gNewSense Distro Frees Ubuntu 306
Linux.com (who shares corporate overlords with Slashdot) is reporting that gNewSense has gone 2.0. For the uninitiated gNewSense is a stripped down version of Ubuntu's Hardy Heron for the free software purist. Removing over 100 pieces of proprietary code and firmware, gNewSense offers a user the ability to run an OS where everything is able to be studied, changed, and redistributed. "gNewSense is a great alternative to Gobuntu, the Canonical-sponsored free derivative of Ubuntu. According to its wiki page, the 8.04 version of Gobuntu hasn't been released due to a less-than-optimal reaction from the community. Gobuntu used the same repositories as Ubuntu, and the Ubuntu live CD can achieve the same installation as Gobuntu by merely selecting the free-software-only option in the installer (press F6 twice at the boot menu). Also, Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, has indicated that he would rather focus on gNewSense because the work on that distribution can help the Ubuntu community as a whole. "
the name? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, great? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh.
Re:Stallmanites strike again (Score:2, Insightful)
Brought to you by the same people that thought calling a Photoshop competitor "Gimp" :)
There's a reason why we geeks aren't in marketing, and I think those are two of 'em.
Great - a basis to know what to buy (Score:1, Insightful)
seems a bit silly (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to be the only point is to break Ubuntu's chops over a small thing just because they're not pure enough. Didn't the FSF guys also did this with Debian at one point for including repos with "non-free" software on their servers... how ridiculously silly. This is why businesses don't take the FSF and GNU seriously.
Proprietary Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
It's great that Shuttleworth is trying to improve the availability of Free (as in speech) software. But I hope he doesn't move too much efforts over to this.
The reason I use vanilla Ubuntu is because I don't have to put a lot of effort into setting up my OS to agree with all my hardware. Instead, from the start I can work more on customizing how I interact with my OS. I remember the hell I had with a Radeon x800 and Fedora Core 4 a few years ago. If "closed" (as if it's always a bad thing) software provides a better solution, I'm more likely to use that. So, I hope Mark still is going to put his best foot forward for plain Ubuntu. I bet the corporate interest is more aimed to that Ubuntu.
As I recall... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for open source code, and all, but what guarantee do I have that my laptop would work with that?
This is like saying "It's just like that other free car, but without the ugly cupholder!"
What's stopping you from removing the other software yourself, if it's that unsightly?
Just. Use. Debian. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu is Debian based... now we have gNewSense which is Ubuntu based trying to be more Free Software conscious than Ubuntu when Debian already is that.
Seems redundant to me.
Who really uses this.....? (Score:5, Insightful)
Zealotry (Score:5, Insightful)
If driver XYZ wants to keep their stuff super secret for whatever reason fine. Let them invest the resources to maintain a working copy for the ever growing variety of linux deployments. Because unless they follow the same path of zeaoltry they will eventually look at their prediciment and say "ok, this is just a bit stupid".
I think F/OSS in general is a better model, and I advocate for it whenever possible. But at the end of the day the computer and the software it is running is a tool to support getting a job done. The computer and the software is not a holy temple and holy writ to be protected.
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Losing those features is a necessary step toward a fully free desktop. Sure, you might lose them now, but that gives incentive for them to be developed so that we *have* free and open source drivers later.
Now I know there are people who think we don't *need* a totally free desktop, but then again, there were people who thought we didn't need an open source browser because there were Netscape binaries. And isn't everyone glad now that we have Firefox?
Besides all that, you'd be surprised at just how much works without needing any proprietary bits in your operating system at all. Before sticking in a gNewSense CD, the idea that I could run a totally, completely free operating system and still do what I need to do was just all theory to me.
Re:Um, great? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, great. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish all that buggy stuff was removed. I mean nvidia drivers, flash and things you put inside ndiswrapper. If only a fraction of the time we waste working around related bugs was put into nouveau and friends, all this discussion would be moot. And wireless producents would be forced to actually provide some docs.
Re:Stallmanites strike again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... to whom, exactly? Some nerd who's going to spend the next three months in a darkened office reverse-engineering the proprietary drivers? To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base, not some fringe OSS purist crap.
Isn't this just software asceticism? (Score:2, Insightful)
When did open source become not about making great software, but about punishing yourself in order to achieve some greater level of software "purity"? When did the FSF become the catholic church?
Re:Stallmanites strike again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RMS hair splitting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um, great? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are partially correct with "Digital Rights Management" and "Trusted Computing", which are used for propaganda (if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I actually link to "Treacherous Computing". I don't use those propaganda terms, I just cite them).
Well, actually some do. For example my post was important enough for you to respond.
Re:the name? (Score:1, Insightful)
Rephrased properly:
Free and Open Source, because all coders should have the option to live as they choose...
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
And on the other hand, yeah, Nvidia and Adobe are *really* feeling the heat to provide source code now that some fringe distro with zero userbase (and negligible userbase potential) totally lacks drivers.
Open source drivers would be nice, but I fail to see how this distro does anything to further that goal.
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but ATI did, and look, they have open-sourced some drivers. Once ATI starts to, NVidia will, once GNASH starts becoming usable, Adobe will feel the pressure to make Flash better. It is called competition, it is something that these companies really haven't had to deal with, though, with Linux they have to compete, and not having a monopoly, they are.
Re:OK, fine... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OK, fine... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmnn, Slashdot full of inverted logic lately? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, really, look at those comments. Apparently now giving a crap about the long term effectiveness of a system and not having to depend on some company that might go broke one day in order to use the hardware you actually paid for has become 'zealotry' or being a purist or taking it as a religion.
While simultaneously, people who put blind faith on corporations - that they will still want to give you updated binary blobs, that they will actually survive the years to come, etc - get the title of being pragmatists.
Oh and to they guys that are ranting about it ruining ubuntu, etc. Please notice it is just an alternative, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Re:RMS hair splitting (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying I agree with him, but saying he believes in having choice is just silly.
Re:Um, great? (Score:3, Insightful)
FUD. Are you kidding? Since when is having *software drivers* a right? It would be *nice* if hardware manufacturers supported Linux, and even nicer if said drivers are open sourced. But this is not a RIGHT. Do not dilute a word as important as "right" with such a lowball definition.
Woah woah woah. Ethics? Freedom I get - we would be free to customize drivers, fork them, branch them as we please. Security, I get - ability to scrutinize the integrity of the code we're running. ETHICS? Since when is the *refusal to give away your code for free* in violation of ANY sane sense of ethics?
You mean like they've done for Windows, right? But no, wait, they haven't. The *vast vast vast* majority of Windows drivers you can download today have NO real protection on them (except the fact that you don't have source). There are even active internet communities hacking video drivers, sound drivers, etc, with no apparent backlash from hardware manufacturers.
You're just spouting FUD. Open source drivers is a nice ideal, and even nicer if we could have it, but we are by NO MEANS entitled to it.
Re:GNUbuntu? (Score:3, Insightful)
For most people, running a 100% free system isnt really a option.
There is usually something 'tainting' the system.
There arent any real advantages to running a free system anyway from a usability aspect.
Re:RMS hair splitting (Score:2, Insightful)
"... I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage installing Windows." (here [marc.info])
"Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and clear support for its use. Making your free program work with something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct message of support." (here [marc.info])
100% free! (Score:5, Insightful)
...except for the proprietary BIOS software, the proprietary microcode in the video card, wireless card, I/O controller, hard disks, floppy disks, monitor, keyboard, mouse, POTS modem, ADSL modem, power control microcontroller, and all the other little bits of electronics with embedded CPUs on your desk.
And if you want to be really picky, you could also talk about the proprietary chip and CPU designs in every single piece of silicon in all of the above. Not to mention the patented and extremely commercial fabber techniques needed to make it all (in China). Free, it's not.
Now that there are genuinely free (as in speech) IC designs out there on places like opencores.com, is it possible to make completely free computers? Even single-board jobs?
Re:Isn't this just software asceticism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Read Stallman's story on MIT's Xerox laser printer's drivers and you'll know what Free Software is all about.
Repeat after me: "Open Source IS NOT THE SAME AS Free Software"
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't Debian already do this?
The claim that it is too easy to install proprietary stuff on Debian is insane. The same goes for all truly functional OS.
Re:the name? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless they choose non-free software, because then the OS should make it more difficult, otherwise they might hurt themselves
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, maybe one day all of the hardware manufactures will realize the potential of all these people offering to write drivers for free for open hardware specs.
Re:OK, fine... (Score:1, Insightful)
Now I know there are people who think we don't *need* a totally free desktop, but then again, there were people who thought we didn't need an open source browser because there were Netscape binaries. And isn't everyone glad now that we have Firefox?
Anyone else besides gentoo even bothering to download the source?
Re:OK, fine... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK, fine... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK, fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Programmer's and making money (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Programmer's and making money (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they've got an on-staff tech guy, it's likely he doesn't know -everything- and will eventually have to reach out for support. The options are to let him flail around on live systems and try fixes that he found on random websites, or buy a support package and make sure he's got the best chance to fix it quickly and properly.