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

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#51

Post by brnt »

ploxiln wrote: post #44
elagost wrote: post #32

Trisquel is based on Ubuntu like other operating systems (Linux Mint, Pop!_OS, Zorin OS, etc.) but they do something unique - they rebuild the Ubuntu packages from source, instead of just including the Ubuntu repos in their software sources. Trisquel is quite a usable distro for laptops that are 3-4 years old if you have an appropriate wireless card - Atheros 9xxx series cards tend to work well as the ath9k driver is…

> Debian tends to be more up to date than Trisquel since it's usually based on the previous Ubuntu LTS. Agreed with most of what you wrote, except this last bit ... it's a funny way to put it :) Ubuntu is based on Debian, it "forks" from Debian "unstable" aka "sid" every 6 months (with a fair amount of additions and modifications). Debian stable is released roughly every 18 to 22 months, so it has similar age, on ave…

I think they meant that Trisquels current release tends to be based on the previous Ubuntu LTS.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#52

Post by Mc91 »

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…

> Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity

For work I run MacOS, because they assigned me a Macbook and pay me to do so. Currently I program Android, which has a free software system somewhere under there, although there are unfree layers on top, which have been discussed to death.

I also personally use Ubuntu for my desktop and laptop. Years ago I put Gnewsense as a boot-up option for a machine.

For different tasks I use different levels of proprietary or free software. I don't see my installing of Gnewsense as puritanical or extreme (me wanting full control of my OS is puritanical and extreme?), just as I don't see me using the proprietary MacOS as puritanical and extreme. If me being able to control my own operating system is puritanical and extreme, then what do you call having someone else being able to control my operating system?

There may be free extremists but that means there are proprietary extremists as well.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#53

Post by mustache_kimono »

tomcooks wrote: post #48
mustache_kimono wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How else other than by being radical do you expect not to lose ground?

This is just such an exceedingly weird opinion. "Permanent revolution" sounds very romantic, but real people want to stop and lives their lives, as well.

Once you've convinced the broader industry of the benefits of FOSS, I'm not sure everyone has to be a radical anymore. I think GPL advocates/FSF/Stallman's time might be better spent finding a way to pay FOSS developers.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#54

Post by ploxiln »

brnt wrote: post #51
ploxiln wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Debian tends to be more up to date than Trisquel since it's usually based on the previous Ubuntu LTS. Agreed with most of what you wrote, except this last bit ... it's a funny way to put it :) Ubuntu is based on Debian, it "forks" from Debian "unstable" aka "sid" every 6 months (with a fair amount of additions and modifications). Debian stable is released roughly every 18 to 22 months, so it has similar age, on ave…

I think they meant that Trisquels current release tends to be based on the previous Ubuntu LTS.

Ahhh that makes sense

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#55

Post by mustache_kimono »

bogwog wrote: post #38
mustache_kimono wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it “extreme”? The point of the FSF is to foster and support free software. Supporting non-free software is literally the opposite of their mission. The guy you replied to is being childish and exaggerating. The FSF isn’t some extremist organization out to destroy people who dare to write or use closed source software. Do they refuse to include proprietary software in their distributions/projects? Obviously. Ar…

I think you may have too rosy a view of the FSF. Step back and think about what the FSF has done for FOSS in the last 10 years. When people say "I don't want to get into a licensing debate" who do you think they are talking about?

> Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might)

I can cite an example of where someone from the FSF has hassled an FOSS project that refused to modify their license to the GPL, and instead chose MIT. I'd prefer not link here, because I don't want the maintainers to be inundated with further (BS) requests. I'd say that's extreme. What's worse is it's off-putting (to me, at the very least).

> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?

Um, literally all the people writing FOSS? Mozilla, IBM/Redhat, Google?

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#56

Post by adffadsfdd »

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.

> Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode,

News to me. Maybe you a few links showing this?

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#57

Post by [deleted] »

elagost wrote: post #32

Trisquel is based on Ubuntu like other operating systems (Linux Mint, Pop!_OS, Zorin OS, etc.) but they do something unique - they rebuild the Ubuntu packages from source, instead of just including the Ubuntu repos in their software sources. Trisquel is quite a usable distro for laptops that are 3-4 years old if you have an appropriate wireless card - Atheros 9xxx series cards tend to work well as the ath9k driver is…

[deleted]

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#59

Post by einpoklum »

Trisquel's FAQ says:

> Why should I use Trisquel instead of one of the better-known distributions?

> There are literally hundreds of GNU/Linux distributions designed to fill every conceivable niche. Only a handful of them are entirely free software; Trisquel is one such distribution.

... but I disagree. Trisquel is based on ubuntu, and uses systemd. Not just as some optional init system you can remove - it's deeply dependent on systemd. And while systemd's license is free, may find it tends to suppress aspects of free software development by taking over and enclosing more and more system functionality.

If Trisquel were to dump systemd, I would seriously consider using it. My personal choice these days is Devuan (https://devuan.org/), the systemd-free variant of Debian., and I suggest you consider using it without the non-free components, instead of Trisquel.

Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux

#60

Post by tomcooks »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #53
tomcooks wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else other than by being radical do you expect not to lose ground?

This is just such an exceedingly weird opinion. "Permanent revolution" sounds very romantic, but real people want to stop and lives their lives, as well. Once you've convinced the broader industry of the benefits of FOSS, I'm not sure everyone has to be a radical anymore. I think GPL advocates/FSF/Stallman's time might be better spent finding a way to pay FOSS developers.

A gigacorporation owns the major git repository of open source software, and uses said code to promote its own ML code creation project.

Another steals free software to implement its own live streaming, unpunished.

Thousands of developers get paid to maintain free software by donations and contributions from the very advocates you find too radical.

And you find romanticism weird‽

Post reply on HN