100% Libre, Trisquel 4.5 STS 'Slaine' Released 207
Aldenissin writes "Trisquel 4.5 Slaine comes with a new boot manager for the live images, an improved installer which showcases the project highlights, and new programs like the Remmina remote desktop client, the social network client Gwibber or the backup tool Deja-dup. The web browser received several changes to improve attributes like speed by enabling http pipelining and other methods, privacy with blocking third party cookies and moving to Duck Duck Go search engine — both as default, and usability with the preinstalled FlashVideoReplacer plugin that allows watching videos from YouTube, Vimeo and many others. The main packages include: Linux-libre 2.6.35, Xorg 7.5, GNOME 2.32, Mozilla based web browser 3.6.15 and OpenOffice.org 3.2. Slaine is based on Ubuntu 10.10, and as always with Trisquel, it contains just free software. Available are 32 and 64 bit flavors, and being an STS release it will be supported for a year. This release will be the "live" operating system included in the Free Software Foundation member cards from now on, in replacement of Trisquel 4.0."
what the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
So on Slashdot we have to tell people who Alan Turing was, but we can just randomly spout off the names of (what I'm assuming to be) little known software packages?
Come on, guys.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a linux distro. (Score:4, Insightful)
One of 8 approved [gnu.org] GNU/Linux distributions. None of which matter in the real world.
Apparently, in order to be an approved FREE software OS, you need to prevent users from using non-free software [gnu.org]. FREE from choice. The ultimate FREEdom.
at least it serves as a lesson to others... (Score:4, Insightful)
The next time someone tells me the only reason why [productx] is so popular is due to marketing I'm sending them a link to this summary as an example of why that really really does matter.
scraping the barrel (Score:4, Insightful)
a whole os, distro and the highlights include enabling http pipelining and including a couple of browser add-ons, switching default search engine
Really ? really ?
That's the problem that needs solving, thru a new disto
Makes me embarrassed to be here on Friday evening (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why though (Score:2, Insightful)
The main differences from Ubuntu are a rebranded Mozilla browser...
$ apt-get install abrowser
There. Ubuntu with an unbranded Firefox. It even removes firefox-branding.
...which never suggests the use of Adobe Flash
Those that care are free to click the "no thanks" button and go without flash online.
...and instead uses replacements such as Gnash
Wow. Best joke I've read all week.
...the removal of Ubuntu's Multiverse repository as it contains non-free software...
Isn't that turned off by default?
...and a Linux kernel without any non-free binary blobs. Note that since the Linux kernel contains non-free software it violates its own license.
So...Ubuntu with Debian's kernel.
Re:It's a linux distro. (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it is pretentious, but I think Debian wasn't qualified in the ways you mentioned when these were and the guidlines were set. Also, perhaps it is true that users can't make the distinction. Surely some won't. I am glad that Debian stepped up to match those that worked hard on being endorsed in the other ways. I know Debian was capable when the others were.
The jail was meant as an analogy. But to continue, if there were multiple exits, and you asked how can you leave, and I said any of them, yet one would lead you to a trap where you were stuck in solitary, that wouldn't be right would it?
See, freedom ideals are exactly why we have Linux and all the software that is available. It is only available due to sacrifices made by those previously. As time goes on, the sacrifice gets easier and smaller. No one should be able to lock up information, and since knowledge is power, then it IS a jail. A vast plain can be a jail if you have no way to escape.
Re:It's a linux distro. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not true. They require the distros to not include non-free software (including not having official 'non-free' repositories), but the user can be allowed to install non-free software.
Except that having a 'non-free' repo is the means by which users install non-free software. So according to the FSF it's all right if users install non-free software from a repo run by a 3rd party, but it's not all right if the non-free repo is hosted by the Linux distro maker/project itself? Even if the non-free repo is optional. What a pointless, splitting-hairs argument from the FSF.