth and virtue of being vegetarian, and someone walks up to them and says "you're a hippocrite, because you don't eat animals but you eat eggs".

So on one hand you have folks dumping Windows for Linux "cause it ain't right" but then install Flash or an ATI driver... then FSF backers say "you're a hippocrite..."

Some will defend, some will attack.

Personally, I won't use the FSF disto. I will claim dependency on proprietary drivers and web plugins and even the web browser. It's not so bad you see...



I claim dependency on my own computer. So it needs to function for me, otherwise it's a waste of technology-- of which we are all dependent on.

Yossarian
November 6th, 2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by deanlinkous
Ok, if it is so necessary then why not just use that super-duper proprietary OS. That is what I am saying -Why are you using 99% free software if proprietary is so necessary? If I felt that proprietary was necessary then honestly I would just be using windows.


Exactly! Why don't people see that software is an all or nothing proposition. Moderates are lamers. Don't take my work for it, check out http://www.gnu.org/sophistry



I just find it funny that anyone slams the distro simply for being free. I mean slamming a distro for being FREE? I wouldunderstand if it was for being proprietary but for free???


They hate freedom.

PatrickMay16
November 6th, 2006, 07:08 PM
Exactly! Why don't people see that software is an all or nothing proposition. Moderates are lamers. Don't take my work for it, check out http://www.gnu.org/sophistry
Hello there. I like to use free software, but I use a little proprietary stuff (the NVIDIA driver, Opera, some things I run using wine).
Do you look down on me/others like me for this?

Anthem
November 6th, 2006, 07:10 PM
Hello there. I like to use free software, but I use a little proprietary stuff (the NVIDIA driver, Opera, some things I run using wine).
Do you look down on me/others like me for this?
Don't look now, but I'm pretty sure he's being ironical.

Anthem
November 6th, 2006, 07:11 PM
So what't the point? The warm 'n fuzzies if running an "Endorsed by FSF!"-distro?
That's exactly what it is. And the FSF doesn't endorse anything it doesn't control.

Kindred
November 6th, 2006, 07:26 PM
So people complain when the FSF try to exert control over other distributions and people complain when they want to control their own. Kind of a lose-lose situation there..

prizrak
November 6th, 2006, 07:50 PM
So people complain when the FSF try to exert control over other distributions and people complain when they want to control their own. Kind of a lose-lose situation there..
FSF are extremists that is why they get alot of flack. I might prefer Ubuntu but if in order for me to do something I'll need a proprietary piece of software I won't think twice.

dca
November 6th, 2006, 08:28 PM
So if I look at both sides here, it seems people (users on the forum) would've been happier if gNewSense was based off Debian (as is Ubuntu) instead of being based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian?.? I mean, nobody has come out and said it directly, but I feel that's where we're heading.

I look at things from a more pragmatic (or read: capatalist) side, I have ten servers to roll out: it's cheaper to throw a Linux distro on it than MS Server 2k3 for a grand a pop...

prizrak
November 6th, 2006, 11:53 PM
So if I look at both sides here, it seems people (users on the forum) would've been happier if gNewSense was based off Debian (as is Ubuntu) instead of being based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian?.? I mean, nobody has come out and said it directly, but I feel that's where we're heading.

I look at things from a more pragmatic (or read: capatalist) side, I have ten servers to roll out: it's cheaper to throw a Linux distro on it than MS Server 2k3 for a grand a pop...

No, just some of us feel there is no point in it.

Lord Illidan
November 7th, 2006, 12:03 AM
I don't see any reason why a man cannot combine opensource with closed source. It is software, not religion. It has nothing to do with being a vegetarian or not.

Sometimes, one has to find a compromise, and I'd like to find the one that works best for my system without people ordering me what to do.

Thus, I don't use Windows because it orders me to have wholly closed source system software.

I also won't use this because it won't work well on my system, well...if nv drivers could play 3D games, I would try it. But they don't. Also, these are so obsessed with their vision of software freedom that they are imprisoned by their very obsession.

Thus, I run a middle ground, using Linux combined with closed source programs where I need them. And, I have the freedom of choice to do so, even if I don't have the freedom to look at the code, which let's face it, in the case of Nvidia's drivers, I don't need to look at the code, or modify it, or distribute it. I wouldn't understand a word of it, for one thing, and it won't serve my purpose.

I hate it when software becomes a philosophy.

Anthem
November 7th, 2006, 05:05 AM
No, just some of us feel there is no point in it.
Bingo.

K.Mandla
November 7th, 2006, 05:53 AM
Point or no point, it works nicely. I'm posting from it now, and it's got a very clean feel about it. I might keep it around for a while. ;)

vayu
November 7th, 2006, 06:15 AM
Free-Proprietary vs Free Open Source are kinda like being vegetarian vs being vegan. What were getting with Debian/Ubuntu/gNewSense is varying degrees of such... Maybe you don't meat, but your friend won't eat meat or dairy... then you have another friend who doesnt do either and won't buy anything made of leather or even tested on animals.


I think your analogy is spot on.

Another one that works for me is one's transportation footprint. Some people completely eliminate cars from their life and only use bicycles or walk. Others have paired down to a scooter, and some others etc.. I would love to ditch the car completely, but I have a family that includes two young children. I can go a week sometimes two without getting in the car, but I would have a hard time to eliminate it entirely, but I actively try to do what I can.

steven8
November 7th, 2006, 06:24 AM
I find it somewhat interesting that the user who started this thread, 6 pages ago, has not posted since.

Anyway, I'll download it and give it a try. Looks like fun.

kvonb
November 7th, 2006, 06:37 AM
Divide and conqueror!

...that's all I'm going to say :rolleyes:

deanlinkous
November 7th, 2006, 07:29 AM
I like how there is no point to anything BUT ubuntu. Speaks volumes. 99% is good 100% is pointless...uh ok

deanlinkous
November 7th, 2006, 07:34 AM
No one is slamming the distro it's just that there is already a distro that can be 100% free (Ubuntu) if you so choose. So you are saying that if I was bragging that I was using Ubuntu and 100% free that would be okay but because it is not Ubuntu it is pointless.

Yes, I think I get your point now. You are the popular kids and how dare anyone make something just like yours. I got it.

deanlinkous
November 7th, 2006, 07:42 AM
I honestly don't see the point. The people who do care about having 100% free distro, can have one with Ubuntu.
Yes I must have Ubuntu or nothing. I already said - I get it! Every one of you are making the same point - "it isn't ubuntu so it is pointless" you'll just say it in different ways like "ubuntu can already be 100% free"!

Why would I install a distro that includes non-free software and then remove it to be 100% free?

Still using gnewsense and usability is fine - it is ubuntu afterall and all my hardware works fine on my three systems. Thanks.

Did you know everything Ubuntu did could of been done via debian. Is Ubuntu pointless?

argie
November 7th, 2006, 07:51 AM
Ah, it is some kind of misunderstanding I see here.

Thee Ubuntu, it is not 100% free in all senses. There is non-free stuff in Ubuntu to allow it to support more hardware. Presumably this GNewSense (it does sound like "nuisance", why didn't they think of that?), it does not have that non-free bit. So it does not support everything.

If freedom, it is important to you, then gNewSense is good, else, ubuntu is fine.

Besides, there are people like me. I already have the hardware, it worked before, I want it to keep working. So no NewSense for me!

handy
November 7th, 2006, 08:22 AM
I downloaded it yesterday & installed it on my 2nd box.

A perfect install, no problems, all hardware recognised, internet only needed the same tweeks that Ubuntu needs. LAN great, network printer great. nv driver setup properly for my graphics card during install - that's never happened before! :-D

I installed libdvdcss2 & win32codecs because I will use them.

gNewSense is now perfectly acceptable to me, I will not be replacing it in the near future.

As far as the FSF is concerned I respect what they do, we need them to counterbalance corporate greed.

The Linux community may find that they are very grateful to FSF in the coming years as M$, Oracle, Novel & the like, start playing their game of corrupt & dominate on Linux & FOSS.

kvonb
November 7th, 2006, 02:30 PM
..now try getting 3d to work!

oh, I forgot, no proprietary drivers!

But that's OK, you can still duel boot Windows.
^
(read that sentence as: what the hell is the point!!!!)

prizrak
November 7th, 2006, 03:07 PM
So you are saying that if I was bragging that I was using Ubuntu and 100% free that would be okay but because it is not Ubuntu it is pointless.

Yes, I think I get your point now. You are the popular kids and how dare anyone make something just like yours. I got it.

No you don't get it. There is Ubuntu and Debian that are free already unless you install non-free stuff in them. So why another free distro? Not to mention that for a vast majority of people there is a need for proprietary stuff anyway and what can be installed into Ubuntu can be installed into gnewsense.


Did you know everything Ubuntu did could of been done via debian. Is Ubuntu pointless?
Ubuntu is Debian sans configuration. Yes anything in Ubuntu can be done with Debian or even Gentoo (albeit harder) but it will require effort. Ubuntu is pretty effortless out of the box you install a few non free things (if you need them) and you got a fully functional desktop within an hour (even on slower machines). So there is the point of Ubuntu even though Debian can do the same thing. What is the point of gnewsense?

Also notice handy's post.

I installed libdvdcss2 & win32codecs because I will use them.

gNewSense is now perfectly acceptable to me, I will not be replacing it in the near future.

So gNewSense cannot stay free to be perfectly acceptable it seems.

Anthem
November 7th, 2006, 04:34 PM
I like how there is no point to anything BUT ubuntu. Speaks volumes. 99% is good 100% is pointless...uh ok
Come on, man, nobody is saying that.

We're saying that Debian and Ubuntu are already free software. Everything that comes on an Ubuntu CD can be compiled... there's nothing in it that's non-free. If freedom is so important to you that you refuse to listen to MP3s or use Flash websites, or have working 3d, or play DVDs, then more power to you. You're welcome to do that, and Ubuntu already gives you that. It's totally free out of the box.

The only way to make Ubuntu non-free is to add stuff from secondary repositories. And if you're anti-mp3, anti-dvd, anti-flash, then you don't need to add anything and you're still ok. Same with Debian, by the way. Same with Gentoo. Same with Fedora. Everything you get on your CD is Free Software.

With all of that said, there's only one reason for the FSF to create their own distro, and it's not to make Ubuntu more Free because it's already 100% free software when you install it. The only reason for the FSF to do this is because they're all about control. They have to say "This is ours, not anyone else's."

And they are, of course, free to do that. It's allowed. But I don't see the point. If they play nice and contribute their fixes upstream, then I don't really care one way or the other. But don't yammer on about how superior "Nuisance" is. Because it's the exact same software. And if you install anything proprietary on that machine, then you need to get off your hobby horse.

Wolki
November 7th, 2006, 05:51 PM
No you don't get it. There is Ubuntu and Debian that are free already unless you install non-free stuff in them.

Unless you count non-free firmware.


So why another free distro?

Mark Pilgrim has - imho - a good point here: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/11/06/gnewsense


So gNewSense cannot stay free to be perfectly acceptable it seems.


wolki@navi:~$ cat /usr/share/doc/libdvdcss2/copyright | grep -A 3 free
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
later version.

libdvdcss is free software. (And anthem, the same applies to mp3 codecs and 3d acceleration for several cards)

w32codecs is another matter though, thankfully ffmpeg will hopefully make them obsolete soon. They never were more than a ugly hack.

deanlinkous
November 7th, 2006, 07:40 PM
If everything is so free why is there a restricted folder on the CD?

I could swear when I installed it on my machine with a nvidia card I had nvidia drivers. Yet they are not free. Any ideas.

If this is Ubuntu dedication to "free" then yes I see a point in gNewSense since I know it is a bit more dedicated and won't stray even more tommorow.

If you think Ubuntu is 100% free I suggest you look a bit harder.

BTW - gNewSense is not controlled or owned or even started by the FSF.

btw-still using gNewSense and still doing everything I usually do.

If everything I wanted to do required stuff from my windows install then guess which one I would use....

I will have to say you'll are some fun guys to run in circles with but I am afraid I am really dizzy so I will go sit on the side now.

prizrak
November 7th, 2006, 08:56 PM
Unless you count non-free firmware.
Firmware is something that gets written into a ROM chip of an embedded device. I seriously don't see how Ubuntu would have it ;)
Also I read the article in the beginning of the thread and it doesn't say that Ubuntu is installed with non-free software it talks about four different sections that seem to be the same as the repo's we get with the default install.

I could swear when I installed it on my machine with a nvidia card I had nvidia drivers. Yet they are not free. Any ideas.
Here is an idea, learn about what gets installed with Ubuntu and what doesn't. The drivers you get are the "nv" drivers, which are the open source drivers for nVidia cards. There is an OPTION of installing the official ones from the repos but no one is holding a gattling cannon to your head.

If you think Ubuntu is 100% free I suggest you look a bit harder.
Here is a quote from the website.
The base system and all included software is free,
Also you need to consider something, what FSF calls free and what is free are two different things. If it's not GPL it is not free to FSF. For instance Firefox is not free by FSF's standards (and Debian's btw). However it is free to distribute and modify so it is free.

midwinter
November 7th, 2006, 09:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob

"Firmware, the operating software required by a device's onboard microcontroller that accompanies some hardware, is generally not considered to be a binary blob. Often it is stored in onboard flash memory but to decrease costs and ease upgrading, some manufacturers now use external firmware uploaded by the operating system."

I think the people are under the misapprehension that if you don't install any non-free software then Ubuntu is truly free when in fact that isn't the case and it is this that gNewSense is there to rectify.

Not sure, but my understanding is that Ubuntu ships with some of this stuff and that it is not free (in terms of source code or redistribution or what?). If anyone has some more insight, that would be appreciated.

Wolki
November 7th, 2006, 09:39 PM
Firmware is something that gets written into a ROM chip of an embedded device. I seriously don't see how Ubuntu would have it ;)

See for example:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4965


Here is a quote from the website.


Here's another quote from the website: (http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/components)


The licences for software applications in main must be free, but main may also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts that cannot be modified without permission from their authors.


Also you need to consider something, what FSF calls free and what is free are two different things. If it's not GPL it is not free to FSF.

Completely and utterly wrong. Look here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html

65 different licenses listed as Free Software licenses. More than half of them are even GPL incompatible, and still considered free.


For instance Firefox is not free by FSF's standards (and Debian's btw). However it is free to distribute and modify so it is free.

That discussion has been done to death, so I will not start it again.

[edit] midwinter: Availability of source code and probably distributability of modified versions. Everything shipped with Ubuntu must be redistributable itself, see http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/licensing

deanlinkous
November 7th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Also you need to consider something, what FSF calls free and what is free are two different things. If it's not GPL it is not free to FSF. For instance Firefox is not free by FSF's standards (and Debian's btw). However it is free to distribute and modify so it is free.

Yes, and gNewSense keeps saying that they are creating s distro that contains all free software. They specifically mention Free as in the FSF definiton of free. That is exactly what I am after is the Free as in the FSF definition of free. btw - The GPL is not the only "free" license.

Firefox is free by the FSF standards and debians as well. The problems arose from code changes yet using the samename and artwork.

If ubuntu is so free then I ask again, why is there a folder on the CD called restricted with stuff in it?

Okay some links to help explain
http://fasmz.org/~pterjan/blog/?date=20060609
http://thomas.apestaart.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=14498
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/linux-restricted-modules-2.6.17/2.6.17.5-11

whew....i am tired. :D

angkor
November 7th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Great thread :)

Does anyone know what the FSF stance on proprietary hardware is?

I wish them all the best with their new Gnewsense (strange name though).

Anthem
November 7th, 2006, 11:06 PM
libdvdcss is free software. (And anthem, the same applies to mp3 codecs and 3d acceleration for several cards)
Well, they code is open-source but the programs are patent-encumbered. I'm 100% positive that "gnewsense" won't have mp3 and dvd support out of the box. Possibly ever (without adding additional repos).

Regardless, if freedom was really the issue, it would have been easy enough to make a new Ubuntu subproject. But that's not the FSF way.

Like I've said a billion times, this isn't about Freedom. It's about control.

deanlinkous
November 7th, 2006, 11:28 PM
Yes, free software is all about control????

Some Ubuntu user wants to talk about subprojects. Holy smoke.

Okay some more reading for ya...
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-November/013261.html
https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/nanda/free_software_with_a_female_touch/free_as_in_mark_shuttleworth

Strange that Ubuntu is already free yet Shuttleworth himself came up with the idea of a free ubuntu. Weird huh? Do you'll keep up with anything that really goes on or just run around singing the praises of all things ubuntu?

Wolki
November 7th, 2006, 11:49 PM
Well, they code is open-source but the programs are patent-encumbered. I'm 100% positive that "gnewsense" won't have mp3 and dvd support out of the box. Possibly ever (without adding additional repos).

Well, they seem to enable universe by default, so you shouldn't have to install additional repositories.

And being patent-encumbered is a whole other matter than not being Free software. You can't include some stuff if you want to distribute it to some countries. If you use it, though, you're still using free software.


Regardless, if freedom was really the issue, it would have been easy enough to make a new Ubuntu subproject. But that's not the FSF way.

I was under the impression that gNewSense uses the same repositories as ubuntu where it makes sense (eg, not restricted etc.). Deanlinkous, is this the case?

If so, then this is basically a subproject.

Anyway, there are lots of projects that derive from ubuntu but are not official subprojects. Are you going to complain about all of them?

prizrak
November 8th, 2006, 12:38 AM
Yes, free software is all about control????
Yes it is actually. Read the GPL tell me what it says about rules for modification and redistribution of software based on GPL'ed code. Even more so with the v3. BSD is the only free license I am aware of that has no restriction whatsoever.

deanlinkous
November 8th, 2006, 12:51 AM
Thats right. BSD is more free....so free in fact you can lock it up and call it your own. I will take a slightly different form of freedom myself in order to assure the code and improvements are free as well. The only "control" about the GPL is to make sure no one keeps control of it. I can live with that control.

Wait, what about the other stuff we have been talking about.Let us get back on topic, shall we.

So what about shuttleworth himself talking about a truly free ubuntu?

Also, why is that restrictd folder on my ubuntu CD?

prizrak
November 8th, 2006, 01:27 AM
Thats right. BSD is more free....so free in fact you can lock it up and call it your own. I will take a slightly different form of freedom myself in order to assure the code and improvements are free as well. The only "control" about the GPL is to make sure no one keeps control of it. I can live with that control.

Wait, what about the other stuff we have been talking about.Let us get back on topic, shall we.

So what about shuttleworth himself talking about a truly free ubuntu?

Also, why is that restrictd folder on my ubuntu CD?

Ok after reading up on some of the links. So main may contain fonts that are not free, however fonts are not software so they are meaningless. It may also contain some binary firmware, which from the LKML (or was it LMKL?) discussion seems to be a huge gray area. It also seems that as of right now the firmware is "implicitly GPL'ed" there is just no source code available.

It also states that while restricted stuff MAY be installed on your computer but ONLY if there is no other way to install. From the wording I can surmise that the installer will select restricted stuff in case it can't find anything free. So it is quite possible to run a 100% free Ubuntu if you get hardware with open specs.

So again gnewsense is pointless. If there is no open driver for your hardware you can't run gnewsense 100% free. If there is Ubuntu is still free. (I consider the firmware free as it is implicitly GPL'ed)

handy
November 8th, 2006, 01:31 AM
I really like gNewSense, (http://www.gnewsense.org) it's Ubuntu!:KS

I could play DVD's by installing gxine 0.5.1 from the repo's that came with gNewSense!!

I only installed libDVDcss2 so I could play them in Totem.

I must say that I am a little surprised at some of the attitudes in this thread.

What is wrong with people doing what they want to do? Freedom!

The first link on the gNewSense page is for building your own distibution, a how-to use the free software they created to do such a thing.

http://www.gnewsense.org/Builder/HowToCreateYourOwnGNULinuxDistribution

If I find that gNewSense or any other distro' suits my purposes better, I will use it. Except if I don't agree with their corporate practices ie. I won't use Novell or M$ software.

That is me using my freedom of choice, & I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't, can or can't do or use.

Freedom, you can choose to protect it.

Anthem
November 8th, 2006, 05:34 AM
If so, then this is basically a subproject.

Anyway, there are lots of projects that derive from ubuntu but are not official subprojects. Are you going to complain about all of them?
Not if they have a purpose.

Like I've said a dozen times, the code is free. The FSF can do whatever they want with it. I just don't think it's a worthwhile enterprise, because I don't see them as adding anything to the functionality. They're just re-branding Ubuntu.

EDIT: I'll admit, though, that a good bit of my disdain is simply a reaction againt the "Ubuntu isn't really free" nonsense. I've stated my views honestly, but I've only continued participating in this thread to try talking some sense into dean and those like him. Probably a lost cause, though.

Anthem
November 8th, 2006, 05:39 AM
Okay some more reading for ya...
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-November/013261.html
https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/nanda/free_software_with_a_female_touch/free_as_in_mark_shuttleworth

Strange that Ubuntu is already free yet Shuttleworth himself came up with the idea of a free ubuntu. Weird huh? Do you'll keep up with anything that really goes on or just run around singing the praises of all things ubuntu?
Did you even read those links? Because they blatantly oppose what you posted.

deanlinkous
November 8th, 2006, 01:52 PM
They oppose what? I was discussing gnewsense and that it is composed entirely of free which you'll said Ubuntu was entirely free software. Shuttleworth (you do know who that is right) was talking about making a FREE ubuntu - wonder why he would do that?

If you had any comment that made sense I could be talked into it. Ubuntu is not free. It installs non-free software in EVERY installation.

