I can see where systemovich is coming from on this idea. It is stated in many
places that the purpose behind the GNU project was to build a free operating
system. I find it a bit strange that they got everything done, then their
kernel took longer than expected, but instead of building a syst
Well, there was a libre distro based on Slackware too. Talk about choise!
In my opinion it is very good to have libre derivatives of popular distros.
Maybe it takes another 5 years of evolution for one libre distro to get
enough users and developers to be the leader of free distros, bettering
-_-
One True Distribution would by definition fulfill whatever needs.
I have been talking about /main/ libre distribution. Imagine it like Ubuntu,
Debian, or Fedora, which have tons of derivatives.
I haven't said there should be only one libre distribution.
And you are wrong for saying there should not be one superior (main) libre
distribution. It is like sayi
The point that I think that is being overlooked, that it is not the number of
libre distros but the number of package management systems (debian, arch,
gentoo etc) with each having its own following, how would you produce a
single distro and keep everyone happy/onboard? at least the current s
Who said there is two exactly identical distributions? The point was that
instead of actually improving the libre derivate distribution, people spend
time in fixing freedom bugs from 10 different libre distribution. How is that
not duplicate work? Another issue is different non freedom bugs,
If something, then maintaining 10 different super minority libre distros is
absurd waste of resources, and reinventing a wheel is genius when compared.
Someone said good things below are just a fantasy.
The good things would be:
1. It could exist as long as FSF exists.
2. It could become the main libre distribution, effectively obsoleting other
libre distributions, which in turn unites the shattered community.
* * *
I remind that GNU proje
Yea- the only reason I can see to use Hurd over Linux-Libre is technical. I'm
not sure what those technical advantages are. The Linux-Libre are well known
though (hardware support). From the free software perspective it doesn't
matter which (free) kernel you use.
From what Bazzy pointed out it looks like it is a resources issue. Why bother
packaging for users what already exists elsewhere? Which is sort of obvious
anyway and consistent with the aims of the project.
It's not a priority project. I believe it was at one time though. Linux came
along and well.. the objective is freedom and it fulfilled that (until the
blobs came-but then it was forked anyway).
There is a lot of cooperation between projects already. What is gained by
merging the branding exactly? Something more tightly integrated? I'm not so
sure even that would be true. We're all working together as it is. Trisquel
works with ThinkPenguin. We're working with Atheros. Trisquel works
I have actually years ago installed GNU Hurd. Good times lol.
I think systemovich may have been talking about an official GNU/FSF distro.
I fully support the HURD project though. I think Debian GNU/HURD is an
interesting project. But I probably won't use it until it works properly on
my hardware. Linux-libre enables me to run free (but lacking WiFi firm
Trisquel has already joined forces with the FSF and GNU projects. They share
the same views and have similar policies.
In fact, if you go to the GNU.org homepage you will see a screenshot of
Trisquel running OpenOffice.org.
> Giving copyright ownership to the FSF will ensure that GNU OS will always
be free.
The GPL was designed to ensure that users of GPL-licensed software would
always be free.
> GNOME started out with the freedom mindset, but has become open source,
even though it is supposed to be a GNU pr
> "Why do we not have a distribution packaged by the GNU Project, simply
> called GNU OS?"
As you answered: there is no need for it when we have free
GNU/Linux-libre distros. Unless we discuss the meaning of words we use,
or Linux vs Hurd technical features, there probably isn't more to
answer.
There's certainly some would agree that a fresh approach is needed -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/09/opensource_festering_hacks/
If they can make Hurd clean, lean and contemporary...there's real potential
there. From the look of those pages on GNU/Hurd it seems to be progressing
very
For a man of so many words, you are yet to answer the query of OP.
"Why do we not have a distribution packaged by the GNU Project, simply called
GNU OS?"
- Mensaje original -
> > The best way to create GNU OS is for an existing free distribution to
> > give its copyright ownership to the FSF and change its brand to GNU.
>
> Seems pointless or impossible when most software in a distribution isn't
> copyrighted by its developers (it distribut
The aim of GNU is to provide a complete free operating system.
There are some very old images of GNU but there won't be any official public
release until the Hurd is ready.
Old images (2006): http://i-hug.sarovar.org/downloads/GNU/extended/
Some info: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/runn
> Weird that you are upset of having an OS with Hurd Kernel.
We are discussing promoting a single OS over all other ones, this might
imply choosing a single kernel.
> Everyone knows Libre-Linux is now a GNU package. Did you know it was
> non-gnu before FSF Latin America joined in? And, Linux-libr
Weird that you are upset of having an OS with Hurd Kernel.
Everyone knows Libre-Linux is now a GNU package. Did you know it was non-gnu
before FSF Latin America joined in? And, Linux-libre = Linux minus
Shackles(non-free). So, it is directly dependent on Linux.
btw, you are yanking the wron
> But, i dont think you took my point about Hurd. Hurd is part of GNU
> project. Linux is not.
> If you use Linux kernel, it will be just a GNU/Linux OS that will be
> created. Not, a pure GNU OS.
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html explicitly calls TeX "our text
formatter", would such a "pure
That sounds like quite the fantasy. There's a reason I gave BLAG Linux and
GNU a try: my dad prefers Fedora over other distros like Ubuntu. I, on the
other hand, can't stand Fedora and much prefer Ubuntu-based distros. Then you
get into life cycle of versions and rolling release. Different pe
hmmm, thats a first i heard of this idea.
+1 for out of the box idea.
But, i dont think you took my point about Hurd. Hurd is part of GNU project.
Linux is not.
If you use Linux kernel, it will be just a GNU/Linux OS that will be created.
Not, a pure GNU OS.
> The best way to create GNU OS is for an existing free distribution to
> give its copyright ownership to the FSF and change its brand to GNU.
Seems pointless or impossible when most software in a distribution isn't
copyrighted by its developers (it distributes software written by
others).
> Givi
The best way to create GNU OS is for an existing free distribution to give
its copyright ownership to the FSF and change its brand to GNU.
Giving copyright ownership to the FSF will ensure that GNU OS will always be
free. GNOME started out with the freedom mindset, but has become open source,
> 1. It could exist as long as FSF exists.
There are many GNU packages with not enough developers and many distros
with not enough developers, how do you know it won't be one of them?
> 2. It could become the main libre distribution, effectively obsoleting
> other libre distributions, which in tu
Not really.
The good things would be:
1. It could exist as long as FSF exists.
2. It could become the main libre distribution, effectively obsoleting other
libre distributions, which in turn unites the shattered community.
At least two very good things exist. If very good reasons exist, then
I could volunteer for GNU OS.
The GNU Project distributing a new GNU/Linux distro would not do any good.
Trisquel, Ututo, Parabola, and all the others sponsored by the GNU Project
are already completely free software. All them maintaining another distro
would do is split the community more than it already is.
yes, running a GNU OS would be pretty awesome.
But, the main page of GNU says, the kernel hurd is not yet ready for daily
use. Like Andrew said, nothing would be achieved by building OS on librelinux
as there are already a lot them. Unless hurd is ready for current day usage,
i dont think GN
"Having an official GNU distribution wouldn't achieve anything, "
It would accomplish the stated mission of building an operating system.
"because the current free distros have the same aims as GNU anyway - to
produce a completely free system."
Then why not join forces?
You might be interested in this:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
Having an official GNU distribution wouldn't achieve anything, because the
current free distros have the same aims as GNU anyway - to produce a
completely free system.
The GNU project builds the components of an operating system, but until it
combines the components into an operating system with the GNU branding, the
project is not complete.
If we consider all those fully free GNU/Linux distributions, we realize we
have enough money and personnel to make
Probably the ongoing commitment of time and personnel, and not wanting to
reinvent the wheel. http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
Why do we not have a distribution packaged by the GNU Project, simply called
GNU OS?
38 matches
Mail list logo
