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

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#21

Post by lovelyviking »

lovelyviking wrote: post #16
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.

For unreasonable downvoters let me explain that windows interface is not only aesthetically disgusting it is absolutely uncomfortable and not logically consistent therefore should be avoided as much as possible in my opinion. Familiarity is not everything.

When you deal with software you kind of communicating with the imaginary one who build it. So when I am forced to use windows even for a moment I have the constant annoying impression that I am dealing with some one crazy who can through things in random places without logic or with logic that is changing from one part to another randomly. I simply can't stand it and I know there are other people who can't stand it too.

And please do not think I am saying it without knowing how perfectly and logically windows is organized. I worked with it and programmed it for 10 years. It was a perfect school called "How not to do things".

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#22

Post by quadrangle »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18
sporedro wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What a reactive, defensive attitude.

Just try applying everything you wrote to the topic of being vegetarian. Vegetarians are indeed arguing against meat-eating, and you could talk about how you are just some pig farmer selling meat on the side, and the vegetarians are saying "F You!"

And then there's the practical problems with whether animal products are identified in various food products…

And people get super defensive about that stuff too. But this desire to reject the FSF or the vegetarians and call them extremists and hypocrites amounts to an emotional refusal to engage fairly with any of the actual issues or even what the people are actually saying or doing.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#23

Post by crazypython »

marcan_42 wrote: post #15
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 jus…

What about osboot, the new project by the libreboot author?

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#24

Post by lovelyviking »

marcan_42 wrote: post #20
netizen-936824 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incons…

>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).

I would agree about inconsistency and say that unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.

On the other hand isn't FSF do compromise as you wanted when you say: "I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to ... "

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#25

Post by gjsman-1000 »

quadrangle wrote: post #22
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

What a reactive, defensive attitude. Just try applying everything you wrote to the topic of being vegetarian. Vegetarians are indeed arguing against meat-eating, and you could talk about how you are just some pig farmer selling meat on the side, and the vegetarians are saying "F You!" And then there's the practical problems with whether animal products are identified in various food products… And people get super def…

Nothing I said was not true.

The FSF encourages all members to shun proprietary software of any kind - which is why we have Linux-Libre and Trisquel.

Even though, to put it simply, monetizing open source is very rare and the FSF looks down on people (including solo programmers) with the gall to keep their software proprietary.

The FSF is also a complete hypocrite when it comes to firmware. Proprietary firmware which the OS can’t see (because it is loaded from onboard flash) is compliant with their “Respects Your Freedom” hardware certification, which is asinine and actively reduces my freedom to reverse-engineer that firmware or replace it with an open driver.

According to FSF logic, a solo programmer making proprietary software for money is to be shunned. A device with an embedded proprietary blob could be certified as freedom-respecting and tolerable. That’s retarded.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#26

Post by 7thaccount »

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.

I got into Trisquel briefly about a decade ago. I first noticed that YouTube wouldn't work. You could download some packages from the debian repository to get that working, but because that isn't free software, nobody would explain how. Instead they'd just lecture you on free software. I get it, but at the same time it makes your computer unusable for a lot of things. It's a hard line to tread.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#27

Post by smitty1e »

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?

Debian/Ubuntu seems the default, but projects could be more clear. Package management is my first question.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#28

Post by not2b »

lovelyviking wrote: post #24
marcan_42 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incons…

>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 h…

A consistent approach would forbid any use of Intel, AMD, or ARM processors (proprietary microcode in all of them) as well as any wireless technology (again, proprietary firmware). But the FSF has decided that if they can pretend that any proprietary code is somehow unchangeable hardware, or if not, if they don't tell people how to change it or if they even encourage vendors to prevent changing it, this somehow supports freedom.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#29

Post by not2b »

marcan_42 wrote: post #9
disadvantage wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is a good chance several devices/peripherals will fail to perform as intended For the record, I use Trisquel and it didn't recognize my wifi adapter. I went to the forums and someone said you need special libre wifi adapters that work with Linux. However, my internal network adapter worked fine. It plays well with most ethernet adapters thankfully.

The vast majority of WiFi adapters work fine with Linux and linux-firmware. You only need special "libre" ("firmwareless"*) WiFi adapters if you want them to work with linux-libre and distros that use it like this one, since it cripples support for anything that requires firmware. * Most "firmwareless" devices have firmware ROMs anyway. The FSF only believe it counts as nonfree if the users can see the firmware in /l…

Yes, the FSF thinks a device becomes more free if you destroy the ability to update the software that runs on it.

WiFi presents a particular problem for free software because to sell a product that emits radio waves, it has to be certified (by the FCC or other national authorities), and they won't certify something that could be trivially reprogrammed to exceed legal power limitations or broadcast outside licensed frequencies. It's easiest for them if the user can't change those details at all.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#30

Post by mustache_kimono »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18
sporedro wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This shouldn't be downvoted. It's an opinion that is unpopular here, but which needs to be stated occasionally. The FSF is extreme, and, right now, not 10-20 years ago, but right now, the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS.
Post reply on HN