Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trisquel GNU/Linux

trisquel.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#11

Post by netizen-936824 »

marcan_42 wrote: post #8
srvmshr wrote: post #3

Since it runs on Linux-libre, there is a good chance several devices/peripherals will fail to perform as intended. If the idea is to have a toy distro (working as a VM) to explore around, it’s looking great. But I don’t see why it will gain traction for real use case.

Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode, because the FSF doesn't believe users should be informed about updates (some of which are security critical) to proprietary software they are already running anyway. Make of that what you will.

That's a bit concerning. Has anyone written about this somewhere? I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's had their interest piqued considering the large FOSS community here

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#13

Post by marcan_42 »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #11
marcan_42 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode, because the FSF doesn't believe users should be informed about updates (some of which are security critical) to proprietary software they are already running anyway. Make of that what you will.

That's a bit concerning. Has anyone written about this somewhere? I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's had their interest piqued considering the large FOSS community here

Last time I tried to go into more depth about this one and related policy failings of the FSF and their associated projects here, it predictably descended into a long flamewar with FSF supporters, so I'll pass on it this time. But here's a link:

https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#14

Post by sporedro »

marcan_42 wrote: post #8
srvmshr wrote: post #3

Since it runs on Linux-libre, there is a good chance several devices/peripherals will fail to perform as intended. If the idea is to have a toy distro (working as a VM) to explore around, it’s looking great. But I don’t see why it will gain traction for real use case.

Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode, because the FSF doesn't believe users should be informed about updates (some of which are security critical) to proprietary software they are already running anyway. Make of that what you will.

I get where they’re coming from, but this just sounds insane. If there were FOSS CPU microcode that could replace it or something and they only wanted to support that than fine, but if there’s no FOSS option why create security risks for users?

I love the FOSS community, but sometimes their rationale is a bit too extreme for the average person to get behind.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#15

Post by marcan_42 »

theamk wrote: post #7

Those people are super shy about what their system is based on, which packages are available, and what is unique to Trisquel. From what I could find out, it seems to be another Ubuntu-based system, but with all non-free parts disabled. Is there anything more to it?

That's what almost every project advertising it is free of non-free stuff is: some other project with the non-free parts removed, nothing more. Trisquel (Ubuntu), linux-libre (linux), libreboot (coreboot), etc. When your sole selling point is lack of non-free stuff, there is no need to invest time adding anything else.

E.g. linux-libre is just a big script that removes the nonfree parts and firmware support; they just run it against every kernel release with minor tweaks and that's their new release. libreboot is similar.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#16

Post by lovelyviking »

sdfjkl wrote: post #2

Why Trisquel? > entirely free software > teach users to value and protect their freedom > no binary-only firmware for wireless cards or proprietary drivers for AMD/ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards are included

Do they have version that doesn't mimic windows? I do understand that it is intended to take on board as many former windows users as possible but honestly some people including me are getting sick just by looking at something that even slightly reminds it ... I wish the project the best, please understand.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#17

Post by netizen-936824 »

marcan_42 wrote: post #13
netizen-936824 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit concerning. Has anyone written about this somewhere? I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's had their interest piqued considering the large FOSS community here

Last time I tried to go into more depth about this one and related policy failings of the FSF and their associated projects here, it predictably descended into a long flamewar with FSF supporters, so I'll pass on it this time. But here's a link: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20

Thank you! I'm a supporter of the FSF and FOSS but I also think these ideologies have to be taken in consideration with security tradeoffs and current mitigation implementations. Free software is wonderful, but we should be honest about its capability to respond to some security threats like this. I think it would be better to include such warnings, even if it included an extra 'proprietary blob' warning.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#18

Post by gjsman-1000 »

sporedro wrote: post #14
marcan_42 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode, because the FSF doesn't believe users should be informed about updates (some of which are security critical) to proprietary software they are already running anyway. Make of that what you will.

I get where they’re coming from, but this just sounds insane. If there were FOSS CPU microcode that could replace it or something and they only wanted to support that than fine, but if there’s no FOSS option why create security risks for users? I love the FOSS community, but sometimes their rationale is a bit too extreme for the average person to get behind.

“is a bit too extreme”

Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to make some money on the side and keeps her software proprietary because monetizing open-source is a rare exception than the rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics! And don’t touch her software, or her, with a 10 foot pole, let alone pay for it!

Oh, there’s a proprietary firmware blob that this device requires, but it runs off onboard flash so the OS doesn’t see it? Perfectly fine! If the OS doesn’t see it, see no evil, speak no evil, there is no evil.

The FSF are the Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity and hypocrisy.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#19

Post by lovelyviking »

velcrovan wrote: post #12

Another Linx distro catches up to the user experience of Windows for Workgroups

I do understand that it is intended to take on board as many former windows users as possible but honestly I can't even look at it without pain just because it reminds this ugly windows 'style'.

I would really prefer they would put something else as default.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#20

Post by marcan_42 »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #17
marcan_42 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I tried to go into more depth about this one and related policy failings of the FSF and their associated projects here, it predictably descended into a long flamewar with FSF supporters, so I'll pass on it this time. But here's a link: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20

Thank you! I'm a supporter of the FSF and FOSS but I also think these ideologies have to be taken in consideration with security tradeoffs and current mitigation implementations. Free software is wonderful, but we should be honest about its capability to respond to some security threats like this. I think it would be better to include such warnings, even if it included an extra 'proprietary blob' warning.

Agreed. I'm a strong supporter of FOSS, from a pragmatic point of view of how it helps users and gives them more freedom. I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to make technical decisions that limit users' options or keep them uninformed, because the freedom to choose to use proprietary software is also important.

Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).

Post reply on HN