Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
The Hurd is to today as Linux is to 2004.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
@quantumgravity Honestly, why can't they list debian as 'partially approved' Good question. I don't personally mind though, and Debian seems to also be cool with that. So maybe there isn't really a need for that anyway. And BLAG is Usable - a bit ugly but changing themes isn't a difficult thing to do. Not a fan of it, though. But then I don't think (now that there's Trisquel, Gnewsense, etc) the FSF actually recommend distros like Ututo and Dragora for use - they just want to show that they're fully fine with what the distros are and how they're maintained, and want distos to be maintained that way (freedom-wise). Anyway, Quidam, I don't think hiding comments based on rating is a very good idea :(
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
This is not censorship. I choose not to tell everyone I meet about Microsoft Windows, but this doesn't mean I'm censoring Microsoft. It just means that I'm not gonig to advertise something I don't agree with. Similarly, I don't approve of distros that include non-free software, so I don't recommend them to people. I'm not censoring Ubuntu, I'm just not advertising them. The FSF does the same thing, and IMO it's perfectly acceptable to do so. Trisquel takes the position that it is wrong to recommend non-free software to its users, so it doesn't include them in its repositories. Yes, a mostly-free system is better than an entirely proprietary one, but it shouldn't be the goal that we in the free software community advocate. Debian takes the position that it's ok to help people install non-free software by giving them advice via their website and forums, and providing a non-free repository that is available to anyone who wants it. This is why they're not considered a fully free distro by the FSF. I believe OP might have already known this, though, and that the question was more along the lines of whether Debian GNU/Hurd is completely free, or whether it is affected by the same issues that affect Debian GNU/Linux. I'd also like to know this.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Debian GNU/Hurd uses the same repositories; it just uses different binaries from those repositories. Incidentally, I'm sure most proprietary software is only available to Debian as GNU/Linux binaries, but there are a minority of programs that have their source available under a proprietary license (I know of such a program under CC BY-NC, for example). Any such programs in the Debian non-free repository can be ported to GNU/Hurd, and if they are, Debian GNU/Hurd users will still come across it. I don't know whether or not the Hurd is able to load firmware blobs. But if it is, then firmware blobs loaded by Linux could be loaded by the Hurd, too, and in that case it would be likely for Debian's distribution of the Hurd to be built to do this with firmware from the non-free repository. In summary: don't expect Debian to be without all its problems just by switching the kernel to the Hurd.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
But Mr. Stallman thinks the user should not be told about the option to use the system with only a few non-free components That's not quite the case - he still recognises its existence (and publicly as far as I know) - he just thinks that they're wrong. That different, say, from the Netherlands not de jure recognising the Indonesian government (started in Aug 17th 1945) until...Dec 27th 1949 (if my understanding of history serves me). No, not censorship.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
You may be surprised about my good memory, but we had a discussion about whether or not people should quit their job or university career if they have to use proprietary software for it at one time or another, and if i remember correctly you had the hardest stance on the topic, saying that no one should ever surrender one's freedom but rather quit the job. I just think it's remarkable how this has changed.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Yeah, I remember that. I know I used to be one of these radicals. But it all changed weeks ago when Belenos caused my laptop to look like it was on an LSD trip, and then I lost my laptop and switched to a newer one. I tried out Ubuntu and realized just how free it was. The Amazon thing? I use Xubuntu, which doesn't come with it. The non-free drivers? I don't have any, verified by vrms. From now on I'm with you, quantumgravity. I always used to be annoyed by you, a sensible person among libertarians. But Ubuntu has brought me back.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Every single proprietary component is a security and privacy risk. That doesn't mean it is actually spying on you. Actually, it almost never means it is spying on you. There are hundreds of thousands of proprietary programs out there. Admittedly we can't easily know that a given program is spying on us, but do you really believe there are so many immoral proprietary developers? I say the security risks are few and far between, because no matter how many examples of proprietary risks you can provide, I can provide infinitely more examples of proprietary software doing what the user wants.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
No he doesn't. He does not endorse Debian just because the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database. He doesn't even want you to tell the user indirectly, that's like saying it's wrong to have the copy of the proprietary typeface I once bought on my hard drive, not installed.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Do you really proprose not allowing the user to load proprietary software? Because that's no better than Apple's App Store.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
No one here proposes forbidding the user from installing and running proprietary software. But Debian recommends and assists with the installation of proprietary software, whether it's the GNU/Linux variant or the GNU/Hurd variant.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
That he talks about the reason not to add it to the approved distros list means that he recognises its existence, and talks about it as well which lets the user know that such an option exists (also I don't think he's advising users against Debian, he just doesn't want to guide the least knowledgable ones to Debian and have them install non-free things there. On the other hand, if you walk for a job interview with the FSF with Debian on your computer, with the nn-free repos disabled and nothing proprietary in it, you'll be fine, I think). That he lets the users know that option exists means that the users are told of the option of installing a wee bit of 'needed' proprietary software - it just so happens that he also advises against it.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
I still like free software and I think it would be the way to go for our society, but I see the facts and don't think that it makes sense to make huge efforts in order to avoid every tiny bit of proprietary software, because in the end you won't have privacy anyway. And having control over my own computing is just not the most important thing in my life, that's the whole point. I think Debian is judging the situation more realistically. Sometimes people need proprietary software IF (and please everyone, red the end of this sentence before giving the 'no one really needs proprietary software' speech) they don't want to make huge and, as explained, useless sacrifices. And i think this approach will free more people on the long run than the fsf's method.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Anyway, about Debian, I think their relationship with the FSF is something a wee bit like: FSF: You're starting to use proprietary software, we'll drop our support Deb(no, not Ian's girlfriend): Alright, we'll be cool with that. Don't worry. FSF: Alright then. Good luck! A bit later FSF: We're making a list of approved distros, you're not in it and you know why. Deb: Yes, we're cool with that. Don't worry, we understand. FSF: Good, then, mate. Have a good day. Deb: You too. BTW, se the absolutely mad arguments, at times even flame wars, about our exclusion from the approved distros list? FSF: Yeah, let's leave them alone. Deb: Let's.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
The truth is: who cares about this list anyway? Most users don't know about it, they don't even know about the fsf. And what really matters is the software running on my computer.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
I do care. And anybody that respects their own freedom will do too.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Well, not Debian (for the good and for the bad, I think it's mostly good, though). Well, not most people (as you've said, or implied). They've got to get steered a bit to free software first, and bundling it with proprietary software isn't how one does it in my opinion. I think a government (of a decently high level, i.e. an entire G20 country rather than Dull, Scotland, alone) should start it - and for the right reasons. And the men who hold high places, must be the ones who start. But I guess a list of fully free distros (I'm getting more more into the opinion that approved isn't the right word) can't really hurt, can it? :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Honestly, why can't they list debian as 'partially approved', explaining with a little '*' that they don't endorse the use of the non-free repos and the 'evil doings' of the debian project? I still think this would be ridiculous but at least one big popular distro would be on that list. But no, make instead way for 'ututo' and 'blag' which are practically unusable.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
I don't think that there is a wealth of immoral software developers out there to harm the users- to most of them, it simply comes natural, and they don't even consider malicious features malicious. And how can you have an infinite wealth of examples of proprietary software that does what the user wants? It may *look* like the program does what the user instucts, but it could do something else entirely.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
ldrumb...@openmailbox.org wrote: [...] that's like saying it's wrong to have the copy of the proprietary typeface I once bought on my hard drive, not installed. You lack the freedoms of Free Software in that typeface, regardless of whether that typeface is installed or not. The proprietors who hold the copyright to that font are treating you unethically by not selling you a license that would allow you to share and improve the font as you see fit. It is that very lack of freedom Stallman challenges and urges users to reject. He presents an ethics-based argument (not censorship) for software that respects user's software freedom to run, share, and modify for any reason at any time. Therefore one can see how directing users to nonfree software is unwise and inappropriate for a system built to champion a user's software freedom. Nobody is ignoring nonfree software. To the contrary, quite a bit of Free Software is written to replace nonfree software.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I see your point, but this is a mathematical issue. How can you be partially 100% free? :) Best, Lev Lazinskiy https://levlaz.org On 11/24/2014 01:07 PM, shiret...@web.de wrote: Honestly, why can't they list debian as 'partially approved', explaining with a little '*' that they don't endorse the use of the non-free repos and the 'evil doings' of the debian project? I still think this would be ridiculous but at least one big popular distro would be on that list. But no, make instead way for 'ututo' and 'blag' which are practically unusable. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUc5YcAAoJEGdDlSTynDmsCvkP/0Jz9VhzM6/nFwhC8utrPtv4 Hols7pxTIy/YIdRnGI9xjbPTC3SCwc8juXotzKpPOley4Fa+JLGTBdP/oiGwlvnm A3qfhSgVBQripoI3SNpcwDSnFOtpQMngg4A9/F7x+rAq7NNrox3rO9N0OTspBQm6 +mnaRy3kz0Ie5ofq63bZji2ELecBBwHerZQbXfBmNO1gKbDn3Rr0Q68fIj3AAcjM VNMHaHmoTokfeDrNfhBg6zJAcjDukJFUFxICTjOA5zW8tjYFrm5jHYlbW2cepWir qwMRCKq7R+C29mx2bg8x5uYPJv6UFVsTYvlEo28hZtIwt9Nh7dZsbH0QA4j0WU8Y k15nse0L3GweuM6UQJvS1wfrMfDBlsIYrj/KV4IHo+ow3j4JW8pEPbTYpysIHm7I abBBBGH+dg4jSJxROiUn1dasTIpDqoQRWkYAX2FJXwcTIPbsPupVTZczG7DwPIBa Rw609KIf3/E7j6s42/tncWvn+j0GYTUp8YZR+6ZruW0ji6lgliWodw71I9j0jT8z BbEPjRuLVVtPGJWhBp8hPe6ABH9iDFKm0jrvXWDXNr/D9drsqCjbTPyZIvD3BeUp Ha4QLzzWFMafTKDaNOB0VhGs+BSMuyIoDL0ShLEyl7vu9RNVxg8JIIykiPqoGVr7 BI73EEwqXJgzbxpDdmUP =Qrg2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I would disagree with you completely. Sometimes, free software is not enough. Free software is always enough. In addition, Stallman does not spend his time talking about how to get proprietary software and free software working together because he is spending all of his time on the more important issue of enabling the use of free software across the board. I do not think that this is censorship, and is certainly is not hurting any cause. GNU, FSF, and projects like this one are doing just fine. Best, Lev Lazinskiy https://levlaz.org On 11/24/2014 01:44 AM, ldrumb...@openmailbox.org wrote: Sometimes, free software is not enough. Sometimes, you need proprietary software to accompany free software and make it work. Surely a system with mostly free components and a single proprietary component is better than a fully proprietary system. But Mr. Stallman thinks the user should not be told about the option to use the system with only a few non-free components. Not only is this censorship, he is harming his cause. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUc5fRAAoJEGdDlSTynDms2UsQAI9WOVad+q6+YTuP63OkukrC AXLYk+wAHwVc2lxmIrDWw3t/OL/sE/OU1hxgC5er2peIznxOn93hq9/ua8Ro6C3x Pz8x4VpqAF7eJ1sM4W4ryphZxyB/VN3YuV5kwWYvvNwm/S4kkZnSJiv1G5F5Xt0G 1oWUU5xxOmCaFTwHxmLoR6dlWszOKq81ZUV4s9VV0y2tMsoJbPLhtT76E5vqhMJK sqHUe7gCLOHzV67yr/UWVLprXuMPJi1Ew2mi62z1VWZ/gaDXko/dbEsZpAMgF82Y Ap/zQKU910W9sxpCFC3oc0AtDcDqXi+T4h3p7bpONn+sfwKSJPgVk007qAGojFaK dRrqg0sm0VEPtlNfrJ7JqxvIqViKEnW5O4rDpU3+M1OLCPq49pb73cgnD7y3WSMG 8eBWZRz/NiZercm4WubbRzSA+6q449T5w5Ggcrx/DQfjMdVGX4a8PDEHor6ntlN9 ZIiHMYUSl+i9eReY/HB/dhiJnSjldC4yj6BCARcaGFc1gyNLsG52NdUR1/MjozyB r3McsMqK052mm8ZasPqkk3fE2Blhud5xUcvpPLO9qzpfpCsSAHAvdb5/nOiX93SQ Mtu4y12uCfsTeDjXomK2MYmT9SUHjOiXuD2FiIQUFwmsE6VU9rCTJ8UNNGXI3apG fpNKUYoJeR+zejohe/am =nOKt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
It's not on the approved distro list. Is that because it comes with proprietary software, recommends, or facilitates?
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
The Debian distros can be used in freedom if you're careful. The FSF won't put their name on it though since it's conditional (if you're careful) and because they have issues with what the project behind the distro is doing (distributing proprietary software as a side activity) and they don't seem to see an easy way to draw a line between Debian-the-distro and Debian-the-project-behind-the-distro - See their explanation for Debian at https://gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html See also Optionally Free Is Not Enough (for FSF endorsement) at https://gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Debian GNU/Hurd isn't a stable and usable for average users yet- it's testing, I believe. That may be why it's not on the list. I find it unlikely that there's any non-free software for Hurd, or that Debian has a non-free repository for Hurd, but it's possible. You should be able to run that Hurd OS in freedom.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Sometimes, free software is not enough. Sometimes, you need proprietary software to accompany free software and make it work. Surely a system with mostly free components and a single proprietary component is better than a fully proprietary system. But Mr. Stallman thinks the user should not be told about the option to use the system with only a few non-free components. Not only is this censorship, he is harming his cause.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Give proprietary software and inch, and it'll move a mile Even a single proprietary component is a security and privacy risk- certainly, if your computer NEEDS one proprietary component (And you are unable to replace your PC with one that doesn't need any proprietary software) it's better than nothing. With most PCs I've install Trisquel on, though, the only problem is wifi, which can be easily fixed.
Re: [Trisquel-users] is Debian GNU/Hurd free?
Armworm: But Mr. Stallman thinks the user should not be told about the option to use the system with only a few non-free components. Not only is this censorship, he is harming his cause. Firstly, not offering proprietary software to users is not censorship. The idea that the Debian Project could somehow be obliged to provide users with proprietary software is absurd. On the other hand, a system such as those which Apple offers is a system of censorship because users entirely rely on a single repository controlled by Apple for software and cannot modify the system in any way to change this. Secondly, if you recognise that different freedoms can conflict with each other then it's possible to end up in a situation where freedom of speech in providing software to users (e.g. binary packages) might conflict with end users' right to software freedom (see the GNU 'four freedoms' for software). But as per my first point I will reiterate that declining to offer software is not censorship. Andrew
