Since I started this flame war in the first place, I would like to state
that, in my opinion, the current (and even future) Ubuntu base does not make
Trisquel less free. Trisquel's developers do a wonderful job at including and
proposing freedom-respecting software/fonts only. I entirely trust them.
My point was more a strategic one: it looks harder to clean Ubuntu than
Debian and it will get harder and harder as Ubuntu is moving away from the
free software projects most distributions use or will use (systemd, GNOME
Shell, Wayland). At some point, Ubuntu may drop those more common (and,
apparently, technically better) components because their Ubuntu's projects
become incompatible with them. I would not like to see Trisquel forced to use
technically worse software.
Given the recent news (inclusion of a spyware feature in Ubuntu's dash,
encouragement of proprietary software development for Ubuntu's Software
Center, less and less mentions of the free software ideals, etc.), there is
even a risk that some Canonical's projects turn proprietary. I am sure that,
in this case, Trisquel will not include them and, maybe, change its base
(probably back to Debian).
In my opinion, the main advantage of being based on Ubuntu is the
availability of a new version every six months. Now that this advantage
vanished, I do not see any significant reason not to go back to Debian. When
a new version of Debian GNU/Linux is released, its software is not much more
outdated than that in an Ubuntu LTS. For instance, the next Debian (to be
released in a few months) will include Linux 3.2, GIMP 2.8, GNOME Shell 3.4,
LibreOffice 3.5, etc. Besides, backports are provided. I would also argue
that Debian stable is more stable than Ubuntu LTS, which is based on Debian
testing. In my opinion, that remains true for a desktop usage.
As for other GNU/Linux distributions, their default kernel is not Libre (as
far as I understand, Debian's is if proprietary firwmare is not installed)
and proprietary software is usually mixed with free software in the
repositories. That is why, if Trisquel would not exist, I would use Debian
GNU/Linux. Fedora does not include proprietary software but that in the Linux
kernel. As it was said, Linux-libre can substitute it. Fedora's official
repository rejects patent-encumbered free software such as free software
codecs for popular formats like MP3 or MP4 (Trisquel includes them in the
default system). The repository usually enabled to enable the non-free
section of the unofficial RPM Fusion repository (if I am wrong, please tell
it). As a consequence, either the user does not play popular formats (again:
with free codecs) or, like with most GNU/Linux distributions, she has to
carefully pick from a list of packages those that, she believe/hope, do not
attack her freedom.
