gNewSense 3.0 Switches From Ubuntu To Debian

[phoronix]

Phoronix: gNewSense 3.0 Switches From Ubuntu To Debian

For those concerned more about code licenses and the free nature of software over the quality, richness, and features of a Linux distribution, gNewSense 3.0 is now available. The gNewSense 3.0 release now supports three architectures and has switched from an Ubuntu base to now using Debain Linux...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQzMTE

[GreatEmerald]

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.

Well, the manufacturer can very well update the software of feature phones. They can also update the software (firmware) of CD drives and such. I suppose that could very well mean that it is considered proprietary software in that case, though, just that it's something you can't do much about.

[squirrl]

gNewSense

Ubuntu used to have an option to restrict non free features.

Sounds a bit sanctimonious to me.

Meanwhile, driver ABI keeps changing; fragmentation reigns!

[Skrapion]

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.

In this case, I believe it's very possible to be certain of the fact.

[TestingTe]

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

[Vim_User]

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.

[funtastic]

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.

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.

[TestingTe]

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/

[GreatEmerald]

...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).

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)

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?

[TestingTe]

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

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