Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

gNewSense 3.0 Switches From Ubuntu To Debian

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by peppercats View Post
    I'd just like to interject for a moment. What youíre referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, KDE/GNU/Linux, or as Iíve recently taken to calling it, KDE plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning KDE desktop environment made useful by the KDE desktop, KDE windowing system and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
    Yeah, but that is too complicated...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by funtastic View Post
      I never understood their reasoning to not accept closed firmware.
      To put the user in full control of the system.

      Example of "freedom" : Gnome 3 was introduced and a lot of ppl didn't like it. What did we do? Forked gnome 2 and made MATE.

      Example of proprietary blobs/ closed source/ "non-free": Adobe said that they are not going to support GNU/Linux anymore and that we'll only get security updates for only the next few years. What can we do? .... Nothing at all.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by peppercats View Post
        I'd just like to interject for a moment. What youíre referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, KDE/GNU/Linux, or as Iíve recently taken to calling it, KDE plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning KDE desktop environment made useful by the KDE desktop, KDE windowing system and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
        ...and that's exactly why GNU/Linux is such a pointless naming scheme. There might have been a time when the kernel and the core GNU tools were the dominant components of a typical Linux-based system, but no longer. Now I have KDE apps, GNOME apps, independent apps using either of the dominant toolkits or their own - not to mention non-GNU core userspace utilities (systemd, networkmanager, ALSA, Xorg...).

        Am I meant to call this a KDE/GNOME/Haskell/FreeDesktop/X.org/LibreOffice/.../Linux system? Or is it worth conceding that the term 'Linux' is generally accepted in context as describing 'an operating system making use of much userspace software, including GNU projects, in addition to the Linux kernel'?

        P.S.: I noticed about halfway through writing this that the quoted post is quite possibly sarcasm, although Poe's Law does of course make it impossible to be certain of this fact. My point still stands in that case, even if it does restate the previous point and become strawman-ish.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TestingTe View Post
          To put the user in full control of the system.

          Example of "freedom" : Gnome 3 was introduced and a lot of ppl didn't like it. What did we do? Forked gnome 2 and made MATE.

          Example of proprietary blobs/ closed source/ "non-free": Adobe said that they are not going to support GNU/Linux anymore and that we'll only get security updates for only the next few years. What can we do? .... Nothing at all.
          I don't think that explains their position on closed firmware. How can you be ok with closed source firmware if it is saved on a ROM, or even if it is saved on writable memory, but you are against it if it is on volatile memory and you have to copy it to the device every time it starts? I mean what different level of control on the system you have on the first two options that made them acceptable in comparison with the third one?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by funtastic View Post
            I don't think that explains their position on closed firmware. How can you be ok with closed source firmware if it is saved on a ROM, or even if it is saved on writable memory, but you are against it if it is on volatile memory and you have to copy it to the device every time it starts? I mean what different level of control on the system you have on the first two options that made them acceptable in comparison with the third one?
            I'd be lying if I said I understood what you meant... I do know that they don't like anything non-free, and would probably recommend a computer which is able to run on nothing but Freedom all the way down to the BIOS. I also know that they are only ok with the amount of non-free in the kernel if it is disabled/removed and never used.

            Personally, though I prefer to run on Freedom any chance I get, I realize that sometimes I may not have too much of a choice in the matter.

            My laptop requires non-free firmware to get any wifi and any 3d (two things I regularly work with) and as a result, I can't run gNewSense or and of the FSF endorsed systems.

            I can, however, run on Gentoo or Debian via getting what I need then closing up the repo/masking everything non-free ;P

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by peppercats View Post
              Let me know how that goes considering gnewsense has almost zero support for any type of wifi chips due to not having binary firmware blobs.
              I don't know how many more times this neds to be said, but I guess I'll say it again.... If you want well supported hardware then you need to buy well supported hardware. If anyone wants to use a wifi adapter on this distro, then it is up to them to learn wich wifi adapters are well supported and then choose to buy one of them.

              If you have unsupported hardware due to philosophical reasons, then you will have to just buy hardware that works within the bounds of that philosophy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by peppercats View Post
                I'd just like to interject for a moment. What youíre referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, KDE/GNU/Linux, or as Iíve recently taken to calling it, KDE plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning KDE desktop environment made useful by the KDE desktop, KDE windowing system and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
                Not sure if serious. I still agree, though, on what you wrote.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by peppercats View Post
                  I'd just like to interject for a moment. What youíre referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, KDE/GNU/Linux, or as Iíve recently taken to calling it, KDE plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning KDE desktop environment made useful by the KDE desktop, KDE windowing system and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
                  Only valid if you don't count the massive amount of servers running headless without any form of GUI. My servers run GNU/Linux, not KDE/whatever/GNU/Linux.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TestingTe View Post
                    I'd be lying if I said I understood what you meant... I do know that they don't like anything non-free, and would probably recommend a computer which is able to run on nothing but Freedom all the way down to the BIOS. I also know that they are only ok with the amount of non-free in the kernel if it is disabled/removed and never used.

                    Personally, though I prefer to run on Freedom any chance I get, I realize that sometimes I may not have too much of a choice in the matter.

                    My laptop requires non-free firmware to get any wifi and any 3d (two things I regularly work with) and as a result, I can't run gNewSense or and of the FSF endorsed systems.

                    I can, however, run on Gentoo or Debian via getting what I need then closing up the repo/masking everything non-free ;P
                    What I mean is: the firmware we are talking about runs on the device (graphics card, wireless card). What I don't understand is why the fsf doesn't have any problem with all the closed source firmwares, microcodes, etc. that every computer has, as long as it is stored on the hardware itself. If we have to just copy that firmware every time the device starts then now it is not acceptable. The firmwares that gnewsense is removing from the kernel don't even run on your cpu.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by funtastic View Post
                      What I mean is: the firmware we are talking about runs on the device (graphics card, wireless card). What I don't understand is why the fsf doesn't have any problem with all the closed source firmwares, microcodes, etc. that every computer has, as long as it is stored on the hardware itself. If we have to just copy that firmware every time the device starts then now it is not acceptable. The firmwares that gnewsense is removing from the kernel don't even run on your cpu.
                      Now I understand! Their views on this can be seen here

                      Originally posted by FreeSoftwareFoundation
                      Strictly speaking, there was a non-free program in that computer: the BIOS. But that was impossible to replace, and by the same token, it didn't count.

                      The BIOS was impossible to replace because it was stored in ROM: the only way to to put in a different BIOS was by replacing part of the hardware. In effect, the BIOS was itself hardware--and therefore didn't really count as software. It was like the program that (we can suppose) exists in the computer that (we can suppose) runs your watch or your microwave oven: since you can't install software on it, it may as well be circuits, not a computer at all.

                      The ethical issues of free software arise because users obtain programs and install them in computers; they don't really apply to hidden embedded computers, or the BIOS burned in a ROM, or the microcode inside a processor chip, or the firmware that is wired into a processor in an I/O device. In aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was, indeed, not a problem.
                      (taken from here https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html )

                      Their priority is freedom of the software; the hardware we have little control over... unless we wish to go into the hardware-making bizz

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by FLHerne View Post
                        ...and that's exactly why GNU/Linux is such a pointless naming scheme. There might have been a time when the kernel and the core GNU tools were the dominant components of a typical Linux-based system, but no longer. Now I have KDE apps, GNOME apps, independent apps using either of the dominant toolkits or their own - not to mention non-GNU core userspace utilities (systemd, networkmanager, ALSA, Xorg...).
                        It's still quite useful in order to indicate that you don't mean Android (which can't be considered GNU/Linux).

                        Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                        Only valid if you don't count the massive amount of servers running headless without any form of GUI. My servers run GNU/Linux, not KDE/whatever/GNU/Linux.
                        Don't they actually run LAMP/GNU/Linux or so? (Hmm, well, AMP/GNU/Linux or GLAMP would be more accurate, but doesn't have the same ring to it)

                        Originally posted by TestingTe View Post
                        Their priority is freedom of the software; the hardware we have little control over... unless we wish to go into the hardware-making bizz
                        That's a bit of a grey area... What about dumbphones? On one hand, you can't replace its software with anything. On the other hand, you can still install new software in the form of Java applets and such. Or, if you look at the component level, does a locked bootloader equate to hardware?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          That's a bit of a grey area... What about dumbphones? On one hand, you can't replace its software with anything. On the other hand, you can still install new software in the form of Java applets and such. Or, if you look at the component level, does a locked bootloader equate to hardware?
                          Replicant OS ;P

                          http://replicant.us/

                          Combined with F-droid, of course ;P

                          https://f-droid.org/

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                            That's a bit of a grey area... What about dumbphones? On one hand, you can't replace its software with anything. On the other hand, you can still install new software in the form of Java applets and such. Or, if you look at the component level, does a locked bootloader equate to hardware?

                            I think the difference here is in: can the manufacturer update the software? If he can't then I think the fsf would consider it hardware, if not, I don't think so, because it is an artificial limitation. In fact if only the manufacturer can update the software and it is open source, it is what stallman calls tivoization. So no, I wouldn't say an android (for example) phone with locked bootloader would be considered hardware, but maybe if the os was installed on a rom it would.

                            Originally posted by TestingTe View Post
                            Replicant OS ;P

                            http://replicant.us/

                            Combined with F-droid, of course ;P

                            https://f-droid.org/
                            When he says dumbphones he means feature phones, you can't install android on that. Also if the bootloader is locked you also can't.
                            Last edited by funtastic; 08-08-2013, 06:30 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                              Don't they actually run LAMP/GNU/Linux or so? (Hmm, well, AMP/GNU/Linux or GLAMP would be more accurate, but doesn't have the same ring to it)
                              No. The applications that run on it are not part of the OS. I wouldn't call my Windows system GRID 2/Windows just because GRID 2 is at this point the most used application on it. Application != OS, the OS is used as an environment for the applications that are used. While you may count your GUI as part of the OS (when using a GUI) the applications are definitely not.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by funtastic View Post
                                When he says dumbphones he means feature phones, you can't install android on that. Also if the bootloader is locked you also can't.
                                My mistake/misunderstanding. In that case, thy view may very well be correct.

                                Also, the replicant site shows what phones work and have installation instructions ;P

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X