Originally posted by funtastic
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
gNewSense 3.0 Switches From Ubuntu To Debian
Collapse
X
-
-
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!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by FLHerne View PostP.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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by funtastic View PostWhen he says dumbphones he means feature phones, you can't install android on that. Also if the bootloader is locked you also can't.
Also, the replicant site shows what phones work and have installation instructions ;P
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostDon'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)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostThat'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 PostLast edited by funtastic; 08 August 2013, 06:30 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostThat'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?
http://replicant.us/
Combined with F-droid, of course ;P
https://f-droid.org/
Leave a comment:
-
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...).
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostOnly 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.
Originally posted by TestingTe View PostTheir priority is freedom of the software; the hardware we have little control over... unless we wish to go into the hardware-making bizz
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by funtastic View PostWhat 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.
Originally posted by FreeSoftwareFoundationStrictly 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.
Their priority is freedom of the software; the hardware we have little control over... unless we wish to go into the hardware-making bizz
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TestingTe View PostI'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
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: