Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[Zlatan Todoric]

[CC'ing Chris so he can elaborate on this. Side note, he and few other
Purism folks are at LibrePlanet]


On 03/26/2018 12:58 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/25/2018 05:58 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
>> Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with messages
>> that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian at
>> same time.
>>
>> https://tracker.pureos.net/T362
>
> i am curious about this - i thought about tackling it myself at one
> point but i was told that it is a very difficult problem to fix - the
> work you point took one day - if it were so easy i would have hoped this
> would have been fixed many years ago
>
> i found it difficult to learn exactly what you guys did though - this is
> what i could determine:
>
> * todd opened an issue named "firmware binary warning should not appear
> for non-free binaries"
> * a few hours later chris said (paraphrasing) "i dont think debian will
> take this"
> * he instead offered a patch that removed nothing but added the URL to a
> debian wiki page to the log warning
> * the next day the issue was closed with: "chris.lamb closed this task
> as "Resolved". Fixed in initramfs-tools_0.130pureos1"
>
> how exactly was this issue resolved? the issue title seems spot on but
> that patch does not even attempt to address the FSDG issue of the blob
> name - it is exactly the solution the connochaetos proposed last august
> that was not accepted[1] and the review of connochaetos essentially
> halted at that point
>
> the 'pureos1' on the end of the package name conventionally indicates
> that the downstream has modified the upstream package - but there was no
> patch attached to the issue and the pureos website does not indicate any
> dedicated section for code review nor version control so it is not at
> all clear that pureos added anything to that package on that day
>
> it seems the only way to find this is in the deb repo - but that only
> has the most recent version of each package and
> initramfs-tools_0.130pureos2 has already clobbered
> initramfs-tools_0.130pureos1 - is there any way i (or anyone) could see
> what actually changed in that package when chris declared "i fixed it"?
>
> or could you just tell us what did chris actually fix?
> * "firmware binary warning should not appear for non-free binaries"
>
> or the debian patch:
> * "add a link to the https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware to 'firmware:
> failed to load' log messages"
>
>
>
> [1]:
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-08/msg00039.html
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 03/26/2018 04:24 AM, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/25/2018 01:26 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
>> we already passed the distro
>> review, you can either help us get better
>> or try to fix review process if you
>> feel unhappy about it.
> the assumption here seems to be that distros have no further obligation
> after the initial review process, other than remaining active and fixing
> bugs; but that is only two of the criteria - the very topic of this
> thread is make it clear that the role of this group extends beyond the
> initial review process; and holding the FSDG distros accountable to
> *all* of the guidelines perpetually - with the invitation to all distros
> to participate in the ongoing discussions that affect all
>
I don't have that assumption, being an endorsed distro doesn't mean one
should stop work on it - on contrary this is WIP forever and we are
determined to it to stay that way. Being active and fixing bugs is not
the only criteria but it is the most important ones IMHO - if a distro
isn't active it should be moved in some Inactive/Dormant section because
that distro is not doing anyone favor and is also a security nightmare.

I will also use this mail as reply to other mails - thanks for ongoing
discussion and I again recommend to move inactive distros to some other
section. For having the discussion, I agree that we can have (at least)
one representative from all endorsed distros but what I also propose is
- greater community will always discuss this (awesome) but sometimes
some distro people will not have time to participate in all discussions-
is  that someone from FSF (Donald?) CC's directly all current delegates
from active distros on topic that reached point of need to be discussed
and solved by distros (aka higher priority topic). That way (at least
for me) we will not be stretched on many sides but also such ping would
get our attention and bring us in into discussion. Thoughts?

Z



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 3/25/18 7:56 PM, Robert Call wrote:

On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 19:26 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:

On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:

* pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
separate
can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a
uniform
message, however vague the circumstance, until such
controversies
are
resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
controversy should be participating in the discussions on this
list

You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be
all
the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as
a
bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in
discussions
here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't
want
to
spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a
disservice
for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also,
while
it
would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that
is
not
happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most
likely
because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be
celebrated
that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such
project
and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal
and
blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our
bugtracker
and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively
working
on
PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as
well,
we
also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have
lack
of
time and energy to be everywhere).

https://tracker.pureos.net/T57



* then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if
this is
what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then
pureos
and any future candidates should be held to that same standard
without
exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by
the
controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion
on
this list

Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with
messages
that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and
Debian
at
same time.

https://tracker.pureos.net/T362

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405



admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly
because i
have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it
seems
quite
clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i
would
propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each
distro
to
elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally,
to
stand
uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the
FSDG
such
as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel


Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if
you
kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this
list
is
toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work
at
all.
You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.


Yelling "this list is toxic" does not help you or anyone else. Both
Purism and PureOS did this to themselves with the long list of
problems
from the start. While I don't agree with Bill's stance, I would say
that more time is needed to get over these issues. Being entailed
and
asserting that everyone must forgive you for past issues right now
is
not going to get you very far and you must have the patience.

Your behavior is again not acceptable - you're assuming I am yelling
and yet proving the toxicity.

What behavior are you talking about? This is the first time I have
really made any statements in regards to Purism or PureOS. I kept quiet
on most issues even when I wanted to speak up. Is it toxic to work
towards a certain goal and not make compromises on that goal? Taring
and feathering me is not helping. I would go further and ask what other
buzz words are you going to throw at or call me?



I can't nor do I want to keep a personal list of people that pointed 
fingers to PureOS without valid reasons (some used even Purism and its 
hardware for trying to bash and block PureOS from getting endorsed). I 
encourage you to keep working, but also and again for PureOS, please use 
our tracker and assign such bugs to me so I get direct notification.






While Purism did make claims it could not
stand to it in timeframe it wanted, Purism is still moving thing
slowly
forward and even has constitution to defend such stand. Issues you
have
with Purism are not part of PureOS and I mentioned Purism only in
context that Pu

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:

On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:

* pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
separate
can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a
uniform
message, however vague the circumstance, until such controversies
are
resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
controversy should be participating in the discussions on this list

You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be all
the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as a
bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in
discussions
here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't want
to
spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a disservice
for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also, while
it
would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that is
not
happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most
likely
because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be
celebrated
that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such project
and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal and
blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our
bugtracker
and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively working
on
PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as well,
we
also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have lack
of
time and energy to be everywhere).

https://tracker.pureos.net/T57



* then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if
this is
what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then
pureos
and any future candidates should be held to that same standard
without
exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by the
controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion on
this list

Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with
messages
that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian
at
same time.

https://tracker.pureos.net/T362

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405



admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly
because i
have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it seems
quite
clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i would
propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each distro
to
elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally, to
stand
uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the FSDG
such
as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel


Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if you
kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this list
is
toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work at
all.
You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.


Yelling "this list is toxic" does not help you or anyone else. Both
Purism and PureOS did this to themselves with the long list of problems
from the start. While I don't agree with Bill's stance, I would say
that more time is needed to get over these issues. Being entailed and
asserting that everyone must forgive you for past issues right now is
not going to get you very far and you must have the patience.


Your behavior is again not acceptable - you're assuming I am yelling and 
yet proving the toxicity. While Purism did make claims it could not 
stand to it in timeframe it wanted, Purism is still moving thing slowly 
forward and even has constitution to defend such stand. Issues you have 
with Purism are not part of PureOS and I mentioned Purism only in 
context that PureOS gets bashed basically because Purism is behind it. 
There is no far or patience part - we went through process, been there 
for 2 years, got accepted as endorsed and are committed to it - that has 
nothing to do with your or other feelings.


To speak more to topic part - we were pointed to parts for being an 
endorsed distro and one is being actively maintained to be accepted, and 
that is a good requirement. Being un-maintained is disservice to users 
and a security risk as well and such distro should be promoted as new 
user will get into trouble and maybe end up blaming FSF and other 
distros. PureOS is actively maintained with public bugtracker so bring 
your technical issues there.




Many of us are willing to forgive PureOS and Purism for past issues,
but it is going to take more time for Purism and PureOS to show they
are dedicat

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
>
> * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a separate
> can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a uniform
> message, however vague the circumstance, until such controversies are
> resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
> controversy should be participating in the discussions on this list

You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be all
the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as a
bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in discussions
here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't want to
spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a disservice
for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also, while it
would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that is not
happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most likely
because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be celebrated
that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such project
and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal and
blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our bugtracker
and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively working on
PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as well, we
also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have lack of
time and energy to be everywhere).

https://tracker.pureos.net/T57


>
> * then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if this is
> what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then pureos
> and any future candidates should be held to that same standard without
> exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by the
> controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion on this list

Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with messages
that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian at
same time.

https://tracker.pureos.net/T362

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405


>
> admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly because i
> have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it seems quite
> clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i would
> propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each distro to
> elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
> discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally, to stand
> uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the FSDG such
> as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel
>
Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if you
kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this list is
toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work at all.
You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.

Z

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 12/22/2017 06:41 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> Hi Henry,
>
>
> On 12/22/2017 05:18 PM, Henry Jensen wrote:
>> Hallo,
>>
>> congratulations for adding a great distro to the list.
>>
>> However, it seems that PureOS is not using the linux-libre kernel but a
>> kernel based on Debian's Linux kernel.
> Yes, that is correct.
>
>> When I tried to get ConnochaetOS [0] on this list the last time, people
>> explained to me, that ConnochaetOS can't be endorsed because it doesn't
>> use linux-libre and the Debian based kernel requests non-free firmware
>> files and does write the names of those files to the system log. See the
>> thread at
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-08/msg00013.html
> I will not read into thread but I can also add this: Debian kernel
> itself doesn't contain non-free firmware at all (they are separate
> packages in non-free repo that we sync too). Debian does allow if
> something wants to find firmware and it has non-free repo enabled, that
> it can be installed. This gets to bottom part...

Correction here: "that we don't sync to". PureOS only sync to Debian
main and we patch/change some defaults to get more to our goals
(freedom, security and convenience).

>
>> Now, I installed PureOS and it seems, PureOS does use the same Debian
>> based deblob mechanism as does ConnochaetOS.
>>
>> To verify it, I tried the PureOS ISO from
>> https://downloads.puri.sm/snapshots/2017-11-11/pureos-8.0-live-amd64.hybrid.iso
>> and booted it on a notebook with a wifi chip which does need non-free
>> firmware. And indeed I see in dmesg the following message (among others):
>>
>> iwlwifi: :03:00.0 firmware: failed to load iwlwifi-6000g2a-6.ucode (-2)
> And as you see it says "failed to load" which means, yes, it wanted to
> see if there is such firmware in kernel but it couldn't find it. So, in
> the end, Debian kernel is Free and PureOS archive is entirely based on
> Debian main archive (no contrib and non-free) and there is no code that
> is non-free in (we even do Freedom bugs in tracker to make Debian main
> "more" Free).
>
>> So, of course I want to know how PureOS can use this Debian based
>> kernel and be endorsed while ConnochaetOS can't?
> Well, if the only issue was Debian's kernel, I don't see it as stop sign
> and you should re-apply. Notice that Debian kernel in past didn't deblob
> firmware from it but in recent times that is the case now as well, so
> maybe some people remember it like that.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Henry
> Cheers,
>
> Z
>
>>
>>
>>
>> [0] https://connochaetos.org/
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:54:29 -0500
>> Donald Robertson  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> We just wanted to give the list a heads up on our forthcoming
>>> announcement of adding PureOS to our list of endorsed distros. Quite
>>> some time ago they wrote to this list and got feedback about their
>>> distro. From that time, they've been working with us to address concerns
>>> that were brought up in that thread, such as removing leftover
>>> problematic code from Firefox, fixing up their bug tracker, and making
>>> clearer the separation between Purism and PureOS. They've addressed our
>>> concerns, and are actively maintaining freedom-related issues in their
>>> bug tracker
>>> <https://tracker.pureos.net/tag/freedom-harm_need_nonfree_code/>. The
>>> endorsement program depends on the community to help projects to
>>> maintain their free status, and we are satisfied with PureOS's
>>> commitment to maintaining that status. After this announcement, we'll be
>>> moving our focus to working with other pending candidates for
>>> endorsement, but maintaining a free distro is a task that needs
>>> everyone's help. If there are issues that you can help PureOS with,
>>> please do make use of the bug tracker, and make sure to CC
>>>  so you can be rewarded with a GNU Buck
>>> <https://www.gnu.org/help/gnu-bucks.en.html> if you do find a problem.
>>> Thank you all for your help in bringing PureOS up to speed, and we look
>>> forward to your continued help on future distros seeking endorsement.
>>> -- 
>>> Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
>>> Licensing & Compliance Manager
>>> Free Software Foundation
>>> 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
>>> Boston, MA 02110
>>> Phone +1-617-542-5942
>>> Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56
>>>
>

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hi Henry,


On 12/22/2017 05:18 PM, Henry Jensen wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> congratulations for adding a great distro to the list.
>
> However, it seems that PureOS is not using the linux-libre kernel but a
> kernel based on Debian's Linux kernel.

Yes, that is correct.

>
> When I tried to get ConnochaetOS [0] on this list the last time, people
> explained to me, that ConnochaetOS can't be endorsed because it doesn't
> use linux-libre and the Debian based kernel requests non-free firmware
> files and does write the names of those files to the system log. See the
> thread at
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-08/msg00013.html

I will not read into thread but I can also add this: Debian kernel
itself doesn't contain non-free firmware at all (they are separate
packages in non-free repo that we sync too). Debian does allow if
something wants to find firmware and it has non-free repo enabled, that
it can be installed. This gets to bottom part...

>
> Now, I installed PureOS and it seems, PureOS does use the same Debian
> based deblob mechanism as does ConnochaetOS.
>
> To verify it, I tried the PureOS ISO from
> https://downloads.puri.sm/snapshots/2017-11-11/pureos-8.0-live-amd64.hybrid.iso
> and booted it on a notebook with a wifi chip which does need non-free
> firmware. And indeed I see in dmesg the following message (among others):
>
> iwlwifi: :03:00.0 firmware: failed to load iwlwifi-6000g2a-6.ucode (-2)

And as you see it says "failed to load" which means, yes, it wanted to
see if there is such firmware in kernel but it couldn't find it. So, in
the end, Debian kernel is Free and PureOS archive is entirely based on
Debian main archive (no contrib and non-free) and there is no code that
is non-free in (we even do Freedom bugs in tracker to make Debian main
"more" Free).

>
> So, of course I want to know how PureOS can use this Debian based
> kernel and be endorsed while ConnochaetOS can't?

Well, if the only issue was Debian's kernel, I don't see it as stop sign
and you should re-apply. Notice that Debian kernel in past didn't deblob
firmware from it but in recent times that is the case now as well, so
maybe some people remember it like that.

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Henry

Cheers,

Z

>
>
>
>
> [0] https://connochaetos.org/
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:54:29 -0500
> Donald Robertson  wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We just wanted to give the list a heads up on our forthcoming
>> announcement of adding PureOS to our list of endorsed distros. Quite
>> some time ago they wrote to this list and got feedback about their
>> distro. From that time, they've been working with us to address concerns
>> that were brought up in that thread, such as removing leftover
>> problematic code from Firefox, fixing up their bug tracker, and making
>> clearer the separation between Purism and PureOS. They've addressed our
>> concerns, and are actively maintaining freedom-related issues in their
>> bug tracker
>> . The
>> endorsement program depends on the community to help projects to
>> maintain their free status, and we are satisfied with PureOS's
>> commitment to maintaining that status. After this announcement, we'll be
>> moving our focus to working with other pending candidates for
>> endorsement, but maintaining a free distro is a task that needs
>> everyone's help. If there are issues that you can help PureOS with,
>> please do make use of the bug tracker, and make sure to CC
>>  so you can be rewarded with a GNU Buck
>>  if you do find a problem.
>> Thank you all for your help in bringing PureOS up to speed, and we look
>> forward to your continued help on future distros seeking endorsement.
>> -- 
>> Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
>> Licensing & Compliance Manager
>> Free Software Foundation
>> 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
>> Boston, MA 02110
>> Phone +1-617-542-5942
>> Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56
>>

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] I can also bring tons of examples to illustrate a point, even big data, 3D, and cake (was Re: 10 minutes, and uzbl browser became usable)

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/15/2016 05:31 PM, hellekin wrote:

On 11/15/2016 02:57 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

The only one treating users dumb here is you and your pal.


I think you misread an posted in anger, Zlatan.  Matt first mentioned
that "users are not dumb", but that's besides the point.  The point, and
I agree with you on that one, is that indeed, a computer user shouldn't
have to learn how computers work to use them, like a car driver doesn't
have to learn how cars work to drive them.


I really don't recall I disagree with Matt, on contrary I agree very 
much with him and I even suspect we are aligned with a lot of ideas (but 
that is our personal thing). I disagree with Jaromil and Jean and their 
way of "introducing" things.




I was quite terrified to see that a young man from the smartphone
generation in front of a text-only Web site with 'obvious' links would
be confused not to find any *button* to click.


Do you understand that clicking on things is much more natural to human 
beings that reading through text streams? I would be surprised if he 
didn't try to find button.




It's not that he's stupid, it's that he made a habit of clicking buttons
to use a computer.  That indeed informs your mind to use this or that
interface.


Again, clicking is much more natural to humans than wall of text stream.



People shouldn't have to learn how computers work, but that doesn't mean
they should be taught to use computers in a way Microsoft or Google
decides, "because they have the best designers": their designers don't
care about making users question their technologies, instead they like
their users predictable and docile.


Although my life style and my work are on the other spectrum from Google 
and Microsoft, I must admit they did invest a lot into finding what 
interface feels more natural and easy to adopt for people.




People who think that they're one way to do computing are IMO the
enemies of general computing, and we should be wary of them.  They're
the same coming at you telling you they know best about [anything],
because they have 'working models', 'statistics', and so on.  And they
will come at you saying: look, this is how we can save time by modeling
the cake in 3D that you're going to send to your baker on his tablet,
and pick up in the evening coming back home...


Yes, that is why I don't think stubbornly sticking with old tech that 
has flaws and attacking everything that is new with "don't reinvent the 
wheel and don't make user dumb" is not going to help. Users are not 
*that* dumb and the ecosystem is moving into direction where it is more 
comfortable/convenient for users. The best we can do is to listen to 
users and not to ourselves.




No, you won't, because there's a real person called the baker, who wants
to hear from you, looking you in the face, how you like the cake.  This
person will learn much more from you than from a 3D model, and besides,
the 3D model is entirely incompatible with something he uses called flour.


I don't have time to go to bakery so I order online. Also, suddenly you 
suggest going to meet my baker, to make it personal yet you probably 
hate that google is collecting mass amount of data about you to make 
your online experience more personal.




And, BTW, there's no 'average user': the 'average user' is an invention
of people who 'think' with statistics and models and probabilities, and
can't make the difference between a dumb, or sensitive, or fragile, or
uninterested person, or between a person and a machine.


There is average user because there is statistics. If 90% of people on 
laptops use Windows, I would say that average laptop user is Windows 
user as well, okay? Whatever reasons lies in their OS usage doesn't 
change the fact that average laptops users is Windows user.




We're always the 'dumb' of someone else, especially in technology, where
ego is so high, and corporeality so distant.


Sadly true story, so unless something really constructive (for me, imo) 
happens here, I will avoid to post (much) more.


Thanks on sharing your view,

Z

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] 10 minutes, and uzbl browser became usable

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/15/2016 03:15 PM, Dima Krasner wrote:

 On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:57:07 +0200 Zlatan Todoric  wrote 


Devuan is IMHO just a joke (https://devuan.org/os/debian-fork/

Sounds like you're attacking a free software project, too.


Indeed but I will point difference between systemd and Devuan - one was 
much needed solution which majority of well experienced projects and 
people adopted, other was a reaction "f this systemd sh*t, lets fork and 
do something meaningless" - everyone has right to do whatever they want 
but for me here it is clear that one project is trying to solve things 
and other is just breaking community into more pieces.


Of course, this is just my personal opinion and I might be wrong but in 
this case I hardly doubt it. TBH, Debian probably single handedly spread 
Free software definition more into world than all other distros out 
there combined including PureOS, Devuan etc - because of Debian I learnt 
about GNU Manifesto and GNU in general, so it is probably personal to me 
when people don't pay respect to it.


Note: I am also Debian Developer as well as Purism technical lead, but I 
speak here only on my behalf.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] 10 minutes, and uzbl browser became usable

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/15/2016 01:49 PM, Jaromil wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Jean Louis wrote:


When software is distributed to a mechanic, telling him indirectly,
that he is dumb, and he shall use click/pray to search Google and
watch videos, and nothing more, this is leading him nowhere.

just wanted to say I am completely with you on the position of not
treating users as dumb. there was a lecture here in Goteborg at FSCONS
by Elinor Carmi which I really enjoyed and, while mostly focusing on
the human-machine interaction of "user operators". She started from
stories about the early Bell telephone network days, to nowadays
content management on social media. While tangential to her speech,
she still articulated well a scenario touching this issue, of treating
users as dumb and how that is a very bad idea for everyone.


The only one treating users dumb here is you and your pal. Just because 
someone doesn't use and doesn't understand software the way your 
"enlighten" mind does, doesn't make them dumb. I fairly believe that 
majority of Nobel Prize winners don't use GNU/Linux, never heard about 
Devuan or uzbl and even if you would explain them - they would still use 
what they are using now. Sorry to inform you that even if majority don't 
care about Freedom, privacy, security at level you do, it still doesn't 
make them dumb and you're not in position to judge them - many still 
live happily, contribute to the world and know what are they doing even 
though they are not "educated users as you would like them to be".


I highly recommend you don't put your nose into users decision but 
rather listen to their needs and if you're able create Free software for 
their exact need without judging them or preaching to them how they 
don't know what is best for them and that they should listen to your 
suggestions - power to you. Otherwise it is insulting to see how you two 
try to enforce that you're right and I for one, could care every mail 
less and less.




in Devuan we are definitely witnessing this too. Many users fleeing
out from the systemd imposition in Debian are offended by the way they
are treated as stupid.


Sorry to say, but Devuan anti-Free software attack against another Free 
software projects didn't accomplish anything. Debian is the giant 
bastion of Free software engineering and high quality product while 
Devuan is IMHO just a joke (https://devuan.org/os/debian-fork/ -> 
reading first few lines is already enough to not take it seriously).

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

Was tempted to reply but didn't want to make it public, so here is PM to you


On 11/11/2016 12:38 AM, Matt Lee wrote:

There are lots of alternatives to proprietary software listed here:
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving -- for both OS X and
Windows users.



One does not simply use forbidden word! 
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Skeleton GNU/Linux

[Zlatan Todoric]

(sorry for another off-topic post)


On 11/11/2016 12:09 AM, Jean Louis wrote:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:49:35PM +0100, Zlatan Todoric wrote:


On 11/10/2016 11:26 PM, Jean Louis wrote:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:09:52PM -0500, Matt Lee wrote:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Jean Louis  wrote:


I am glad for that. Personally, I am avoiding it due to larger size,
and compiling taking time. I am using now Dillo, Xombrero, uzbl and
surf.

uzbl is in particular very usable.

I'm not going to ask our users to use one of those.
uzbl doesn't have an address bar to enter a URL.

We'll ship Chromium with some fixes to make it compliant, or possibly
Firefox with fixes.

But please uzbl has address bar to enter the URL. It is just not up,
it is down. I am entering URLs in uzbl address bar all the times. And
what is really nice with uzbl, you can make your own address bar in
any way you like, enter it, and pipe it to the browser (users would
not know it if you wish so).

Cool, just recently Internet Explorer stopped being the most used browser
(replaced by Google Chrome) and you're suggesting uzbl. User-friendly is not
your stronger side? I mean, yea, lets take uzbl, explain to users that bar
is down and that, they can make their own address bar in any way they like
and pipe it to browser. I see hundreds of millions moving to uzbl as we
speak.

I am really not sure are you just being sarcastic at this moment as I can't
get this seriously.

I have reviewed your website with uzbl browser. http://www.uzbl.org -
it is excellent browser, serving all my needs. Very customizable and
powerful. You have not obviously tried it and could not understand it.


I used uzbl as well as surf (heck not long time ago my environment was 
xmonad) but...




I am user, so it is very user friendly to me. The sources, with the
build are just 12 MB, that is also very user friendly, considering,
that Internet connection in Africa is not as good as yours. Even
compiling of Chrome or IceCat, is simply going to fail, if I am not
running on solar powered battery, as there are often power outages
here.


No, you're a developer and user. I am developer and user. My friend is 
user and mechanic. He and *HUGE* majority don't care about is it 12MB or 
120MB, the size doesn't mean anything to them in this age. Africa - we 
need to fix connection and electrical supply and not put UX backwards. 
None of average users will compile (unless you ask them to do it or they 
find it curios - which has a chance he will be a developer).




Small browser with few configuration files and perfectly customizable,
with high privacy levels, seem to be very user friendly.


Most of people don't understand even what privacy means (we in Purism 
struggle so much to justify that) - so not really something majority 
would consider user-friendly.




Yes, we shall teach users how to use computing tools, software and how
to become programmers. I am not somebody who likes leaving users in a
stage of not knowing what they can do with a computer and software.


No, we should not. My friend mechanic is not forcing me to know how car 
works or how to fix it in order just to drive it. I don't want to be a 
mechanic. And he can be pissed of about it, but it will still not change 
my will. Do you know how to fix car and how it works - should someone 
teach you if you want just to drive or take a cab? What about planes? Do 
you know all about them? And TV? And radio? And washing machine?




With 17 years I have been giving courses in computer programming
languages such as Logo and BASIC, not far from your birth place, and
people from that computer club have advanced in life as programmers.


Cool, and keep going on, just don't force people to learn it.



Finally, average Tanzanian, working here in my company, learns Emacs
tutorial within 60 minutes, and uzbl within 5 minutes. Even if those
people don't have much access to computer otherwise.


And average person already uses Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Safari and maybe it 
will surprise you - they hardly even think about it, it just works for them.




Tomorrow, I will test uzbl on a new person, and I will see how fast
that person can learn to use it, and will let you know.


I wanted now to do the same test with new person but only instead of 
uzbl, I wanted to teach them Firefox. I was out of luck - they already 
knew it :-/


Cheers.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Skeleton GNU/Linux

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/10/2016 11:26 PM, Jean Louis wrote:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:09:52PM -0500, Matt Lee wrote:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Jean Louis  wrote:


I am glad for that. Personally, I am avoiding it due to larger size,
and compiling taking time. I am using now Dillo, Xombrero, uzbl and
surf.

uzbl is in particular very usable.

I'm not going to ask our users to use one of those.
uzbl doesn't have an address bar to enter a URL.

We'll ship Chromium with some fixes to make it compliant, or possibly
Firefox with fixes.

But please uzbl has address bar to enter the URL. It is just not up,
it is down. I am entering URLs in uzbl address bar all the times. And
what is really nice with uzbl, you can make your own address bar in
any way you like, enter it, and pipe it to the browser (users would
not know it if you wish so).


Cool, just recently Internet Explorer stopped being the most used 
browser (replaced by Google Chrome) and you're suggesting uzbl. 
User-friendly is not your stronger side? I mean, yea, lets take uzbl, 
explain to users that bar is down and that, they can make their own 
address bar in any way they like and pipe it to browser. I see hundreds 
of millions moving to uzbl as we speak.


I am really not sure are you just being sarcastic at this moment as I 
can't get this seriously.




Jean Louis

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Perfectionism

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hi,


On 11/10/2016 09:46 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:

Your summary of this thread could hardly be less correct. We already
identified at least one problem with the OS itself: the presence of the stock
firefox. No one is upset at Purism for putting PureOS on their hardware, but
we suggested a clear separation between the two fronts. As John Sullivan
explained, FSF cannot endorse the hardware project on the account of nonfree
BIOS, so they cannot endorse PureOS as long as the two projects are fused
within the web space the way they are. In particular,  the laptop store can
continue doing all the same things, like advertizing PureOS and shipping it
preinstalled. The inverse endorsement (PureOS -> Librem) may also be possible,
in a way similar to how Trisquel endorses ThinkPenguin hardware.


John didn't explained that, on contrary he said that you can't judge 
PureOS regarding to hardware where it is preinstalled. And what 
separation are we talking about - PureOS is Free, putting it on some 
other domain or whatsoever is not going to make it more Free.


Also for all, to outsiders "words not to use" sounds more like religious 
sect trying to forbid which books  to read - that is going to bring more 
damage than good to average users encountering first time Free software.


Being nitpicky about wording and not about how to deliver content in 
this age (I really can't see how this website can help to any new user 
today http://ututo.org/) is obviously failing (if it isn't obvious to 
you that after 3 decades GNU/FSF are still really small and actually 
every year less and less important to average mass "attached" to 
Internet/personal devices and that ecosystem just moved on, well I can't 
ever explain it to you then).


I am not saying that we should throw away, on contrary, we should steer 
even more, but we should adapt to times and reform the strategy. Same 
old strategy doesn't work and as past proved, it is alienating 
developers and users.




On Friday, November 11, 2016 00:14:25 Riley Baird wrote:

The key thing which I am understanding from following this thread is
that Purism wants to get PureOS FSDG-certified. Nobody can see any
problem with the OS, but they're upset that Purism is putting the OS
onto hardware that has a non-free BIOS.

 From a business perspective, selling only hardware with a free BIOS is
not practical. At all. So effectively, you're asking Purism to either
adopt a business model that won't work as a condition of certification.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/10/2016 02:11 PM, Julie Marchant wrote:

On 11/10/2016 07:33 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

I am neglecting answers which want to steer company's business decisions
and water discussion into hardware and not to OS certification.

Nobody has raised objections to PureOS being pre-installed on imperfect
systems. What they have raised objections to is that this is all on one
website, so these activities are not thoroughly separated.

Additionally, this criticism is *not* the only one you have dismissed.
You have also, as far as I can tell, dismissed tct informing you that
using the Firefox add-ons repository is a blocker.



Sorry for the infra not being publicly viewable yet, but if you 
registered you would see that our member already reported that as bug 
yesterday in our bugtracking system and is assigned, so the fix will 
come soon.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/10/2016 12:13 PM, Jaromil wrote:


dear Ivan,

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:



Zlatan, you should probably try to get this sorted out through the
official channels, and cite the Trisquel's supported laptop list as
an example.

it can't get "more official" than this, really. up to now Zlatan has
been negating most answers coming from the professionals who are
volunteering to share an analysis here and this strategy definitely
doesn't helps, nor will help looking for "other more official
channels".


I am neglecting answers which want to steer company's business decisions 
and water discussion into hardware and not to OS certification. And 
personally, I don't steer your anti-systemd Devuan creation so I don't 
see the point of you trying to deny PureOS from list of endorsed 
distributions because our company chooses to use it as pre-installed 
medium on our hardware - PureOS is certainly not less Free than 
gNewSense for example.




what we can do is keep the traffic low and wait for official responses
from GNU members like Hellekin's. I am not sure RMS needs to focus on
this, but he also chimes in here at times, if that makes everyone feel
better perhaps it should happen.

Now to respond to a recently raised concern about Trisquel's list of
supported hardware, I believe this is different from offering a
*medium of distribution*. While Trisquel uses ISO files and CD/DVD
supports as mediums of distribution, Puri.sm does offer a
pre-installed Laptop PC as medium of distribution which contains
non-free software. Listing supported hardware is different and again
there is h-node.org for that.


So if we choose to offer Trisquel preinstalled on our hardware, it would 
kick out Trisquel from FSF endorsed distros? Purism is a company, PureOS 
is operating system that made entirely out of Free software and made by 
paid contributors as well as volunteers. Purism is good enough to host 
it on their resources. You're free to volunteer as well and try to make 
it better - but do not expect me to listen to every wish you have about 
Purism.


@all - you can comment on wording about website, and even make us take 
PureOS out of Purism infra (we could simply mirror it to some domain) 
but it will not change a fact - PureOS is Free distro and that is what 
the FSF endorsement is about. Hopefully we apply sooner rather than 
later or never for RYF hardware certificate but that is another story to 
be told (ThinkPenguin has RYF certificate yet on same domain/store it 
sells non-free hardware).


ciao

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hi,


On 11/10/2016 09:34 AM, hellekin wrote:

On 11/09/2016 01:43 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

Hi all (again),

we are restarting the process of getting PureOS as FSF endorsed OS. We
built new infrastructure and released alpha 2 image publicly so we want
to march together on this road with you and see the final release of
PureOS 3.0 as FSF endorsement of PureOS.


Hi,

I'm sorry but I can't read the whole thread, especially since the first
reply attaches to sap the discussion.  Just a few remarks in passing.

Other OSes asking for endorsement don't come with selling hardware.  IMO
it would be a mistake to discredit PureOS because they have a hardware
business attached.


Hardware should be a separated thread - for RYF hardware, which we of 
course didn't apply for because of obvious reasons.




OTOH, it's Puri.sm's responsibility to solve the proprietary BIOS
problem since they have the possibility to collaborate with Libreboot to
do that: having chosen an incompatible chip was probably a strategic
mistake.


No, that is our business decision which I can explain but has no point 
for this thread. You have Ministry of Freedom for libreboot devices and 
we choose that market is too small regarding libreboot laptops.





Bug tracker: https://tracker.puri.sm/maniphest/


This should probably bring to an anonymous, read-only version of the
site so that the public can see the issues and how they are handled.
Participating in issue tracking is another task entirely and does indeed
require authentication on the Web thanks to spammers.


Agree, I already did report this to our sysadmins few days ago so they 
will fix it.





Wiki (we could use interested parties here :) ): https://tracker.puri.sm/w/


Same here.


We really want to do this properly and be welcomed into GNU family.


As suggested, your best bet now that the whole discussion is ingrained
with LibreM notebooks, is to find a replacement chip for the BIOS that's
compatible with Libreboot.  I gather this is not at all possible, and
you're still working on having the manufacturer free the chip you're
using.  Good luck with that.  Maybe having your infrastructure on
pureos.org or something might help with getting an endorsement while
you're freeing your BIOS.  You have my full support in this endeavor,
and actually I'd be curious to learn about it more thoroughly (what
stage?  What difficulties?  How others can help?  What would be the cost
of switching to a new, compatible chip, etc.)


Getting FSF endorsement as Free OS should have nothing to do with 
hardware - it is Operating System we apply for, not for the hardware. I 
hope there is clear distinct in this or we need to rewrite rules of 
applying. While I would love to have a chip that runs Libreboot, we 
would then need to move out of high-end device and become just another 
Ministry of Freedom. I love MoF, I just don't see the need for one more. 
(pureos.org) domain is taken and we tried to get it in past but person 
refused to sell (it was domain name of same named, now dormant distro). 
What is wrong with having our infra on tracker.puri.sm? It is entirely 
Free software based infrastructure, maintained by us for development of 
PureOS which is open to all. Hardware production is very high cost, that 
is why you have seen numerous Free software projects that came and 
quickly failed (to exception Arduino, I guess). Difficulty is Intel ME 
(which we explain on our website) and while we have under NDA access to 
their documentation it is still blackbox in many ways. I would love to 
say "hi people, thanks for all support, we have enough power now to 
produce high-end entirely libre devices" but reality is - we are small 
business, small team, working hard but face bad supply chain, supply 
chain not keeping their promises (and when you're small it affects you 
very hard), delays, people not understanding what we do etc. Still we 
are happy to see a lot of support and try our best - that is why, again, 
can we focus on OS and not hardware (I welcome you to participate on our 
IRC channel and infra and ask how to help regarding topic that interests 
you - always better to have more heads in problem that affects us all) 
or to reword what is needed to get Free OS certificate.




Regards,

==
hk



Cheers,

Z

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/09/2016 10:55 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:

By non-free hardware I mean specifically the hardware with non-free software
pre-installed or the hardware that won't work without non-free software. I did
not mean to make a statement about "free hardware" proper, whatever that might
be.


And I couldn't be clearer that PureOS is entirely Free software based 
and works out of the box on our hardware without enabling any non-free 
software repos (not even for WiFi).




On Thursday, November 10, 2016 08:51:14 Riley Baird wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 10:01:51 -0800

Ivan Zaigralin  wrote:

non-free hard/software

What, so now the FSDG don't allow you to recommend non-free hardware?


The FSDG could not be clearer on this point: it will not approve
any project that advertises and/or delivers non-free software

Should Trisquel be able to create a list of computers with compatible
hardware?

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/09/2016 06:08 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

On 09.11.2016 18:42, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

On 11/09/2016 05:24 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

What browser the PureBrowser is based on? What add-on repository does it
use?

It is based on Firefox ESR and it will have two xul extension from
archive (https and ublock). We discovered bug (non-responsive tabs) so
we temporarily removed it from alpha 2 image but we put in firefox-esr
with those two extensions. It will come back with final release (where
we also hope to iron out all the bugs you find and report - again
https://tracker.puri.sm/maniphest/ for reporting bugs).

In future we plan to diverge a bit more from Firefox regarding defaults
(or they maybe choose to have same defaults so we abandon the
re-branding and avoid their trademark issues (not that it will happen,
but just for our sake)).

Please note that the Firefox official repository includes many nonfree
extensions. PureOS can't comply with the GNU FSDG if it's using Firefox
default repository. FSF and GNU IceCat maintain a list of free
extensions for Firefox-based browsers.


We are mirroring Debian main archive for that and AFAIK Firefox is 
entirely FLOSS, but it allows non-free extensions. It would be a bit 
radical to remove it because users can access non-free extensions - we 
can use lynx to access websites that promote nonfree things etc etc. I 
think many distros used Iceweasel and now will use Firefox if they are 
based on Debian - and again, Firefox is Free software AFAIK.




https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat

In my opinion, PureOS should use GNU IceCat instead of Firefox and
support (with developers and donations) its development.

Moreover, last time I checked Firefox was by default DRM-enabled (by
using a nonfree add-on), and that is not acceptable.


I don't think it is enabled for Linux builds, but at least not for 
Debian ones.




It would be great if Purism could join the existing efforts instead of
only focusing on rebranding (sometimes without even crediting the
projects you are using) and marketing.


That, again, has nothing to do with our FSF endorsement and about our 
business - in this particular case we want to avoid any chance of 
Firefox trademark "war". Please keep it inside the limits of this 
discussion which is PureOS road to FSF endorsement.




Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hello Tiberiu-Cezar,


On 11/09/2016 05:24 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

Hello,

What browser the PureBrowser is based on? What add-on repository does is
use?


It is based on Firefox ESR and it will have two xul extension from 
archive (https and ublock). We discovered bug (non-responsive tabs) so 
we temporarily removed it from alpha 2 image but we put in firefox-esr 
with those two extensions. It will come back with final release (where 
we also hope to iron out all the bugs you find and report - again 
https://tracker.puri.sm/maniphest/ for reporting bugs).


In future we plan to diverge a bit more from Firefox regarding defaults 
(or they maybe choose to have same defaults so we abandon the 
re-branding and avoid their trademark issues (not that it will happen, 
but just for our sake)).




Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com



Thanks,

Z

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/09/2016 05:13 PM, Jaromil wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote:


On 11/09/2016 04:52 PM, Jaromil wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote:


tl;dr - an 100% free distro should not include, recommend nor
  facilitate the installation of non-free software. a bios
  firmware is also distributed software

We do not recommend nor faciliate installation of non-free software, and if
the bios firmware is the issue then all OSes fail on any hardware post 2009
- but I thought OS is separate from hardware in this discussion, maybe I am
wrong.

this is the misunderstanding then.

because you are recommending the option of getting your distribution
through a pre-installed medium (a laptop PC) which includes non-free
software (as its bios), then its hard to "separate from hardware in
this discussion". People here evaluate a sort of "user journey" to see
if, as someone approaching your distribution, one would ever be
proposed to use/install non-free software. That it should be so it is
clearly stated in the 100% free guidelines published by the FSF.

That is our business model, what is the problem there?

to have a business model is not a problem.

The problem is that on the pureOS website you promote acquiring the
distribution through a medium that also vehicles non-free software.
Nope https://puri.sm/pureos/download/ - we don't say you must buy our 
hardware, we just give you here link to download and instructions how to 
put it on USB.




I recommend you look into libreboot.org. If you'd sell pre-installed
laptops flashed with libre-boot, that would solve the issue.


Bashing us for taking different pathway (to yours) to spread FLOSS
into hands of average user will gain you nothing.

I'm sorry you perceive me as bashing you. I don't think I'm really
bashing you, nor I have any interest to do so. I do believe we need
more 100% distros and also good business stories around them.


ciao




I will stop responding to mails trying to attach our OS with our 
hardware. This is for FSF Free distro endorsement, and the other is for 
RYF hardware - stop combining the two things.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/09/2016 04:52 PM, Jaromil wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote:


tl;dr - an 100% free distro should not include, recommend nor
  facilitate the installation of non-free software. a bios
  firmware is also distributed software

We do not recommend nor faciliate installation of non-free software, and if
the bios firmware is the issue then all OSes fail on any hardware post 2009
- but I thought OS is separate from hardware in this discussion, maybe I am
wrong.

this is the misunderstanding then.

because you are recommending the option of getting your distribution
through a pre-installed medium (a laptop PC) which includes non-free
software (as its bios), then its hard to "separate from hardware in
this discussion". People here evaluate a sort of "user journey" to see
if, as someone approaching your distribution, one would ever be
proposed to use/install non-free software. That it should be so it is
clearly stated in the 100% free guidelines published by the FSF.


That is our business model, what is the problem there? You can download 
PureOS and install it on non-Librems. I really don't see the point of 
your mail - if we start recommending for installation of all FSF 
endorsed distros, will that render them nonfree as well - because we are 
free to that as well as you're free to download our OS and use it 
without purchasing our hardware.


One will never get to install non-free software with our OS, so the 
journey is good. Things can only get better, not worse because of us. 
Bashing us for taking different pathway (to yours) to spread FLOSS into 
hands of average user will gain you nothing.




I hope this helps clearing the misunderstanding.

ciao

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/09/2016 04:33 PM, Jaromil wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Jean Louis wrote:


On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:05:05PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:

Jean Louis, these points aren't really relevant - we're considering
whether the OS is free, not the hardware.

May I be more precise, the purpose of discussion is to see of the Free
System Distribution fits into the Free System Distribution Guidelines
(GNU FSDG) -- and not just whether the OS is free or its packages.

I thin Jean Louis analysis is absolutely relevant and punctual.


Not really.




tl;dr - an 100% free distro should not include, recommend nor
  facilitate the installation of non-free software. a bios
  firmware is also distributed software


We do not recommend nor faciliate installation of non-free software, and 
if the bios firmware is the issue then all OSes fail on any hardware 
post 2009 - but I thought OS is separate from hardware in this 
discussion, maybe I am wrong.





OTOH, the reaction of calling his analysis FUD is really odd.


Constructive points and suggestions will help, fanaticism will bring us 
nowhere.






ciao

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

n/source/ the file name
Sources.xz for which I was thinking, what it is? It was uncommon to
me, to find a file without "tar", so I have reviewed the file. Don't
take me wrong, I like sources in general, that is why I am compiling
all packages from sources. I am addict to sources. And on your
website, I could just find one file relating to sources.

The file does not give sources of the PureOS, it just points out to
sources of Debian packages.

There are few packages that are showing some "pureos" work being done,
those relate to package management, and customization of the Gnome
system.


Again report bugs on our bug tracker. Also, you don't expect us to patch 
every single Debian package just for the sake of making difference. 
While we will in future diverge in choices of our defaults compared to 
Debian, we want to have minimal deltas to Debian - and that is technical 
choice which I find reasonable from us.




I have also reviewed your purism Github account,
https://github.com/purism and on the package pureos-meta I see there
is 1 contributor.

All that is good. I just see pure efforts for free software
distribution. I see much of efforts for customization of the Debian
GNU/Linux to comply to your notebook sales.


Not relevant to this discussion.



In fact, I guess, you would be better of in selling notebooks, if you
would say "Debian - ready" and simply letting people use any
distribution they want, without PureOS pre-installed. I am not sure if
you are gaining anything in notebook sales like this. Maybe a simple
customized PureOS wallpaper and menu, on the pure Debian GNU/Linux
installation would do more for you in terms of sales.


Our business plan around our hardware and our offering has nothing to do 
with PureOS endorsement.




8) The website for PureOS is not separate from a notebook sales
website. In fact sales are in the first focus on that domain. I don't
say you should not sell notebooks, I say that your focus is on sales
and much less focus on truly purely making a free software
distribution.


You're repeating yourself and I don't see how this is relevant to 
PureOS. As I said, would Trisquel become nonfree if we choose to sell it 
with our hardware?




You asked for comments, you got it.

I am not member of FSF, even I made few small contributions. I am just
somebody out there, sitting in the town of Geita, Tanzania.

Jean Louis


On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:43:59AM +0100, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

Hi all (again),

we are restarting the process of getting PureOS as FSF endorsed OS. We
built new infrastructure and released alpha 2 image publicly so we want
to march together on this road with you and see the final release of
PureOS 3.0 as FSF endorsement of PureOS.

Image available for download: https://puri.sm/pureos/download/

Repo location and it's source code: http://repo.puri.sm/pureos/

New infra brings few things that might (should matter) to community:

Bug tracker: https://tracker.puri.sm/maniphest/

Wiki (we could use interested parties here :) ): https://tracker.puri.sm/w/

Code hosting: although it is mostly here https://github.com/purism and
on other parts of github, we plan to move most (probably all) or mirror
at least to https://tracker.puri.sm/diffusion/


Compared to last time - I appreciate all suggestions and hopefully you
can use our bugtracker for submitting bugs (or even code/pull requests)
and hopefully we can avoid bashing and bad language. We really want to
do this properly and be welcomed into GNU family.


Thanks all and let the work begin,


Z

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hi all (again),

we are restarting the process of getting PureOS as FSF endorsed OS. We
built new infrastructure and released alpha 2 image publicly so we want
to march together on this road with you and see the final release of
PureOS 3.0 as FSF endorsement of PureOS.

Image available for download: https://puri.sm/pureos/download/

Repo location and it's source code: http://repo.puri.sm/pureos/


New infra brings few things that might (should matter) to community:

Bug tracker: https://tracker.puri.sm/maniphest/

Wiki (we could use interested parties here :) ): https://tracker.puri.sm/w/

Code hosting: although it is mostly here https://github.com/purism and
on other parts of github, we plan to move most (probably all) or mirror
at least to https://tracker.puri.sm/diffusion/


Compared to last time - I appreciate all suggestions and hopefully you
can use our bugtracker for submitting bugs (or even code/pull requests)
and hopefully we can avoid bashing and bad language. We really want to
do this properly and be welcomed into GNU family.


Thanks all and let the work begin,


Z




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 06/11/2016 03:45 AM, Julie Marchant wrote:

*  Your distro should not have users select official Debian GNU/Linux
repos. These repos have contrib and nonfree areas and many Debian
packages make it trivial easy to select the contrib and nonfree areas.
Users don't need to be prevented from manually adding repos, but your
distro shouldn't steer users toward Debian GNU/Linux repos, since Debian
GNU/Linux itself does not meet the GFDG.

We don't, our repos are:

debhttp://repo.pureos.net/pureos_meta  stretch main
debhttp://repo.pureos.net/pureosrepo  pureos main
debhttp://repo.pureos.net/puresecurity  stretch/updates main

And we only have main in sync so adding contrib and non-free is not
possible.

This is what /etc/apt/sources.list contains in the PureOS I installed
from the ISO listed on Purism's page on PureOS:

debhttp://security.debian.org/  stretch/updates main
deb-srchttp://security.debian.org/  stretch/updates main

There are no additional sources found in sources.list or sources.list.d.
The only other sources to be found are commented out, and they refer to
the Debian Stretch live CD.


