Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: gNewSense 3.0 Switches From Ubuntu To Debian

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    20

    Default nice distro

    First off I invite everyone to ignore BO$$.

    Anyhow,

    Switching to Debian base seems to be the right move. Debian is already fully free with the exception of the non-free optional repositories. Also since Debian has a long release cycle and thus more well tested. For this, gnewsense should be more rock solid than before (I think) in terms of stability.

    One thing IMO: I do not like the name Gnewsense. It sounds weird.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toguro123 View Post
    In case you didnt know more than 80% of a GNU/Linux system was written by the free software foundation (RMS and minions). The GNU C library, most of all console commands, GCC compiler, etc were written by the FSF. You also seem to be ignorant about what Linux actually is: the kernel of the system.
    Actually, I've heard that's not accurate. It's quite true that Linux relies upon GNU for some very important utilities, but really GNU wrote only a very small percentage of the code in a modern Linux distro; as of 2011 or so, GNU only wrote around 8% of Ubuntu's code -- an important 8%, but 8% nonetheless. Furthermore, the Linux kernel alone is 9%, larger than GNU's total contribution to modern Ubuntu.

    http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kite View Post
    Actually, I've heard that's not accurate. It's quite true that Linux relies upon GNU for some very important utilities, but really GNU wrote only a very small percentage of the code in a modern Linux distro; as of 2011 or so, GNU only wrote around 8% of Ubuntu's code -- an important 8%, but 8% nonetheless. Furthermore, the Linux kernel alone is 9%, larger than GNU's total contribution to modern Ubuntu.

    http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/
    GNU has written a lot more (A LOT A LOT) software than what is included in ubuntu. The point is not the number, but that without the GNU packages the system would not be usable.

    I know what you mean and you know what I mean so it does not really matter. :-)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kite View Post
    Actually, I've heard that's not accurate. It's quite true that Linux relies upon GNU for some very important utilities, but really GNU wrote only a very small percentage of the code in a modern Linux distro; as of 2011 or so, GNU only wrote around 8% of Ubuntu's code -- an important 8%, but 8% nonetheless. Furthermore, the Linux kernel alone is 9%, larger than GNU's total contribution to modern Ubuntu.

    http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/
    I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, KDE/GNU/Linux, or as I’ve 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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kite View Post
    Actually, I've heard that's not accurate. It's quite true that Linux relies upon GNU for some very important utilities, but really GNU wrote only a very small percentage of the code in a modern Linux distro; as of 2011 or so, GNU only wrote around 8% of Ubuntu's code -- an important 8%, but 8% nonetheless. Furthermore, the Linux kernel alone is 9%, larger than GNU's total contribution to modern Ubuntu.

    http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/
    GNU has produced a lot more software than what is included in Ubuntu. In any case, the actual number does not matter. These systems are unusable without the GNU packages. That is the point, not the actual percentage of code included with 16 digits of accuracy.

    I know what you mean and you know what I mean so it really does not matter. :-)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote 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...

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote 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?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote 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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •