OSNews

Isn't that essentially re-inventing Debian?

They claim that Debian itself contains non-free things. So, not in their view...

Yes, it does contain non-free stuff. And, surprisingly they're in the non-free bunch. Commenting out non-free in your apt sources and voila, you got a free distro. Hopefully this gnewsense does more than that.

Debian has currently firmware in the kernel.

We would not exist if both our upstreams did not exist.
The reason you don't want binary bits and bytes in your kernel are many. Let me point at the recent security issues with a certain popluar video card, and its binary blobs.

If you had such a card your chances of working out the issues and more important fixing them were so close to nil that you have to wait on the vendor.

Happy Hacking!

Firmware and binary blobs are two different things. OpenBSD developers, for example, have been very vocal about keeping their operating system free of binary blobs and yet they include firmware. They say that this is a practical decision because removing all firmware from OpenBSD would significantly decrease the amount of hardware they can support.

Debian is planning to remove all firmware from the kernels they distribute in the future. I'm not at all sure if this is a wise thing to do.

The reason you don't want binary bits and bytes in your kernel are many. Let me point at the recent security issues with a certain popluar video card, and its binary blobs.

If you had such a card your chances of working out the issues and more important fixing them were so close to nil that you have to wait on the vendor.

Ah yes. The "Fix it yourself" mantra.

First off, there were many, and numerous workarounds for the NVidia issue-- revert to the 'nv' driver (if you don't need 3D), disable some functionality, upgrade to the beta driver, or wait a few days and upgrade to the patched driver from NVidia. Having tested the beta driver for several weeks on a number of systems already, I just upgraded the machines I support to the beta.

Now, let me tell you a story about the British Motorcycle Industry-- They believed that most motorcycle enthusiasts *enjoyed* tearing down their engines every few thousand miles and rebuilding them. In the 1920's, that was probably true, but in the 1970's when the Japanese introduced motorcycle engines that could go for 5-10 times as long with only minor maintenence, the british motorcycle industry collapsed, because the owners didn't *actually* enjoy it all that much.

In my *job*, which involves supporting linux, I have approximately zero desire to go fix other people's mistakes. I don't *need* that freedom. If the vendor won't supply patches in a timely manner (and NVidia did), then I'll find another vendor.

The chances of me reading through several thousand lines of badly written code (and most code is badly written, usually as a result of someone trying to be clever) to figure out that the author dropped a null somewhere, is about the same whether the driver is binary or not-- zero.

>I don't *need* that freedom.

Just because *you* don't need a specific freedom doesn't mean that other people don't need it!

Nobody says that you have to exercise a given freedom but i think it's really overweening to say "i don't need something so everybody else shouldn't be able to have it too".

Edited 2006-11-05 18:18

Don't mix up binary drivers with firmwares. The former is interfacing with your hardware while the latter is controlling your hardware.

To what I understand, the general availability of firmware images has increased lately because the manufacturers are doing anything for profit... EEPROM is more expensive than RAM, so uploading the firmware on the device at runtime can save a few pennies (which can amount to a hefty sum for millions of devices, mind you). Still, most peripherals that doesn't require a firmware at runtime are carrying a firmware. A video card, a DVD-ROM, an hard drive, etc.

Fighting against binary drivers is one thing, fighting against closed firmware is another. To be coherent with himself, a free software lover supporting the boycott of closed firmware should boycott anything using them. He will definitely need more than programming skills...

...and more than a free BIOS, like the FSF announcement on gNewSense. "Ohh, it's using a free BIOS, so the machine must be really free"... BS.

I am pretty sure that is why the OpenBSD team is supporting firmware images as long as they can be freely distributed.

Firmware is like a patch for poorly made hardware. I have bought the hardware and paid for it. I should be able to examine it and pull it apart and try to understand it. I can't do that with binary firmware.

They should be giving the source for the firmware to us, they make money from the hardware anyway.

Judging by your critera, most hardware sold these days must be poorly made...

When you buy some hardware, you buy the hardware part with a firmware image. You are entitled to disassemble, to pull that firmware apart to understand it. If you cannot do anything without the firmware source, chances you don't have the skills to understand what's going on...

If you really wanted to understand the hardware, you would need the schematics/HDL source, anyway.

This distro gets more publicity than it deserves. It's clearly aimed on free software fundamentalists which are minority of Linux users IMO.

And Linux users are clearly the minority of computer users. Do you have problems with sites posting articles about linux also?

Edited 2006-11-04 22:48

What? Just 50 users?! MS Windows has much more users!

Dees the number of users really matters? The guys created this distro to act for their moral values and only this matters. Some people call such people "fundamentalists" but you can call them also protectionists of the free software idea that point out software that is not free. Well, we know this software but will the Ubuntu user of tomorrow recognize this software too? I do not want GNU/Linux to became a sort of a Linux based MS distribution.

If you don't like the distro, do not use it. To my mind it is a great idea but I am also reliant on the crappy realplayer and the nasty Macromedia virus plugin.

I used word "fundamentalists" in frivolous way, to me they are just a bunch of guys without a touch with reality. They will create their own disto when they can just not install troublesome packages and create other artificial problems.

My point was that there are news about them in too many places. It's here not because there's something special about this distro but because it's Free as in RMS. There were projects like this one and nobody remembers them now, Ututo comes to mind.

Edited 2006-11-05 16:24

'You don't understand; I can do it better...'

If they think they can, who are we to stop them? I probably wouldn't use an uber-free distro like gNewsense or BLAG, but I'm glad to see enough people care to try and make them.

People need to stop this and start working together.
We all ARE working together. Just we are doing it individually.

Edited 2006-11-04 22:49

Obviously you don't understand Free software development.
These developers aren't being paid, they do it for the enjoyment of creating something.

If a developer thinks that they could do something better or in a way more suited to them, then that's what they will work on.

The wonderful thing about this is the you get many different aproaches to problems.
eg. Gentoo is awesome, in my perspective. If the developers of gentoo had instead of developing gentoo worked on Fedora then we wouldn't have gentoo and Fedora would probably just support a few more packages.

The more solutions to a problem the higher chance that one of those solutions will suit me completely.

- Jesse McNelis

>>Why are people doing this? There are over 500 linux distributions now. We do not need more. People need to stop this and start working together.<<

Because it's easier to fork an existing project etc. then to finish GNU/HURD? *rolls eyes*

Edited 2006-11-05 16:46

Hurd could be done today. Take BSD, call it hurd and BOOM we are done. But the HURD is more of a "do it right" than a "get it done now" sort of project.

***but yes I agree it is taking forever

But stallman is happy we have a free kernel and so am I. Now I just want to make sure it is truly a free kernel.

Exactly my words!? All those 'free software hippies' should stop smoking all that weed.

Why on earth make 100 debian forks, instead of just providing the things you are unhappy with as seperate scripts, packages, whatever.

Yes i know, i knooow.. "it violates the licenses we belive in, and they are not free enough! yada yada yada..." :p

Well, it's a free world, and it's cool that you can tweak it to your needs, but please stop making a fuzz about it, and save all your homebrew distros for yourself. I'm so tired of seeing 256 screenshots and 10 pages of reviews from a standard ubuntu/debian everytime someone made a new fork.

Why is the FSF a nuisance? Without FSF there wouldn't be this world of free software which we now live on.

You answered your own question, by stating the FSF myth.

Here's what we wouldn't have without the free software foundation: emacs.

There's been free software since the first Fortran compiler was freely made available in 1954.

All the FSF has done is invent a silly definition of "freedom" that really restricts one set of rights in favor of another.

Why is the FSF a nuisance? Without FSF there wouldn't be this world of free software which we now live on.

No, the FSF wasn't able to bring us a world of free software with their no-compromises policy. It took linux and the BSD's to do that, and RMS is still pissed.

gcc was an enabler, no denying it, and I've got no issues with giving the FSF props for what gcc has accomplished. I'm just getting tired of watching them try to tear it all down because it didn't work out the way they expected.

Does anyone else think Moulinneuf wants to sleep with RMS? He really is a 1st class loon. Always amusing to read his evangelical rants though :o) I wonder if he still lives with his mom? I'd say most definately.

Dont project your sexual fantasies on me , sorry to have to inform you that unlike you I aint attracted to man.

Their site reads like gospel/propoganda/ignorant american 'freedom' crap.

They've done alot to hinder unidealistic/realistic adoption of OSS.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, all stallman has done is emacs, the worlds most obfusicated text editor. Sure you can learn to use it (and feel all 1337), and be better for it, but it really is a rediculous program.

Edited 2006-11-05 06:48

OSS is what's crap its only one feature of Free Software.

I am sorry to tell you reality. The GPL and FSF is what make GNU/Linux exist and so great.

If you can do better then Emacs under the GPLv3 be my guess. Emacs is so rediculous ( make haters of free software red in the face due to there ridiculous lies ) that to this days it still maintained and supported :

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

Nobody is forcing you to use GNU/Linux and the GPL.

A bit offtopic, but .. what about Firefox ?

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

Edited 2006-11-04 22:44

I removed the restricted drivers/modules from Ubuntu's kernel and the system still functions for me. I lost my wireless card support(Atheros), but I have another one with free software driver support I just have not changed it out yet.

I don't use flash or real player or anything like that.

My Ubuntu system is totally usable. In spirit, its basically gnewSense. I would have 0, re ZERO problems using gnewSense(what its just Ubuntu minus the non-free stuff?) if it was a bit more established. I tried it the other day, its basically Dapper with a somewhat different theme and less hoopla over main/universe/multiverse, which honestly is an improvement. Yes Ubunteros, slamming all packages into one REPO is an improvement because one should not need to enable universe to snag packages, most people will need to, just enable the thing from the get OR make it all one. I know main is supported and universe is not but... Dunno having it all in one is easier else just enable universe from the start.

I run a free software system in spirit, but I guess since its Ubuntu its not? Well, it is and I don't rely on propretary software.

People can hate on Stallman all they want thats fine. Though I think the point should be made that you can still use whateverthef--k software you want on your Linux boxen right?

No one is restricting your right to run Microsoft Office and IE on your Linux machine instead of OpenOffice and Firefox.

And its fair play that the FSF create the products it wants to right? Dunno how they are forcing anyone to do anything that they don't want to do.

Just because someone might be vocally against running propretary software does not mean they are forcing you to do anything. Same goes for anything really, I am pretty harsh against fast food, but you can still go and spend your money on a burger and fries.

It strikes me as amusing that the Free Software Foundation, which is all about "Freedom", spends most of their time telling people what they can't do.

I mean, who's Freedom are they actually protecting? The developers? No, because they put restrictions on what you can, and can't do in terms of linking and distributing. If you disagree with them, god help you.

Distributors/Vendors? Well, again, it's all about what you can't do when you distribute a piece of code. And sometimes, they're a bit vague about that, until they explain that just because you're using upstream code, doesn't exempt you from having to make the entire source tree available. Even if you didn't modify 90% of it.

Users? Well, ok, they don't limit the users so much, but their limitations imposed on developers and distributors make it much more difficult for a user to actually, well, *enjoy* using linux, for example.

I personally think that the goals of the FSF have very little to do with "Freedom", and everything to do with "control".

I'm a longtime user, and advocate, of Open Source. I'm all about the community. But I don't believe I have the right to dictate what you can, and can't do, with a piece of software you, or someone else, wrote.

Limit developers? How is that?

Tivo take Free software, put it in a box and lock it down using hardware to restrict me. They remove my freedom to modify and develop different software, and then _RUN_ it on the machine. Now I don't have a Tivo, but this could easily start to happen on more machines, till it ends up on laptops and desktop computers... Now where has my freedom as a developer gone?

>> I personally think that the goals of the FSF have very
>>little to do with "Freedom", and everything to do with
>>"control".

I personally think it is about saying that people should have freedom to do whatever they like with what they have bought, that they should not be restricted by licenses. That this is about removing power, when that power is used by one person or group over another, but retaining an individuals power to do what they want for themselves, but making sure that person doesn't use power over another to remove freedom. I feel that they are saying that just because someone is a developer does not mean they can act like a master to those who receive the software developed by them, that the user should not have to agree to a license that tells them what they can do, because that is an infringement on my freedom.

I have a laptop which unfortunately requires binary firmware for the ethernet and wireless card, an e100 and ipw3945 respectively.

The binary firmware restricts me in being able to pull apart and examine and understand everything about _my_ machine. I have bought this laptop, and it is now mine. Personal property is a very important part of freedom, when people remove your power to do what you want with your hardware/property then they remove your freedom. People should not have the ability to tell me what I can do with my hardware and the software running on it, being able to tell me what I can do is taking away my freedom to do as I like. In turn, if I sell this laptop to someone else, I should not have power over that person to tell them what they can do once they have bought it from me.

Do you really think the Microsoft fanboys are any less fanatical? As for the non-fanatics, they're only not "fanatical" in that they ignore problems. I'd much rather be "fanatical" if it helps to solve a problem than sit back on my fat bank account pretending a problem doesn't exist.

Just to clarify that: I do NOT have a problem with fat bank accounts. I DO have a problem with people who assert that, in the pursuit of fat bank accounts, nothing is immoral or morality/legality does not apply.

"And this is one of the problems"

Why would telling the truth be a problem ? Its only one when your the liar at the other end.

"you're a fanatical group"

Yes , I like free software support it and fund it and make sure its not compromised. That make me coherent with my choices. I dont just take and dont contribute anything back.

"and like any fanatical group"

You do know that the vast majority of fan group have to do with sports , would you call those fanatics dangerous ? There the one with season tickets and who wear the colors of there favorite teams.

"potentially dangerous."

What's the most dangerous thing with Free Software that all software be free , right , build nuke bunkers and hide underground and start shelving emergency necessities.

"the GNU system, provide a rather complete and usable operating system today."

You really should have included the very next sentence from the paragraph:

It is not ready for production use, as there are still many bugs and missing features.

It's funny how the HURD guys took an already working OS 15 years ago and now don't have a working production version of it. If that ain't failing, I don't know what is.

Apparently you don't know the history of GCC. The version worked on my Stallman died. There was a fork called EGCC that was worked on by other people, mostly from Cygnus, later RedHat. The FSF gave up control of GCC to the GCC management team, in return for which they got to still call it an FSF project.

Almost none of the work on what is now GCC was done by anyone from the FSF. It was mostly done by people from Cygnus and RedHat, and now CodeSourcery, with a big infusion of technology from HP and Intel for Itanium.

"You really should have included the very next sentence from the paragraph: "

Why the point is its finish and work , the point your trying to fasely proove is that it dont work and is not finished , not ready for production and still as bugs dont mean its not working and finished , the same thing is being said for Windows , Mac OS X , GNU/Linux depending on who you talk to.

"it's funny how the HURD guys took an already working OS 15 years ago"

What OS did the Hurd took ? Its a kernel ! They invented a completely new kernel.

" If that ain't failing, I don't know what is."

You dont know what failing is then. Its not taking decade and many try to make a product that work and is Free Software. HURD does not have for goal to beat Linux or any other Kernel , it as for goal to be free software and do something different.

"Apparently you don't know the history of GCC."

No , Apparently I dont SELECT certain part of GCC history to make a false point like you do.

"The version worked on my Stallman died."

http://gcc.gnu.org/

Dont look dead to anyone who live in reality.

"There was a fork called EGCC that was worked on by other people"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGCS

"In computing, EGCS (Experimental/Enhanced GNU Compiler System, pronounced "eggs") was a compiler system which forked from GCC in 1997 and was re-merged in April 1999."

"Almost none of the work on what is now GCC was done by anyone from the FSF"

Thats what you want people to believe , but logfile and reality say otherwise.

"The FSF gave up control"

The FSF is about Free Software.

"It was mostly done by people from Cygnus and RedHat, and now CodeSourcery, with a big infusion of technology from HP and Intel for Itanium."

Since when is FSF about refusing and obstructing contribution from others ? As long as you do Free Software and contribute free software , EVERYONE AND ANYONE is welcome.

EVEN you can contribute. Your selective memory and false point is irrelevant and false in the face of entire history and reality.

FSF is about Free Software.

"You really should have included the very next sentence from the paragraph: "

Why the point is its finish and work

Um, no. The sentence after the one I quoted says it's not even finished.

"it's funny how the HURD guys took an already working OS 15 years ago"

What OS did the Hurd took ? Its a kernel ! They invented a completely new kernel.


Um, no. They borrowed the kernel from Mach, which was a working OS 15 years ago. They did that after they failed to finish their "from the ground up all new" microkernel.


"The version worked on my Stallman died."

http://gcc.gnu.org/

Dont look dead to anyone who live in reality.


Doesn't look like any of the code was written by Stallman either.

FSF is about Free Software.

Um, no. FSF is about Richard Stallman's ego. That's why they're wasting time and effort on nuisance. They're hoping for a bit of reflected glory from the Ubuntu work.

By the way, please don't quote wikipedia at me about events I was an active participant in, kthx.

No you where not , you lived in those day , but you had ZERO part in it.

I wonder, given that your entire understanding comes from wikipedia, how you could possibly know who was there and what part they played?

CMU's Mach operating system was more than just the Mach microkernel, although that badly designed and implemented microkernel was Mach's only unique feature. Mach was Rick Rashid's successor to Accent, and DARPA required that it have a UNIX compatability layer, to get their funding. You would know this if you went to CMU instead of wikipedia for your Mach knowledge.

isn't done today, so it couldn't be done today.
...
The history of HURD is a good indicator of why the FSF is a nuisance rather than a contributor. It's a perfect example of saying one thing and doing another.

And no, the GPL doesn't get credit for Linux. Linux is more popular than the BSD licensed BSD systems because of a quirk of timing and because Linus Torvalds is better at dealing with hoards of helpful clubies than the people who founded the various BSD projects.

....
In summary: overall, a minor nuisance

I didn't say implement HURD on BSD, I said fork BSD and since it is a complete OS - call it GNU/GNU and we are done. What has the HURD said and then done differently? They said we are going to do it right, and we know what we are looking for and so far it has takent them a mighty long time but they are still doing it.

All I can say is that while you think linux was a matter of timing then that same timing should of occured under the LinusTorvalds license. Wonder why he went GPL? It is more popular than BSD because not everyone wanted to contribute to something that someone else could take and close up and not offer their changes back to the project.

If you are so against GNU/FSF then at least remove all the gnu packages on your system. Go ahead and remove core-utils. I didn't see that one mentioned in your rant. I was ready to remove the linux kernel because I do not agree with what it has become. Should't you do the same if GNU/FSF is such a nuisance. Let me know when you remove core-utils along with all of this software...
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/

Edited 2006-11-06 12:57

I didn't say implement HURD on BSD, I said fork BSD and since it is a complete OS - call it GNU/GNU and we are done.

Which is the point I thought I was addressing. Why not just grab open solaris and call it GNU/GNU? It'd still not be the HURD that FSF intended, and like nuisance it's still just a way to grab attention from someone else's work.

If you are so against GNU/FSF then at least remove all the gnu packages on your system.

I should remove code that was mostly written by people outside the FSF because the FSF is a minor nuisance? I think not.

Actually, there is a lot of crap in GNU, and for commercial systems I've produced, we've not used core-utils or any other part of the non-GCC userland.

"and for commercial systems I've produced"

Please , do show a link to commercial system YOU have produced.

Funny that you mention this, since most ad-hominem attacks in this very news came from a free software proponent...