Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
| From: | Peter Brown <peterb-AT-fsf.org> | |
| To: | info-press-AT-gnu.org | |
| Subject: | [GNU/FSF Press] Press release: FSF announces release of gNewSense 1.0 | |
| Date: | Thu, 02 Nov 2006 06:37:03 -0500 |
BOSTON, November 2, 2006 - Free Software Foundation announces release of gNewSense version 1.0. (Screenshots available at http://www.fsf.org/news/gnewsense) gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org) is a free software GNU/Linux distribution created by two Irish free software advocates, Brian Brazil and Paul O'Malley, and is based on the Ubuntu and Debian distributions. The goal of gNewSense is to provide users with a software package that offers the stability of Ubuntu with the addition of freedom. In announcing the release of version 1.0, the gNewSense developers stated, “From a philosophical perspective we wanted to create a GNU/Linux distribution where the user has access to all the sources for all software on the system. This includes everything from the heart of the kernel through to the everyday desktop applications." With the avowed goal of providing a completely free distribution - one without non-free kernel binary "blobs" or any other non-free software, the Free Software Foundation has announced sponsorship of the project. Ted Teah, FSF's free software directory maintainer explained, "With all the kernel firmware and restricted repositories removed, and the reliance on Ubuntu's proprietary distribution management tool Launchpad gone, this distribution is the most advanced GNU/Linux distribution that has a commitment to be 100% free." gNewSense will provide users with full security updates and is available for immediate download in LiveCD ISO format along with a version of the Ubiquity graphical installer. Furthermore, the gNewSense team has created a set of software called Builder which allows users to create their own gNewSense-based distributions. gNewSense provides detailed instructions on how to use the software and the recipe to roll out a customized distro. The Free Software Foundation is providing the gNewSense team with a high end build machine (running with a free BIOS), with bandwidth and with assistance in developing artwork. The FSF plans to aid widespread adoption of the distribution and, with the release of gNewSense 1.0, is making a call for volunteers who have the skills to act as the following: * Developers; * Website Maintainers; * Graphic Artists; * Freedom verifiers to monitor package additions and mailing lists; * Documentation Writers. To volunteer, please, sign on at irc.freenode.net and /join #gnewsense. You can also join the mailing list via the project website http://www.gnewsense.org/ ----30---- About the Free Software Foundation The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software - particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants - and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software. Their Web site, located at www.fsf.org, is an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support their work can be made at http://fsf.org/join They are headquartered in Boston, MA, USA. Press contact: To schedule an interview with the developers of gNewSense, please contact Ted Teah at the Free Software Foundation (+1 617-542-5942) or Peter Brown (+1 617-542-5942) or email pr@fsf.org _______________________________________________ FSF And GNU Press mailing list <info-press@gnu.org> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-press
(Log in to post comments)
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 14:41 UTC (Thu) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]
Ubuntu's Oracle in reverse?
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 14:49 UTC (Thu) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]
*snort* Right. I'm sure Canonical is quaking. However, I'm happy about this; I think it's important to keep pushing the envelope for 100% free computing. Goodness knows we're getting pushed from the other direction constantly by the RIAA and MPAA, etc. Hopefully the free distros like Debian and Ubuntu can take back these changes as they get worked out in gNewSense and become more free themselves.
I didn't understand the comment about the "reliance on Ubuntu's proprietary distribution management tool Launchpad" though: what part of Ubuntu relies on this? I've used Ubuntu for over a year, switching from Debian sid, and I don't know of any reliance on Launchpad. Do they just mean the automated bug reporting stuff? Or...?
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 14:56 UTC (Thu) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link]
And presumably for build and source control.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 17:09 UTC (Thu) by ceplm (guest, #41334) [Link]
And Fedora, which is still 100% free and because of that is losing in popularity against Ubuntu.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 17:17 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
I don't think that Fedora is completely free of binary blobs in drivers.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 17:27 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
> I don't think that Fedora is completely free of binary blobs in drivers.
If, by "binary blobs", you mean firmware for hardware (that runs on the hardware itself), then yes, Fedora contains non-free code. But under this definition, *all* x86 distros contain non-free code, in the form of CPU microcode.
If, however, you are referring to the likes of the nVidia driver, or the MADWiFi HAL, which are binary blobs that run on the host CPU, then no, Fedora does not contain any binary blobs.
Fedora's policy from day one was that only Free Software will be part of Core. (Or, at the very least, software that has no restrictions on redistribution or use -- hence the lack of MP3 codecs)
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 19:40 UTC (Thu) by tgb (guest, #745) [Link]
I believe that they're referring to in-kernel binary "blobs", i.e. where a kernel-tree module passes a chunk of binary data without corresponding source, these modules have been purged.
I don't have a source for this, it's just the way I read the announcement.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 17:32 UTC (Thu) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]
I may be wrong, but I believe that Fedora doesn't distribute any binary-only drivers; some (notably ATi and nVidia) are available through the third-party livna.org repository, and the Fedora kernel offers the same binary-driver hooks that the vanilla kernel does (at least, the few I've installed seem to work fine), but Fedora itself doesn't directly distribute anything that isn't Free software.
binary only kernel modules
Posted Nov 2, 2006 20:02 UTC (Thu) by scottt (subscriber, #5028) [Link]
The important difference is that Ubuntu is distributing the ATI and Nvidia binary kernel drivers on their CDROM media.The helps them satisfy user demand but puts the user who loads the module in doubtful legal standing.
Ubuntu's willingness to distribute these binary kernel drivers gives them clear market advantages compared to Fedora, openSUSE and Debian but at what cost ?
binary only kernel modules
Posted Nov 2, 2006 20:57 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]
Please don't spread FUD (not even unintentionally). :)
The GPL is explicitely not concerned with how software licensed under it is *used*, so as long as a user does not distribute the combination of the ATI or NVidia drivers with the Linux kernel, they're totally fine and not within any kind of "doubtful legal standing".
The only ones that are are NVidia and ATI themselves, although "doubtful" is probably not strong enough there, given that their drivers definitely *are* derivative works of the Linux kernel and given that, thus, they (that is, ATI and NVidia) do indeed violate the GPL by distributing those drivers.
FWIW, the whole thing might put distros like Fedora etc. that distribute those drivers in doubtful legal standing, too - but the *end users* are safe.
binary only kernel modules
Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:47 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes especially since the FSF stance is more of a moral one then legal.
Even Debian has non-free and contrib repositories. To RMS and Friends this is akin to 'pushing' propriatory software onto users. Instead of, say working on the free gcj stuff, they add propriatory java to non-free and tell people to use that intead.
That sort of thing.
It's nice to have this gNewSense thing. I had the similar thing happen to me between running Debian on my x86 and PowerPC computers.
Now as far as most of Linux goes it's completely identical between the two machines. Even when syncing up my home directories between the two systems I ran into very few incompatabilities.
But non-free software doesn't work on PowerPC generally. So I realy got to see how much I needed propriatory software vs completely free software.
As it turns out I need very very little non-free software. Out of all the drivers and programs that are provided by propriatory software developers the only ones that I use on a regular basis are Flash and Wolfenstien Enemy Territory.
Other then that, thats it. That is the only problems I have with my PPC system.
gNewSense will be nice since it will illistrate what is actually lost if all of a sudden Linux distributions were suddenly completely Free... And the answer for most people is 'not much'.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 15:18 UTC (Thu) by Felix_the_Mac (subscriber, #32242) [Link]
I respect these people for acting on their principles.
Whilst I don't expect this to make a big splash, I think it unfortunate from a PR point of view for Ubuntu. We all know how minor issues can get blown out of proportion within the FOSS community.
I would suggest the Cannonical don't ignore this but rather reach out to gNewSense and 'bless' it by linking to it from ubuntu.com and putting up a useful article explaining exactly what the differences are.
Alternatively they could go one step further and do this in house (hopefully in such a way as to have the support of the gNewSense team).
So they could build images which are identical to K/Ed/Ubuntu but excluding binary blobs. (I hereby give them the right to call it 'Ubuntu Pure' :-)
Also in the standard installer have a question near the start saying 'Tick here if you don't want to install any non-gpl material'.
N.B. I don't know anything about the freedom 'issues' with Launchpad.
s/non-gpl/non-free/
Posted Nov 2, 2006 15:31 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
The Free Software Foundation has never had a problem with free software that is not licensed under the GPL and is unlikley to insist on doing without such things.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 15:36 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
N.B. I don't know anything about the freedom 'issues' with Launchpad.It's non-free. That's basically the issue.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 16:26 UTC (Thu) by TxtEdMacs (subscriber, #5983) [Link]
"... That's basically the issue."I beg to differ: I use Ubuntu, more than one distribution on more than one machine. Care to enlighten us as to what Launchpad is?
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 18:13 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]
In short: Commercial Bugzilla alternative that Ubuntu uses for bug reporting.
Launchpad appears to be a website
Posted Nov 2, 2006 18:16 UTC (Thu) by grantingram (subscriber, #18390) [Link]
Well as far as I understand it launchpad is the website that Ubuntu (and others apparently) use to do their development with. The blurb on their site claims it is "Launchpad is a collection of services for products in the open source universe."
What I don't understand is why this is an issue for the FSF. There is no obligation to distribute your web-site software in the four freedoms so I'm not sure what they are on about!
Launchpad appears to be a website
Posted Nov 3, 2006 3:08 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Well I don't think that they are making a issue of it aside from the fact that they don't want anything to do with it.
I don't know how much influance RMS has over FSF, but the basic idea that he has is that when you have a software distro that provides non-free software it is a non-free operating system. Every system including Fedora and Debian endorse non-free software in one manner or another. (non-free and contrib repositories for instance)
Their explicit goal is to make a Free operating system. If people want to use propriatory software on a system I don't think they have a problem with it nor do they think that it's Ubuntu's obligation to free-up launchpad.
Ubuntu can free it or not. FSF just wants to have a free system, at least at this point, they aren't demanding anybody else do anything. (except remain compliant with the licensing and terms of GPL, of course)
Anyways so far what I've seen from Launchpad.. it is VERY unimpressing. I don't think that gNewSense is going to be missing out on anything.
Launchpad appears to be a website
Posted Nov 5, 2006 21:22 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Fedora doesnt endorse non-free repositories in anyway. There is no formal non-free or contribs repository.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:39 UTC (Fri) by mbanck (subscriber, #9035) [Link]
I really can't say because I was in no way involved with this, but from indirect comments from FSF and Canonical people and casual mentionings of seemingly related stuff by Canonical developers, I have the feeling Canonical is fine with this derived distribution and maybe even gave technical advise and help on how to do this.
The FSF has advertised several very exotic GNU/Linux distributions as being "the 100% Free one" in the past, so having something 100% Free (as in FSF) on a solid Debian/Ubuntu base is a nice thing. It does not look likely that they would move away from stable Ubuntu a lot, and it does not make much sense to do so, either.
It is just unfortunate that it took over 100 Debian derived distributions until somebody came up with something liked by the FSF, and then it is only indirectly based on the community leader for Freedom.
Michael
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 16:11 UTC (Thu) by baruch (subscriber, #14769) [Link]
Wouldn't it make more sense to take the improvements in Ubuntu and put them back in Debian to get the Free OS rather than forking from Ubuntu yet another fork. I think it will be better for them to join utnubu rather than creating yet another distribution, after all, Ubuntu with its large number of followers showed that most folks do not care about Free, only simplicity is important to the Ubuntu users.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 16:41 UTC (Thu) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link]
The FSF doesn't recommend Debian because it distributes non-free software.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 16:57 UTC (Thu) by baruch (subscriber, #14769) [Link]
That's ok since the feeling is mutual, the FSF distributes non-free material as well (GFDL licensed documentation).
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 16:53 UTC (Thu) by TxtEdMacs (subscriber, #5983) [Link]
The changes and refinements the Ubuntu group makes to Debian Unstable are resubmitted to Debian. It is the latter than seems reluctant to accept those offerings.
While I have great respect for both the accomplishments of the Debian project and the professed ideals, just throwing funds and efforts into that project assures nothing. Did you note friction and time wastage caused by funding just a very small group to allow them to focus on the boring, mundane, mind numbing task of packaging the new release? It took an election to approve that radical deviation from what some saw as a violation of their basic ideals. That alone is stark proof funds and concentrated efforts of nearly all developers will be an assured success. Those that see their precepts of purity will not stand idly by.
I suggest, if you distrust the actions of some distributions pick one that matches your ideas with cash and efforts and let the world see your product. Might I suggest Debian?
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 20:19 UTC (Thu) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
>It is the latter than seems reluctant to accept those offerings.
You have to remember, Debian is the upstream for Ubuntu.
As a downstream user you are not obliged to help out upstream, but if you do (or even make claims about it in public) it's nice to abide by the workflow of upstream, that is, posting patches in the bts and making an effort on integration, not dropping all changes whole-sale on the maintainers.
Fortunately this seemed to be not because of ill will and the situation is improving.
>While I have great respect for both the accomplishments of the Debian project and the professed ideals, just throwing funds and efforts into that project assures nothing.
True, strong-arming your way into the project doesn't work. But dedicating
funding and genuine effort into it can accomplish a great deal.
>Did you note friction and time wastage caused by funding just a very small group to allow them to focus on the boring, mundane, mind numbing task of packaging the new release?
Release manager is a function that controls a lot of policy.
Mixing controlled funding with creating policy may not be a good idea.
It looks like a good faith effort was made to keep the trail of funding external to debian, so no conflict of interest could arise, but if it looks like Debian, walks like Debian and quacks like Debian, chances are it's not a Dunc.
>It took an election to approve that radical deviation from what some saw as a violation of their basic ideals.
It's not wise to dismiss the concerns of some of the engaged developers as radical, because in the larger perspective of operating system distributions the whole debian project holds that same position.
There was a lot of confusion and there are legitimate questions to be asked such as for example:
Why not make a long term commitment to positions with long term benefits for the project such as secretary or ftp master, in short, the official positions that have to do with enforcement of policy, not creation ?
Unfortunately some hasty GRs were proposed without anyone managing to formulate precise questions, and a lot of careless questions were attributed to "jealousy" leaving the project with a firm resolution on shaky ground.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 16:30 UTC (Thu) by pphaneuf (subscriber, #23480) [Link]
So Canonical takes Debian, the flagship free software distribution, adds a bit of polish which includes some non-free bits (while sending back the free polish back to Debian on a daily basis), and then the FSF takes that, takes out the non-free bits? That makes sense how, exactly?
Am I the only one to feel like I've missed something?
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 17:18 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
Most of the Ubuntu polish is free bits.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 17:20 UTC (Thu) by pphaneuf (subscriber, #23480) [Link]
And they are sending those free bits back to Debian, no? I'm not any less confused...
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 18:16 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]
Yep, but Debian doesn't accept a lot of them.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 2, 2006 19:11 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Awesome! Maybe the guys who are stuffing the Debian mailing lists with politics will leap all over gNewSense instead. That could free Debian developers up enough to finally get Etch out.
Just kidding. Mostly.
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 3, 2006 8:38 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I donno.
Maybe it's just that I'm used to Debian, but I'm running testing right now and it has more polish then anything Ubuntu has done.
Ubuntu does a good job a providing a default install and their most important thing is providing a environment and community feel that makes new users comfortable. Debian completely fails to do this on both counts.
But out of all the Linux distros I've ever used Debian has the highest level of quality out of any of them.
Personally I think that gNewSense is making a mistake basing their stuff off of Ubuntu. I'll be to much trouble for them to keep up with the Ubuntu releases since I don't think they'll ever be that big. It would probably be a better approach to just adopt Debian Stable then setup a good default install and higher-numbered versions for Gnome and the kernel or whatever they think it is nessicary to give Debian a nice userfriendly install.
Freedom or *freedom*?
Posted Nov 2, 2006 17:46 UTC (Thu) by lool (subscriber, #36299) [Link]
"...with the addition of freedom"...with some particular value of freedom.
I invite anyone to chose their best value of freedom between:
- the Mission of gNonSense: http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Mission
- and the Debian Social Contract: http://www.debian.org/social_contract
I can't wait until the FSF pushes for GFDL[1] adoption.
[1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
Freedom or *freedom*?
Posted Nov 2, 2006 18:23 UTC (Thu) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]
Debian already settled the issue with GFDL with one of their general resolutions. So don't cook old news again.
Freedom or *freedom*?
Posted Nov 2, 2006 18:47 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
The settlement accepted GFDL documents that don't have invariant sections. However, the manuals put out by the FSF for their most important programs (e.g. gcc, gdb, emacs) have invariant sections, so Debian does not distribute them. I think that this was a reasonable compromise on Debian's part (it allows them to distribute all of the Gnome documentation, for example), but the rejection of invariant sections is still a point of dispute between Debian and the FSF.
Who would use gNewSense ??
Posted Nov 2, 2006 19:12 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
Do they really think that between Debian and Ubuntu there is space for yetanother Debian derivative with different ideology ? Debian is already on
the verge of being impractical in some cases. I personally find the
implication that it isn't sufficiently "free" as very ironic.
Making a distribution relying on Ubuntu, because you disagree with
Ubuntu's principles strikes me as very strange. The only acceptable
motivation that Debian is refusing to incorporate Ubuntu's great patches
fast enough.
I am also at a loss to understand who'd use the new distribution. People
who object to Ubuntu's non-free bits, but think that Debian is too far
behind, can simply not use the non-free packages in Ubuntu. If this is so
hard to do, perhaps a small utility listing all non-free packages on one's
system is a better solution that making a whole new distribution.
I can't make my mind whether this hurts everbody by fragmenting the users
and developers further, whether it helps by reaffirming the free software
ideals, or whether it is simply irrelevant.
What do they add?
Posted Nov 2, 2006 19:43 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
It's clear from the release what they do remove from Ubuntu, but what do they add? The "adding freedom" seems to be strange because they don't provide more source than Ubuntu: it's like someone is lamenting that his mug is only half full of beer (he'd like to drink a full mug of beer), then FSF comes along and takes away the mug, so now the person could be happy, because his mug is no longer half empty (it doesn't matter that he's got no mug).
What do they add?
Posted Nov 2, 2006 19:52 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
They add the smug reassurance that you're not an alcoholic?
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:11 UTC (Fri) by jwb (subscriber, #15467) [Link]
gee, nuisance.
it's an old joke
Posted Nov 6, 2006 4:07 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
RMS calls himself the FSF's "chief GNUisance".
New distribution: gNewSense 1.0
Posted Nov 9, 2006 12:08 UTC (Thu) by samj (subscriber, #7135) [Link]
I was chatting about gNewSense with [one of] the founder[s], Brian Brazil, after the Irish Linux Users Group (ILUG, http://linux.ie) AGM last Saturday, during which a talk was given on the subject.
I explained to him that I felt that while gNewSense could play an important role in the Linux ecosystem, that role shouldn't be encouraging what I'll call 'Distribution Proliferation', rather the project's aim should be to eradicate itself. They should not be aiming to recruit users (except for development and testing) nor derivatives (which would effectively be derivatives of a derivative of a derivative of Debian) but to supply feedback in the way of patches and bugs to upstream such that eventually their grievances are resolved in Debian and Ubuntu and gNewSense will no longer be required.
One good example of this would be to submit a patch for the kernel which labels non-free firmware with a comment. The patch would likely be accepted and it would make identifying problem areas easier for people working on fixes.
Anyway, why would I want to install an operating system which is likely to break any or all of my graphics, storage and network access? That's assuming even that I care about firmware blobs, particularly if those blobs are configuration rather than code (someone wanting to utilise an i960 processor on a RAID card is conceivable however the value of 'source' for configuration data is questionable, particularly when that information is typically under NDA, based on immutable standards or illegal to change eg in the case of WiFi!). I'd rather punish vendors who burn this stuff into ROMs than those who realise it sometimes needs to be updated.