I still have not got a answer as to why there is a restricted folder on my CD if everything is truly free.

gNewSense isn't adding anything to the functionality, it is adding to the free

Thanks for trying to talk sense into me. Did I already post these...
http://fasmz.org/~pterjan/blog/?date=20060609
http://thomas.apestaart.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=14498
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/linux-restricted-modules-2.6.17/2.6.17.5-11

Gustav
November 8th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Ubuntu installs restricted packages by default. They are easy to remove but that's not the point.

The point is that if you think that free software is the ethical way to go (and there is something unethical with proprietary software) you would rather run a distro that stay as close as possible to those ideals, and gNewSense is certainly closer to them than Ubuntu.

I'm using Ubuntu instead of gNewSense because I value my comfort higher than my ideals.

prizrak
November 8th, 2006, 03:10 PM
I still have not got a answer as to why there is a restricted folder on my CD if everything is truly free.
Yes you did. I stated above that Ubuntu contains some fonts that are considered non-free (note however it isn't software it's essentially art) and that according to the Ubuntu website posted on the previous page Ubuntu comes with non-free software that is installed as the last resort. Basically it says that it's drivers that are installed if there is no other way to install Ubuntu otherwise. I can only assume that it is up to the installer program to decide, but if you wanna test it by install Ubuntu onto 100% open hardware and see if restricted stuff is installed feel free to prove me wrong.

deanlinkous
November 8th, 2006, 04:11 PM
It isn't fonts. I think all the fonts ARE free now, there use to be some issues with some of them but I think the licensed was changed and the FSF approves of it now.

No need to assume.
pool/restricted/d/drdsl/drdsl_1.2.0-0ubuntu1_i386.deb
pool/restricted/l/linux-meta/avm-fritz-firmware_2.6.15.22_i386.deb
pool/restricted/l/linux-restricted-modules-2.6.15/avm-fritz-firmware-2.6.15-23_3.11+2.6.15.11-1_i386.deb


Daniel Robitaille wrote:

>which comes back to an old minor pet peeve of mine: in my mind
>restricted should only be enabled for Ubuntu installations that need
>it for specific hardware.

AFAIK those aren't the only packages either there are more but instead of being in restricted they are in the kernel package.


So I posted the good news on LinuxFR and there someone posted a comment regarding ipw2x00 frimware that I could not find on the CD. If I could not find it, it is for a very simple reason, the proprietary firmware are not in pool/restricted/, they are included in linux-image-2.6.15-23-686_2.6.15-23.39_i386.deb, the main kernel package. So, every people installing Ubuntu gets some proprietary software into his computer !

http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/components

Some software from restricted will be installed on Ubuntu CDs but is clearly separated to ensure that it is easy to remove.


I removed the packages that has this description:

Non-free Linux 2.6.15 modules on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV

and

Restricted Linux modules on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV

Guess what???

Bingo! The dependencies of those packages removed also the kernel. Who needs a kernel, after all?

So, I am not wondering whether there is an easy way to install Ubuntu without the proprietary package, or if the lies in the CD are not only about incuding non-free software, but also about not having even the option to delete them!!!

I am afraid this is about the last circle I can spin around with you, it is getting a bit tiresome.

Still using gNewSense and still happy with it. Great functionality too. Plenty of free software projects that provide excellent multimedia capabilities if I need them. Very happy to know what FREE software actually provides instead of not knowing which is free software and which isn't and just wanting it to work no matter what I am using.

Do you still think firefox is not free, like you said? :D

prizrak
November 8th, 2006, 07:51 PM
I am afraid this is about the last circle I can spin around with you, it is getting a bit tiresome.

Yes. One note that I would like to make about your last quote is that dependancies can be ignored. It's just the debs after all.

deanlinkous
November 9th, 2006, 12:21 AM
If shuttleworth himself came here and posted that every install has non-free software.....oh never mind. :)

mrgnash
November 9th, 2006, 12:56 AM
I can respect what they're doing philosophically, but I can't live without the multimedia codecs and so on. Ideally, the prevalence of open-standards would be such that support proprietary formats would be rendered unnecessary. But that has not eventuated, and in the meantime, live goes on and work and entertainment must continue :P

deanlinkous
November 9th, 2006, 02:47 AM
They are rendered unnecessary, you just choose to use the ones that haven't been. ;)

At least you respect what they are doing.

ecadre
November 9th, 2006, 03:29 AM
I've read the whole of this thread since I am a gNewSense (gNS) user and was curious about what people were saying. I've found it interesting, but a bit depressing with the amount of misunderstanding and misinformation that is being spread.

First off, how dare the gNS developers (who are not the FSF but are now sponsored by the FSF) create a new distribution from Ubuntu? Well, this was one of the main aims of Ubuntu; to make it easy for people to make new distributions based upon Ubuntu.

Next, the Ubuntu distribution is not 100% free. Statements that you could personally do this or that to make it free are not good enough for me. In fact, having read around, I am not at all convinced that it is possible to place an Ubuntu instalation disk into my computer and say that it will install a 100% free system at any point; ie. not even binary blobs in the Kernel.

I welcome the chance to install a system where I know it is 100% free in ALL circumstances and that nothing will ever be placed in the gNS repositories (or linked to) that is knowingly non-free.

Does any of this impinge upon your rights and personal actions? No! Of course not.

For more than 20 years the Free Software Foundation has been arguing for, organising for and producing code for free software. As I say, this has been happening since 1984 so it's a bit strange for some people to be implying that the FSF is doing something new, strange or trying to split the "linux community". For the the desktop the aim was never just UNIX on the desktop, it was a free desktop.

There are also some misconceptions about media codecs and the ability of free software to play many media files. Right now I am playing an mp3 file and I will be playing an avi video in a short while. Both of these are on gNS using 100% free software. I also watched the wmv video of the Novell-Microsoft press conference using free software on gNS

Although I can play most of those formats, I do try to avoid then when possible and I only encode in free formats.

So, there is a lot of uncertainty and doubt being created by people who claim that gNS will be unusable because you won't be able to play anything but Ogg Vorbis or Theora and everything will be broken. I've got pretty new hardware and the only problem that I had was with the wireless card's prism54 chipset; which I don't use anyway. Then again, there are apparently plenty of wireless cards that will work with free software.

I record music (I am a musician) and I have encountered no problems with gNS compared to other GNU/Linux distributions. For instance, my Alesis 8USB mixing desk was picked up and configured with no intervention from me other than plugging it in.

I would say to anyone who is interested in gNewSense, download the live disk (which is also the installation disk) and try it. It won't change anything on your hard disk until you actually install. Also read up about things such as the media playing capabilities of ffmpeg (http://directory.fsf.org/audiocodec.html), gstreamer etc, etc.

gNewSense is 100% free and whilst it will no suit everybody, it does suit me and I'm glad that I made that final step.

Anthem
November 9th, 2006, 05:09 AM
First off, how dare the gNS developers (who are not the FSF but are now sponsored by the FSF) create a new distribution from Ubuntu? Well, this was one of the main aims of Ubuntu; to make it easy for people to make new distributions based upon Ubuntu.
It absolutely is. And the code is open; the FSF can do what they want with it.

I just don't like the moral high-horse. If you want to use "Nuisance" then go right ahead. You certainly have that right. But the whole "use this or go back to Windows" line of thought is crazy. The fact that someone depends on non-free formats like Flash or Quicktime doesn't mean they don't value freedom. The fact that someone doesn't have enough money to go out and buy all new linux-compatible hardware doesn't mean they don't value freedom.

I love the GPL, I'm for free and open formats, and I think a lot of the work the FSF does is extremely important for the future of computing. But I'm not willing to have no wireless access just because my laptop's internal wireless card has no open-source driver. I'm not willing to miss 90% of the media content on the web. I'd be thrilled if Apple supported OGG on the iPod, but until that happens I'm keeping my music in MP3. And I don't feel a shred of guilt about it.

Anthem
November 9th, 2006, 05:21 AM
They oppose what? I was discussing gnewsense and that it is composed entirely of free which you'll said Ubuntu was entirely free software. Shuttleworth (you do know who that is right) was talking about making a FREE ubuntu - wonder why he would do that?
You're really here just to fight, aren't you? Why do you have to belittle me because I don't agree with you?

For the record, you're incorrect. Shuttleworth did NOT say he wanted to create a "free" Ubuntu, because Ubuntu is already free software. He said he was open to creating an "ideologically pure" Ubuntu. Do you see the difference?

And it's funny that you link to this complaint (https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/nanda/free_software_with_a_female_touch/free_as_in_mark_shuttleworth), because the very first comment shows that she doesn't really understand what's going on with her computer. Not exactly a reputable source.

ecadre
November 9th, 2006, 05:41 AM
It absolutely is. And the code is open; the FSF can do what they want with it.

I just don't like the moral high-horse. If you want to use "Nuisance" then go right ahead. You certainly have that right. But the whole "use this or go back to Windows" line of thought is crazy. The fact that someone depends on non-free formats like Flash or Quicktime doesn't mean they don't value freedom. The fact that someone doesn't have enough money to go out and buy all new linux-compatible hardware doesn't mean they don't value freedom.

I love the GPL, I'm for free and open formats, and I think a lot of the work the FSF does is extremely important for the future of computing. But I'm not willing to have no wireless access just because my laptop's internal wireless card has no open-source driver. I'm not willing to miss 90% of the media content on the web. I'd be thrilled if Apple supported OGG on the iPod, but until that happens I'm keeping my music in MP3. And I don't feel a shred of guilt about it.

At what point did I mention windows or make a comment like that? You'll also not find any comment like that on the gNewSense website and it certainly is not the attitude of the FSF. Please don't make ad hominen attacks like that; especially so when you're attacking the wrong person anyway.

You're building up all sorts of arguments that are no being made, it is not the FSF or gNewSnse that is attacking you. If you have problems with the iPod then blame Apple, not the FSF.

The FSF also didn't refuse to free the drivers for your internal wireless card. You decided to buy it and decided to hand over your rights to fully control it the manufacturer. The FSF didn't do that, you did.

I can't stop you from doing these things, but pointing out the dangers that these distributors and manufacturers pose to us all with their Digital Restriction Management and so called "Trusted Computing" (correctly relabelled as Treacherous Computing) is important.

There's an old saying about not blaming the messenger.

deanlinkous
November 9th, 2006, 05:42 AM
.....
B-E-A-utiful post!

A couple of them here still won't quite understand there is a reason for it but oh well.

Some (at least one) of them cannot even understand that this is not owned or controlled by the FSF.

unlokia
November 9th, 2006, 05:50 AM
TRolling.........](*,) ](*,)

deanlinkous
November 9th, 2006, 05:56 AM
You're really here just to fight, aren't you? Why do you have to belittle me because I don't agree with you?

For the record, you're incorrect. Shuttleworth did NOT say he wanted to create a "free" Ubuntu, because Ubuntu is already free software. He said he was open to creating an "ideologically pure" Ubuntu. Do you see the difference?



Please point out where I belittle you? I asked if you knew who that was just to make sure since you obviously did not know he had a idea dfor a "free" Ubuntu.

What definition of FREE do you think this whole discussion has been about. Certainly you could not be under any misconception about what "free" I meant since I have stated the FSF definiton of free. Shuttleworth said

...to setup that derivative to include only stuff that's FSF-blessed ... and that would be a truly FREE distro.

Oh and keep your music in mp3 and mp3 is all the ipod will ever have support for. The day nobody uses mp3 and everyone uses ogg is the day before the ipod has ogg capability.

deanlinkous
November 9th, 2006, 06:18 AM
TRolling.........](*,) ](*,)
I think you are right. Someone must be trolling....
I wonder who is trying to goad someone else and make them keep responding to their posts.

handy
November 9th, 2006, 07:30 AM
Ubuntu installs restricted packages by default. They are easy to remove but that's not the point.

The point is that if you think that free software is the ethical way to go (and there is something unethical with proprietary software) you would rather run a distro that stay as close as possible to those ideals, and gNewSense is certainly closer to them than Ubuntu.

I'm using Ubuntu instead of gNewSense because I value my comfort higher than my ideals.

I am running a machine on gNewSense because it does what I want, it is stable (more so than Edgy, which is understandable) & I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ADD CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE IF I WANT TO! Sorry for shouting!

I thought that freedom of everything is what is important? How did politics get in here? :confused:

Gustav
November 9th, 2006, 10:31 AM
I am running a machine on gNewSense because it does what I want, it is stable (more so than Edgy, which is understandable) & I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ADD CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE IF I WANT TO! Sorry for shouting!

I thought that freedom of everything is what is important? How did politics get in here? :confused:

Free software is about politics.

I think it's great that this new dist is made since it makes it clear(er) that you can run an entirely free OS.

I don't deny you the right to install non-free stuff but for those who want a totally free system gNewSense is perfect since it has made a very clear that it will never include any non-free software.

Of course there might be other reasons to use gNewSense.

handy
November 9th, 2006, 03:11 PM
Free software is about politics.

I think it's great that this new dist is made since it makes it clear(er) that you can run an entirely free OS.

I don't deny you the right to install non-free stuff but for those who want a totally free system gNewSense is perfect since it has made a very clear that it will never include any non-free software.

Of course there might be other reasons to use gNewSense.

Yes, I agree it is all good. There are political parties out there that I don't vote for, but I am grateful for there input, it comes down to personal priorities in the end.

I believe that freedom of choice is of paramount importance.

I find it hard to understand why people get so emotional about a choice being available that they would not choose?

Anthem
November 9th, 2006, 03:18 PM
At what point did I mention windows or make a comment like that? You'll also not find any comment like that on the gNewSense website and it certainly is not the attitude of the FSF. Please don't make ad hominen attacks like that; especially so when you're attacking the wrong person anyway.
I'm sorry you took that as an attack on you. I was trying to summarize the thread.

You certainly said nothing like that.

Anthem
November 9th, 2006, 03:20 PM
Please point out where I belittle you? I asked if you knew who that was just to make sure since you obviously did not know he had a idea dfor a "free" Ubuntu.
Right. I'm done here.

Enjoy your distro.

fubarbundy
November 29th, 2006, 06:37 PM
OK. Now that the pissing contest has died down, I'll try to clear some of this up.

1. Ubuntu and non-free software
- Ubuntu has a repository called Restricted, which is enabled by default. This repository contains modules such as madwifi (Atheros wireless cards), fglrx (ATi 3D drivers) nvidia (nVidia 3D drivers) etc., which are partly (madwifi) or fully closed-source.
- Network drivers that include binary blobs (closed source software that runs on the computer's CPU) are installed by default to provide working networking.
- Ubuntu Feisty Fawn will be shipping with binary graphics drivers installed by default for cards that don't have free software 3D support, in order to enable 'bling'. It remains to be seen what happens for cards such as ATi's R300 series, which have mostly working 3D support. Additionally, Mark Shuttleworth hasn't yet indicated that there will be an install-time option to disable this.

2. gNewSense
- Yes, it's SUPPOSED to sound like nuisance, and yes, it does sound ridiculous. I think they should have stuck with Gnubuntu, but maybe someone had issues with that.
- It is only available for the i386 architecture.

1. People
There are several loose categories of Ubuntu and Linux user. They differ on several points.

- Freedom or death: 'every piece of software running on my CPU must be free software', which means no binary blobs, closed source graphics drivers, wine, ndiswrapper or w32codecs. In addition, they may choose to not use hardware that requires loadable binary firmware (stored on the computer's hard disk, loaded into the firmware space in the device and executed by the device's processor), or is explicitly covered by patents in their, or any country. This can also extend to device-executed code, e.g. LinuxBIOS
- Internet please: 'As much free software as possible while still having internet access' (or other basic hardware support needed to boot). This is pretty where Ubuntu is currently (though this changes with Feisty)
- Video, audio and archives please: 'I want to be able to play DVDs, MP3s, AVIs, and maybe Flash, and extract those downloaded rar files'. This means one of two things. Option 1: installing multiverse components that may contain code covered by patents/not be under a free licence. This means libdvdcss, libmad, ffmpeg stuff, unrar etc. It is worth remembering that much of multiverse is STILL free software, although some is not, e.g. unrar, which does however have source code available. Also, software patents are rejected in many countries where sanity still prevails. Ubuntu falls down IMO by not recognising this and offering to install these by default if you're in one of these countries. Option 2: Install w32codecs, Flash etc. for super-duper everything support. This means running closed source software on your PC.
- Gaming/bling please: If you want to run the latest and greatest 3D games on Linux, either natively where available, or through Cedega/wine, this probably means binary drivers, a pretty old or basic free-software supported graphics card (Radeon 9250, Intel graphics) or not-100%-stable drivers (Radeon R300 series e.g. X800)
- It just works: install everything needed to make my PC hardware and software work as well as possible (internet, audio/video, gaming/bling).

It is worth remembering for the zealots, by which I don't mean specifically any of the above groups but rather those who rant at others for their 'wrong' choices, that people have different priorities and reasons for choosing any of the above paths. Maybe a new Ubuntu user will want his existing hardware to work, but then upgrade to free software supported hardware in future, and encode in open formats from now on. It's all good!

4. Types of non-free

Software can be non-free in many ways:
- source licence: source code may be available, but not under a free software licence. Example: unrar
- patents/encryption circumvention: some software may contain code that is illegal in some countries owing to software patents/encryption circumvention legislation (DMCA/EUCD): libmad, libdvdcss
- no source code/executed on CPU: nvidia, madwifi, fglrx
- no source code/executed on device: Intel wireless firmware (which is also not redistributable)

Clear?

Shay Stephens
November 29th, 2006, 07:26 PM
I'm kind of with Mark Shuttleworth when it comes to hardware support. It is tough to make the transition from windows bondage to ubuntu when the hardware doesn't work. So having the hardware work with proprietary drivers is the lesser of two evils that get's people moving in the right direction.

However, having said that, there does need to be a clear roadmap of where the user can go from there. Upon learning about how detrimental non-free software is, most want to at least try to go 100% free. But how does one do that? What can they use?

In my case, all I knew was that video cards in ubuntu were proprietary, and that's all you can do. It wasn't until I read Mark's blog yesterday that I found out Intel has video cards that are open (still don't know if they are free). So here I am sitting with an nvidia card I bought after getting ubuntu because that was the only thing I had heard that had the best support from ubuntu. Why aren't Intel cards being promoted?

Why is there no info on suggested hardware that supports freedom or at least comes closer than anything else? Like Mark, I see this as a transition, where non-free may have to be used along the way, but there needs to be a transition path for it to work to the benefit of being 100% free. Otherwise people will spin in circles in the non-free waters of transition and get nowhere!

Kristen Lucas
November 29th, 2006, 09:14 PM
I'm kind of with Mark Shuttleworth when it comes to hardware support. It is tough to make the transition from windows bondage to ubuntu when the hardware doesn't work. So having the hardware work with proprietary drivers is the lesser of two evils that get's people moving in the right direction.

However, having said that, there does need to be a clear roadmap of where the user can go from there. Upon learning about how detrimental non-free software is, most want to at least try to go 100% free. But how does one do that? What can they use?

In my case, all I knew was that video cards in ubuntu were proprietary, and that's all you can do. It wasn't until I read Mark's blog yesterday that I found out Intel has video cards that are open (still don't know if they are free). So here I am sitting with an nvidia card I bought after getting ubuntu because that was the only thing I had heard that had the best support from ubuntu. Why aren't Intel cards being promoted?

Why is there no info on suggested hardware that supports freedom or at least comes closer than anything else? Like Mark, I see this as a transition, where non-free may have to be used along the way, but there needs to be a transition path for it to work to the benefit of being 100% free. Otherwise people will spin in circles in the non-free waters of transition and get nowhere!

Intel isn't really more open souce than Nvidia, have you ever looked at their code? Open source does not always mean it is truly open source, same goes for the nv driver, free of comments in the source and almost impossible to understand.

prizrak
November 29th, 2006, 09:21 PM
Also, software patents are rejected in many countries where sanity still prevails. Ubuntu falls down IMO by not recognising this and offering to install these by default if you're in one of these countries.
Actually Feisty is going to change that. Someone here linked to Mark's speech and he mentioned it.

Intel isn't really more open souce than Nvidia, have you ever looked at their code? Open source does not always mean it is truly open source, same goes for the nv driver, free of comments in the source and almost impossible to understand.
Reply With Quote
Sure beats the hell out of reverse engineering tho ;)

Kristen Lucas
November 29th, 2006, 09:25 PM
Actually Feisty is going to change that. Someone here linked to Mark's speech and he mentioned it.

Sure beats the hell out of reverse engineering tho ;)

Maybe not, since the code is reversed engineered with code and open to anyone who'd like to take get involved (with full commentary and including explanations in cases where it is not obvious, have you looked at the reverse engineered code?). ;o)

Kristen Lucas
November 29th, 2006, 09:30 PM
Sorry Prizak, I didn't get your point, I agree reverse engineering things is like trying to read a dictionary in a language you don't understand really fast.

For us devs it is probably easier to get together with hardware engineers and figure it out.

I'm just waiting for such a coalition. ;o)

prizrak
November 30th, 2006, 12:35 AM
Sorry Prizak, I didn't get your point, I agree reverse engineering things is like trying to read a dictionary in a language you don't understand really fast.

For us devs it is probably easier to get together with hardware engineers and figure it out.

I'm just waiting for such a coalition. ;o)
Of course that would be the best possible thing :)

Kristen Lucas
November 30th, 2006, 12:41 AM
Of course that would be the best possible thing :)

Maybe there is hope yet, friend from Canada tells me there is hope. ;o)