http://lwn.net/Articles/207228/ This is a special feed containing comments posted to the individual LWN article titled "New distribution: gNewSense 1.0". hourly 2 http://lwn.net/Articles/208497/rss 2006-11-09T12:08:48+00:00 samj I was chatting about gNewSense with [one of] the founder[s], Brian Brazil, after the Irish Linux Users Group (ILUG, <a href="http://linux.ie">http://linux.ie</a>) AGM last Saturday, during which a talk was given on the subject.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> <p> http://lwn.net/Articles/207832/rss 2006-11-06T04:07:09+00:00 JoeBuck RMS calls himself the FSF's "chief GNUisance".<br> <p> <p> http://lwn.net/Articles/207807/rss 2006-11-05T21:22:38+00:00 rahulsundaram <p> Fedora doesnt endorse non-free repositories in anyway. There is no formal non-free or contribs repository. <br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207556/rss 2006-11-03T13:39:36+00:00 mbanck 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> <p> Michael<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207510/rss 2006-11-03T08:38:08+00:00 drag I donno.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> But out of all the Linux distros I've ever used Debian has the highest level of quality out of any of them.<br> <p> 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.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207468/rss 2006-11-03T03:08:46+00:00 drag 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.<br> <p> 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)<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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)<br> <p> 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.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207428/rss 2006-11-03T00:47:34+00:00 drag Yes especially since the FSF stance is more of a moral one then legal.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> That sort of thing.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> Other then that, thats it. That is the only problems I have with my PPC system.<br> <p> 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'.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207422/rss 2006-11-03T00:11:09+00:00 jwb gee, nuisance.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207368/rss 2006-11-02T20:57:22+00:00 arcticwolf Please don't spread FUD (not even unintentionally). :)<br> <p> 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".<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207349/rss 2006-11-02T20:19:38+00:00 Zack <font class="QuotedText">&gt;It is the latter than seems reluctant to accept those offerings.</font><br> <p> You have to remember, Debian is the upstream for Ubuntu.<br> 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.<br> Fortunately this seemed to be not because of ill will and the situation is improving.<br> <p> <p> <font class="QuotedText">&gt;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. </font><br> <p> True, strong-arming your way into the project doesn't work. But dedicating <br> funding and genuine effort into it can accomplish a great deal.<br> <p> <font class="QuotedText">&gt;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? </font><br> <p> Release manager is a function that controls a lot of policy. <br> Mixing controlled funding with creating policy may not be a good idea.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> <font class="QuotedText">&gt;It took an election to approve that radical deviation from what some saw as a violation of their basic ideals. </font><br> <p> 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.<br> There was a lot of confusion and there are legitimate questions to be asked such as for example:<br> <p> 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 ?<br> <p> 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.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207359/rss 2006-11-02T20:02:23+00:00 scottt The important difference is that Ubuntu is distributing the ATI and Nvidia binary kernel drivers on their CDROM media.<br> The helps them satisfy user demand but puts the user who loads the module in doubtful legal standing.<br> Ubuntu's willingness to distribute these binary kernel drivers gives them clear market advantages compared to Fedora, openSUSE and Debian but at what cost ?<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207357/rss 2006-11-02T19:52:38+00:00 bronson They add the smug reassurance that you're not an alcoholic?<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207352/rss 2006-11-02T19:43:26+00:00 NAR 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). <P> <CENTER>Bye,NAR</CENTER> http://lwn.net/Articles/207354/rss 2006-11-02T19:40:49+00:00 tgb 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.<br> <p> I don't have a source for this, it's just the way I read the announcement.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207335/rss 2006-11-02T19:12:37+00:00 mikov Do they really think that between Debian and Ubuntu there is space for yet <br> another Debian derivative with different ideology ? Debian is already on <br> the verge of being impractical in some cases. I personally find the <br> implication that it isn't sufficiently "free" as very ironic. <br> <br> Making a distribution relying on Ubuntu, because you disagree with <br> Ubuntu's principles strikes me as very strange. The only acceptable <br> motivation that Debian is refusing to incorporate Ubuntu's great patches <br> fast enough. <br> <br> I am also at a loss to understand who'd use the new distribution. People <br> who object to Ubuntu's non-free bits, but think that Debian is too far <br> behind, can simply not use the non-free packages in Ubuntu. If this is so <br> hard to do, perhaps a small utility listing all non-free packages on one's <br> system is a better solution that making a whole new distribution. <br> <br> I can't make my mind whether this hurts everbody by fragmenting the users <br> and developers further, whether it helps by reaffirming the free software <br> ideals, or whether it is simply irrelevant. <br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207343/rss 2006-11-02T19:11:52+00:00 bronson 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.<br> <p> Just kidding. Mostly.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207333/rss 2006-11-02T18:47:15+00:00 JoeBuck 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. http://lwn.net/Articles/207318/rss 2006-11-02T18:23:54+00:00 atai Debian already settled the issue with GFDL with one of their general resolutions. So don't cook old news again.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207313/rss 2006-11-02T18:16:44+00:00 grantingram <p>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 <a href="https://launchpad.net/">their site</a> claims it is "Launchpad is a collection of services for products in the open source universe."</p> <p>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!</p> http://lwn.net/Articles/207316/rss 2006-11-02T18:16:00+00:00 Los__D Yep, but Debian doesn't accept a lot of them.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207315/rss 2006-11-02T18:13:47+00:00 Los__D In short: Commercial Bugzilla alternative that Ubuntu uses for bug reporting.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207302/rss 2006-11-02T17:32:22+00:00 markhb 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.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207298/rss 2006-11-02T17:27:54+00:00 pizza <font class="QuotedText">&gt; I don't think that Fedora is completely free of binary blobs in drivers.</font><br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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. <br> <p> 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)<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207295/rss 2006-11-02T17:20:46+00:00 pphaneuf And they <em>are</em> sending those free bits back to Debian, no? I'm not any less confused... http://lwn.net/Articles/207294/rss 2006-11-02T17:18:13+00:00 JoeBuck Most of the Ubuntu polish is free bits. http://lwn.net/Articles/207293/rss 2006-11-02T17:17:20+00:00 JoeBuck I don't think that Fedora is completely free of binary blobs in drivers. http://lwn.net/Articles/207292/rss 2006-11-02T17:09:21+00:00 ceplm And Fedora, which is still 100% free and because of that is losing in popularity against Ubuntu.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207287/rss 2006-11-02T16:57:20+00:00 baruch That's ok since the feeling is mutual, the FSF distributes non-free material as well (GFDL licensed documentation).<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207279/rss 2006-11-02T16:53:59+00:00 TxtEdMacs 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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?<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207282/rss 2006-11-02T16:41:25+00:00 thebluesgnr The FSF doesn't recommend Debian because it distributes non-free software.<br> <p> http://lwn.net/Articles/207273/rss 2006-11-02T16:31:19+00:00 lool <em>"...with the addition of freedom"</em> <p>...with some particular value of freedom.</p> <p>I invite anyone to chose their best value of freedom between:</p> <ul><li>the Mission of gNonSense: <a href="http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Mission">http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Mission</a></li> <li>and the Debian Social Contract: <a href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract">http://www.debian.org/social_contract</a></li> </ul> <p>I can't wait until the FSF pushes for GFDL[1] adoption.<p> <hr/> <p> [1] <a href="http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml">http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml</a> http://lwn.net/Articles/207278/rss 2006-11-02T16:30:04+00:00 pphaneuf 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?<br> <p> Am I the only one to feel like I've missed something?<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207275/rss 2006-11-02T16:26:51+00:00 TxtEdMacs <i>"... That's basically the issue."</i> <p> I beg to differ: I use Ubuntu, more than one distribution on more than one machine. Care to <i>enlighten</i> us as to what Launchpad is? http://lwn.net/Articles/207270/rss 2006-11-02T16:11:34+00:00 baruch 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.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207263/rss 2006-11-02T15:36:15+00:00 ewan <i>N.B. I don't know anything about the freedom 'issues' with Launchpad. </i> <p> It's non-free. That's basically the issue. http://lwn.net/Articles/207259/rss 2006-11-02T15:31:12+00:00 GreyWizard 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.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207240/rss 2006-11-02T15:18:46+00:00 Felix_the_Mac I respect these people for acting on their principles.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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.<br> <p> 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).<br> 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' :-)<br> <p> 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'.<br> <p> N.B. I don't know anything about the freedom 'issues' with Launchpad. <br> <p> <p> http://lwn.net/Articles/207239/rss 2006-11-02T14:56:54+00:00 louie And presumably for build and source control.<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207237/rss 2006-11-02T14:49:22+00:00 madscientist *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.<br> <p> 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...?<br> http://lwn.net/Articles/207234/rss 2006-11-02T14:41:39+00:00 marduk Ubuntu's Oracle in reverse?<br>