FSF debuts fully-free Ubuntu/Debian variant

[nalmeth]

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.

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.