Of course, you didn't try the ISO link we provided in initial mail 
http://repo.puri.sm/pureosrepo/iso/PureOS-3.0-Desktop-gnome.iso which 
resolved all this.



Yes, people can go tohttps://github.com/purism/  and fill bugs.

I don't see any mention of this on the website. It is also unclear which
repository is appropriate for such bug reports.


We are as mentioned undergoing a transition for new infrastructure and 
will make it clearly visible but I assume opening any kind of bug on 
github (even the one saying please make a repo for bug reports or 
whatever) shouldn't be an issue?



Other problems I have found:

The website does not include any policy I can find on what software can
be included in PureOS's repository.


https://puri.sm/faq/ last part states that our base is Debian main. We 
will certainly tweak our website but this shouldn't affect PureOS (you 
can download it and check it - Free software).



If you type "man sources.list", you will find an example of a deb line
which includes Debian's contrib and non-free repositories.


I see how this could be seen problematic, but it can escalate to "Debian 
is not FSF endorsed" so we should strip promotion of such distribution 
in any way (which would be tedious job, and all Debian based distros 
would fail even Trisquel (Debian -> Ubuntu -> Trisquel). Notice that we 
can't and will not stop users installing whatever OS they want on their 
machine but with our repos they get only Free software. Btw, gNewSense 
has the same man page and yet it is endorsed.



Tor Browser is included. Tor Browser is libre, but it features an update
facility which is not controlled by the developers of PureOS (they are
delivered by the developers of Tor).

So this is a policy setup - you either choose to trust or not trust Free 
project. We choose to trust Tor in the same manner you can choose to not 
trust us. If nothing else - we are working on sandboxing it via Flatpak 
and we will see how that goes (in the end it is Free).

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hello,


On 06/09/2016 05:31 PM, Julie Marchant wrote:
> I don't know whether or not PureOS is libre, but I just want to suggest that 
> anyone investigating this question be extra thorough. Purism has a history of 
> making promises they couldn't keep (namely the promise of making the "librem" 
> laptop respect your freedom, something which is literally impossible) and 
> using deceptive marketing, such as this absurd graph:
>
> https://archive.is/HBDm3

They are promises for sure but not cheap ones made. It is all work in
progress and we are gathering great team and discussing a lot of things.
It is not easy to fight this and we choose our way of doing which
currently means sacrificing few things in order to grow but our
foundation doesn't change.

>
> Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I can't help but wonder why Purism felt the 
> need to fork Trisquel. The only possible reasons I can think of are to add 
> proprietary drivers, or as yet another deceptive marketing gimmick. And I 
> couldn't help but notice one of the Linux Action Show people mentioning that 
> the "librem" laptop's touchpad didn't work as well on any other distro he 
> tried, including the then-latest Ubuntu, as it did on PureOS. I can't imagine 
> why this would be the case if PureOS is libre.

We are based nowdays on Debian testing main archive. There is no
proprietary thing in our archive. For the touchpad - we were mainlining
it for some time - it is not our fault that the process is slow and
other distros didn't pick it (we had patched it into kernel for our OS
and I don't see problem there at all but it is now in 4.6 so everyone
should have it and we don't patch anymore kernel). Said that, the driver
seems yet again broken so we are working on it to improve - but we
certainly don't hide nor keep it for ourselves. Being libre system has
nothing to do with why some driver doesn't work on other OS - as said,
we were mainlining it and instead of waiting we patched kernel on our
own but not anymore.

> --
> Julie

-- 
Z

Director of Technology @Purism




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hello,


On 06/09/2016 05:24 PM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> * Can you tell us how you go about deblobbing the kernel? Did you base
> your work on an existing set of scripts used to deblob the kernel or did
> you write your own?

We used libre kernel before but we now settled with Debian kernel which
is since totally free nowdays (since Wheezy if I am not mistaking).

>
> * Do you comply with this section of the guidlines:
> ()?
> Specifically, do you tell people how they can file nonfree bugs if they
> find them?

Yes, people can go to https://github.com/purism/ and fill bugs. Notice
that we are preparing our own infrastructure so we aren't dependent on
GitHub but rather just mirror there from our infra.

>
> *  Your distro should not have users select official Debian GNU/Linux
> repos. These repos have contrib and nonfree areas and many Debian
> packages make it trivial easy to select the contrib and nonfree areas.
> Users don't need to be prevented from manually adding repos, but your
> distro shouldn't steer users toward Debian GNU/Linux repos, since Debian
> GNU/Linux itself does not meet the GFDG.

We don't, our repos are:

deb http://repo.pureos.net/pureos_meta stretch main
deb http://repo.pureos.net/pureosrepo pureos main
deb http://repo.pureos.net/puresecurity stretch/updates main

And we only have main in sync so adding contrib and non-free is not
possible.

>
> Josh
>

-- 
Z

Director of Technology @Purism




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hi all (I'm CTO of Purism)


On 06/09/2016 02:57 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:35:24 +0300
> fr33domlover  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:34:27 -0700
>> "Adrian Alves"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello FSF,
>>>
>>> We are Puri.sm our gnu/linux  PureOS is a free based debian distro,
>>> can you guys review it.
>>> We not only use Free software without any "contrib" or "non-free"
>>> software also our kernel is deblob'd
>>> We offer PureOS together with our laptops and also to any people who
>>> wants to use it:
>>>
>>> links
>>> our main website: 
>>> https://puri.sm/
>>> our Pureos webtiste:
>>> https://puri.sm/pureos/
>>> ISOs:
>>> http://repo.puri.sm/pureosrepo/iso/PureOS-3.0-Desktop-gnome.iso
>>>
>>> also "contrib" and "nonfree" repo are not only removed from the ISO
>>> also they are removed from our repos
>>>
>>> Please can you review it and let us know?
>>> Thanks, Adrian.-
>>>
>> Just a thought:
>>
>> gNewSense is based on Debian too, and it seems to do much much more work than
>> just drop the nonfree repos (same for Trisquel with its base distro ubun7u). 
>> I
>> don't know the details, but I do wonder whether just dropping repos and 
>> using a
>> libre kernel is enough. Maybe it is, and then I wonder why gNewSense does all
>> that other work. If that work is needed, you puri.sm people should probably 
>> do
>> the same thing...
> I think that that should be enough. If I'm looking for a libre distro, I want 
> the widest range of choices possible.
>

We are still small team but finally we are getting pace on the work. We
are based on Debian testing main archive and while there still aren't
big changes we do preinstall Tor browser and have PureBrowser (which is
currently a bit broken but the work on it is undergoing - it will be
Firefox with preinstalled extensions). There is few things that we
discuss for us on the road and we are also preparing infrastructure to
better handle changes and scale: among some things, we will probably
default to Calamares installer, discussing Wayland as default with our
next release, starting to create live builds, we also plan to develop
Purist services which will be integrated with PureOS and at some point
we will start working on kernel optimizations specifically tailored
towards our hardware (although PureOS will be generic so anyone can use
it on their own hardware).

-- 
Z

Director of Technology @Purism




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature