gNewSense Distro Frees Ubuntu

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. "

Comments

the name?

[Brian Gordon]

What's with the weird name? I get the "nusiance" reference but unless they're trying to somehow imply GNU-siance the g seems pretty random. Awful confusing- why do we need random names for all these ubuntu derivatives.. how about freebuntu or something?

Re:the name?

[bsDaemon]

They are trying to imply the GNUism. This is an officially FSF-sanctioned distro.

Re:the name?

[Daimanta]

Or Jumpy Jackal?
Jolly Jellyfish?
Joking Jay?
Jittery Jaguar?

Re:the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

how about freebuntu or something? ...because freebuntu is actually zulu for 'ethnic cleansing'

Re:the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free and Open Source, because all coders should live like RMS.

Re:the name?

[Khaed]

I believe there's a hard push in the GNU world to crap up product names with a G similar to the way KDE craps up names with a K.

The only name I ever remember liking that came out of that was "Killustrator" and I think they had to change it because Adobe are wankers.

Re:the name?

[UncleTogie]

Free and Open Source, because all coders should live like RMS.

Rephrased properly:

Free and Open Source, because all coders should have the option to live as they choose...

Re:the name?

[commodoresloat]

So why isn't it just called GNUbuntu?

Re:the name?

[UncleTogie]

If your sales/marketing department can't find a way to sell something that's free, then you're in trouble...

We do quite a number of Ubuntu installs per month. If I wanted, I could substitute gNewSense and the users wouldn't really notice the difference in most cases.

We get paid for these installs, too. It supports my family quite nicely... so try pulling someone else's leg...

Re:the name?

[el americano]

First of all, this is a dupe: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/01/1153204

Secondly, there is already a free version of Ubuntu, called Gobuntu. gNewSense exists because "pure" isn't good enough for some people. Some of the issues were:

-Gobuntu uses the Ubuntu repositories, so you could, if you wanted, install non-free software.
-The binaries had non-free removed, but the source packages, if you downloaded them, would not.
-Some Ubuntu OS "enhancements" encouraged the downloading of proprietary software.
-Gobuntu/Ubuntu development uses Launchpad, which is a non-open-source server application. (Nevermind that it's not runnning on your computer. Nevermind that you couldn't modify Canonical's version even if it was OSS. Nevermind that these same people use Google, etc.)

So, if any of these reasons make any sense to you, or if you'd just like a pat on the back from RMS, then gNS might be for you.

Re:the name?

[el americano]

Except that the lone G usually signifies Gnome. They've admitted that it's not a great name, but they say that they haven't come up with anything they like better. If it depends on their ability to come up with a good name, I think this one is here to stay.

Re:the name?

[el americano]

Free and Open Source, because all coders should have the option to live as they choose...

Unless they choose non-free software, because then the OS should make it more difficult, otherwise they might hurt themselves ;-)

Re:the name?

[gambolt]

The G in Gnome stands for GNU.

Re:the name?

[Alarindris]

Jentle Jiant!

Re:the name?

[FishWithAHammer]

First: congratulations on your success, I hope it continues.

Second: that's fine for you, as you're providing what amounts to hardware services. Programmers? Not so much.

Re:the name?

[FishWithAHammer]

Right, but in a general sense, the "g" in applications tends to suggest GNOME. That's what he's talking about.

Re:the name?

[MrDERP]

No thanks, I'll keep my Ubuntu that works with my hardware, flash thatactually works, wifi etc, pressure needs to be put on the comanies, and over time they will release specs/drivers, reverse enginering just produces inferior code. I want the best of both worlds, why not? Do I really give a shit that Flash (that works well) isn't open source? Nope .. I just want it to WORK.

Re:the name?

[gambolt]

It tends to suggest that it, like gnome, is part of the GNU project.

Re:the name?

[Lemming Mark]

> similar to the way KDE kraps up names with a K.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:the name?

[CannonballHead]

Mmmm not really, does it? Lots of things are relased under a GNU License, but Gnome is specific software relased under it.

Re:the name?

[gambolt]

something can be released under the GPL without being tied to the GNU project. Apples and oranges.

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

Re:the name?

[Peaker]

Actually, Flash doesn't work very well. It still crashes, and running it in a 64-bit Firefox is a pain.

And this is a direct result of it being closed-source software.

Putting pressure on the OSS community to solve these needs with opensource code could help us get rid of these closed-source trouble makers.

Re:the name?

[sharperguy]

Secondly, there is already a free version of Ubuntu, called Gobuntu. gNewSense exists because "pure" isn't good enough

Looks like someone didnt RTFA...

Re:the name?

[UncleTogie]

First, thanks for the kind thoughts.

Second, it'd appear you and I might have a different view of what "hardware services" means... Could you please fill us in on your definition of the same?

Re:the name?

[Khaed]

Man I wish I'd thought of that.

Re:the name?

[batkiwi]

Running it in 64 bit firefox in ubuntu is as easy as going to any site with flash and clicking on the "you need to install a plugin" notification.

I'll admit it does hang sometimes, but the same thing happens on windows with IE at times.

Re:the name?

[FishWithAHammer]

Second, it'd appear you and I might have a different view of what "hardware services" means... Could you please fill us in on your definition of the same? You're handling hardware directly. You're performing a specific service for a client by installing software. Not to demean what you do, but it's like being the electrician who hooks it all together; your time is being directly used and so you can charge whoever wants Ubuntu.

That money isn't going on to the actual programmers, though. It's a lot harder for programmers to make money off open-source code unless they're working for someone else (working for Red Hat or Novell or whoever). That's what the great-grandparent post, the one before mine, was referring to. In those cases, it's damned hard to make any sort of living (contrary to what rms likes to claim).

Re:the name?

[pizzach]

I say we petition tho KDE devs to switch the name of KDE to one that includes the K, but is silent. (like the G in gnome is.) Here is a preliminary list of candidates. I vote for Knave!

Re:the name?

[ibbie]

That money isn't going on to the actual programmers, though. It does, however, provide an open platform for programmers to develop for. Something that is way the hell easier (and cheaper) to do than a closed system, where you have to pay out the wazoo to have access to the system's API and/or documentation.

Some of us program for money as well as contribute to FOSS. Making our day jobs easier is most definitely not a Bad Thing.

Re:the name?

[MichaelTheDrummer]

That would be GNU *slash* 'Buntu thank you very much :P

Re:the name?

[el americano]

Are you saying that Gobuntu doesn't exist? Download it here:
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/gobuntu/releases/7.10/release/

or here:
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/gobuntu/daily/current/

Maybe part of your problem is that the FA is wrong. Mark Shuttleworth would not rather focus on gNewSense, but if the community is not interested in Canonical's Gobuntu work, then that community should go off and do their thing, and he will try to support them wherever it makes sense. In other words, if less collaboration is what they want, then that can be accommodated.

Re:the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

its not just weird. it's flat-out retarded. Its crap like this that almost guarantees lack of mainstream attention.

PHB: "So what'ts this new Linux product you're talking about"
Techie: "Well sir, it's called GUH-Nuisance"

PHB: "Lulz. That name is teh ghey"

Re:the name?

[FromellaSlob]

Secondly, there is already a free version of Ubuntu, called Gobuntu. gNewSense exists because "pure" isn't good enough for some people. Considering the fact that gNewsSense was created before Gobuntu, that's a crock of shit.

Re:the name?

[MrNaz]

Agreed, because RMS and Linus are both destitute penniless wanderers.

Re:the name?

[thsths]

Actually, Flash doesn't work very well. It still crashes, and running it in a 64-bit Firefox is a pain. Flash works quite well, certainly compared to *cough* Java applets. A 64bit Java plugin is "being planned". And I thought this was 2008...

Re:the name?

[couchslug]

In that case, GNUbuntu would be a better fit and show the Ubuntu connection.

Re:the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there doesn't seem to be much developer interest in maintaining Gobuntu and Canonical is not interested in doing it themselves, which led to there not being an 8.04 release, so the latest version of Gobuntu is not up to date.

Re:the name?

[bsDaemon]

While that is probably the case, I don't think its part of the GNU project. GNOME is, GNUStep is, GCC and EMACS are.

GNU is the OS. When HURD is finally done, GNU will just be GNU, unless its GNU/Linux. gNewSense is GNU/Linux.

Or something. Frankly, I find the whole situation to be rather tedious.

Re:the name?

[couchslug]

I stand corrected: "gnUbuntu" (with the small gn).

"Frankly, I find the whole situation to be rather tedious."

gNo shit!

Re:the name?

[FishWithAHammer]

You're not quite right here.. You don't have to pay "out the wazoo" for Microsoft's documentation. The MSDN documentation for Win32, .NET, DirectX, et al. is available for free. (I don't know about Apple and OS X; I prefer to have a working computer, not a pretty one.)

While having the API available could be nice in some edge cases, it's meaningless (and a bit dangerous, given Linux's habit of changing things without much warning) for most programmers to be mucking about in the API.

There's still no money going back to the original programmers when UncleTogie installs Ubuntu on a user's PC. That is what makes it infeasible for small developers to make a living on code--either you contract out to or work directly for a company that has the technical wherewithal to support Linux development (IBM, Red Hat, whoever) or you starve. With closed-source software you can at least make a living wage off your work.

Re:the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with the weird name? I get the "nusiance" reference but unless they're trying to somehow imply GNU-siance the g seems pretty random. Awful confusing- why do we need random names for all these ubuntu derivatives.. how about freebuntu or something? The reference is of course to NEW Sense not nuisance.

Re:the name?

[aix tom]

it's meaningless ... for most programmers to be mucking about in the API.

Huh? So most developers don't use any of the given APIs for keyboard and mouse input, display and network stuff, file operation, etc, but write all that anew for each of their applications?

Man, if we could convince them to do otherwise that would mean we could free up man-millennia of coding time for FOSS!

Re:the name?

[Tacvek]

Agreed, because RMS and Linus are both destitute penniless wanderers.

Well, RMS just about is. My understanding is that when he is not travelling he actually LIVES in his office in MIT, where he still works an an unpaid research associate. I honestly half suspect that the only reason he still has that office is that nobody is willing to kick him out. He puts little emphasis in hygenics, and often could be mistaken for just another homeless person. Now, much of this is more by choice than anything else, but he still acts a surprising amount like a "destitue penniless wanderer".

Linus on the other hand is most definitely not a "destitute penniless wanderer", but is not filthy rich either.

Re:the name?

[Khaed]

How about Knickers? Imagine the possibilities of software named after underwear. (Still an improvement over GIMP, though.)

Re:the name?

[FishWithAHammer]

You have documentation for that in the MSDN, so obviously using I/O, network, et al. isn't a problem with closed-source software.

It's fucking useless for most programmers to be screwing with the environment's code.

Are you retarded?

Re:the name?

[Lennie]

If I understand it correctly, there was a period where he was at the office so often, that he felt going home and back just to sleep was a waste of time, so he stayed at the office (and because of the extra expanse didn't need/have a home).

This however isn't the current situation as I've been meant to believe.

Re:the name?

[Lennie]

You could also choose to install libswfdec or gnash instead of 'normal' flash.

For me installing libswfdec has gotten me pretty good results. I haven't missed anything so far (it's only been 3 weeks though).

I just had 1 video going a bit to fast for a moment, pressing pause and play again solved that.

And I've not had any crashes, like with flash.

Gnash on Ubuntu wasn't as good as libswfdec as far as I could see from my testing.

Re:the name?

[aix tom]

Are you retarded? Perhaps a little, but you seem to outrank me, as demonstrated by that question.

Re:the name?

[Tacvek]

Quite possibly so. I have not had a chance to ask him myself, and the information I have come across on the Internet could very well be out of date.

Re:the name?

[cparker15]

The 'G' in GNOME isn't silent.

Re:the name?

[cparker15]

It's actually a reference to both: http://www.gnewsense.org/index.php?n=FAQ.FAQ#toc4

4. Why the name gNewSense?

The name originated as Gnusiance as a reference to RMS's GPG key, but was later changed to gNewSense by bbrazil and ompaul to also capture the New Sense of the distribution and as a pun on GNU.

5. How do you pronounce gNewSense?

There is no definitive pronunciation, but guh-NEW-sense is preferred.

Re:the name?

[el americano]

If the gNewSense people were satisfied with Gobuntu, then gNewSense would not need to be maintained. However they continue to insist that their version is free and Gobuntu is not, for the reasons I stated. If you think that's not correct, feel free to comment constructively, instead of what you actually posted.

Furthermore, Paul O'Malley was working on Gnubuntu and Ubuntu-libre before gNewSense was ever conceived, so perhaps you meant to say that gNewSense was released before Gobuntu - big difference, especially if you're planning to respond so arrogantly.

Stallmanites strike again

[washort]

rhymes with "nuisance"

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

rhymes with "nuisance"

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.

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[Drakonik]

Seriously. The first time I was told about The GIMP, I asked my friend to provide me a link to the actual site. I was too scared to do a search for "GIMP".

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[mooingyak]

A friend of mine wanted to look up a "Dick's Sporting Goods" store, and without really thinking had typed 'dicks.com' into his browser. He looked at it (the text, just the text, he hadn't hit enter) for a moment and decided to try the whole phrase in Google instead.

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[somersault]

There's a reason why we geeks aren't in marketing, and I think those are two of 'em. Perhaps our great maths and language skills?

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[somersault]

I have tried it before, and you're safe. Unlike one of my ex-coworkers who tried looking up greased nipples (there's lots of great things that engineers use, nuts, flanges, pumps..). He didn't get fired for it of course, he just happened to leave a few months ago ;)

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[mrsteveman1]

Yea well, if you've ever been to one of their stores, the sign is way up in the air.

Its sort of funny, to see a huge sign up in the air that says DICKS.

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[UncleTogie]

Its sort of funny, to see a huge sign up in the air that says DICKS.

I get the same reaction when Air Force One passes overhead here, too!

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[bjkinney]

Searching for a site on Google or another search engine is always a good idea before typing in random URLs. How many people interested in the Python programming language have accidentally navigated to the python.com. NSFW

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[Miseph]

And if you've ever bought anything from them, you'll realize that the DICKS are actually right behind you...

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[nuzak]

Or pythong.org

I still shudder.

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[el americano]

The Colorado Rapids play at Dick's Sporting Goods Park. The locals just say that they are going down to "The Dick". So you see, these things happen in the commercial world too.

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[NotBornYesterday]

SWMBO was looking for a site that sells gourmet cookies, or brownies, or something, called 'fatwitch.com'.(SFW) She typed 'fatbitch.com' (NSFW) by mistake. Her reaction was an unholy mix of horror and uncontrolable laughter. The original site is now gone, I believe. Probably just as well.

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Language skillz?

Re:Stallmanites strike again

[J.Y.Kelly]

I remember having a similar problem trying to find where to download laTex...

OK, fine...

[jamstar7]

Now there's a Ubuntu knockoff that developers will like because of the totally free software basis of this distro. But as the article says, it's not for everybody. Who wants to give up their wireless networking capability on a notebook? Not me. Who wants to give up 3D capability in X? Not me.

Re:OK, fine...

[paroneayea]

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:OK, fine...

[Max Threshold]

that gives incentive for them to be developed

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.

Re:OK, fine...

[Timothy Brownawell]

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. Really? How does a distro with no (sane) users give incentive for companies to do anything? I'd expect much larger incentives from the ability to offload driver maintenance work and potentially better compatibility with new features that they'd get from letting others fix/improve their drivers. The incentives would come from being able to do more with less, not the mostly invisible grandstanding of some fringe group.

Re:OK, fine...

[Anpheus]

No, it gives strawmen the incentive to develop free and open source drivers while everyone else is doing it for the heck of it, because they can, or because they want to.

It doesn't give anyone any added incentive but the people who use it. So, unless you plan on coding the GNewSense wireless drivers and ATI/nVidia chipset drivers, you're bringing up a strawman.

Anyway, people are working on ATI/nVidia drivers that are free in the GNU definition anyway, with or without the existence of these 'very free' distributions.

I think the only purpose that distros like GNewSense serve, other than one's own ideology, is to show how far Linux and open source has come (very, very far) and how far Linux and open source has to go (still quite a ways.)

Re:OK, fine...

[chromatic]

To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base, not some fringe OSS purist crap.

Yeah, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated that a little temporary convenience thanks to binary blobs is acceptable.

Re:OK, fine...

[p0tat03]

Yeah, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated that a little temporary convenience thanks to binary blobs is acceptable.

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...

[Darkness404]

Yeah, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated that a little temporary convenience thanks to binary blobs is acceptable.

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...

[pinkstuff]

Yip, a large user base is the only way to make sure the drivers are open sourced. I mean, look at all the open source drivers for windows.

Re:OK, fine...

[jddj]

To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base, not some fringe OSS purist crap.

Doesn't this sound like something Steve Ballmer might say? Why so dismissive of the wellspring of so much Linux development?

Re:OK, fine...

[Jherek Carnelian]

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 the people who decide what hardware they want to buy based on if it will work on their distro of choice. For example, Intel's video drivers are 100% Free and are plenty good enough for non-gaming 3D (compiz, etc).

To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base, not some fringe OSS purist crap. Sorry, but how does that follow? If a distro already has the widest possible user base using proprietary drivers, just where is the incentive for the hw manufacturers to lift a finger?

Re:OK, fine...

[iamstretchypanda]

There are 2 aspects to the solution for getting corporate change.

1) A large user base
2) That user base requesting a feature

Nvidia, for example, has no reason to open source their drivers for windows because, quite frankly, not enough windows users care.

Re:OK, fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware manufacturers will have an easier time if their drivers are open because we'll be able to work on them too.

Re:OK, fine...

[Wordsmith]

Why can't the office be well-lit? Light drivers not working yet?

Re:OK, fine...

[ELProphet]

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

Perhaps. Why not try both? Albino-nerd reverse engineers drivers, win for everyone (except his genetics). Ubuntu gets these benefits, user base grows. BigCorpCo sees user base, releases free drivers. I don't see any problem with either side of this scenario, and the ENTIRE POINT of F/OSS is to provide what every capitalist wants- competition. In fact, F/OSS has done a pretty damned good job at being competitive in a product-to-product match up; it's only Microsoft's business practices that really seem to be holding Linux back at this point.

Re:OK, fine...

[powerlinekid]

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.

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:OK, fine...

[Braino420]

Nvidia, for example, has no reason to open source their drivers for windows because, quite frankly, not enough windows users care.

I think that when Linux finally has a relatively large user base, the majority of them won't care either. There are a lot of people on the Linux side that want a large user base simply to get more attention from hardware manufacturers. This is because, to many people, proprietary drivers are better than no drivers. I think we're seeing this too with gNewSense and Ubuntu where the majority of users would rather have some proprietary drivers and non-free software than no software or less functional software.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

For most people? Yes, everyone's glad now that we have Firefox binaries .

Anyone else besides gentoo even bothering to download the source?

Re:OK, fine...

[larry bagina]

Preview (OS X), foxit (windows), and xpdf/kpdf/gpdf/ghostview/etc all view pdfs much better than Adobe's PDF viewer. That's competition on 100% of tha platforms adobe is on (give or take cell phones). If Adobe's feeling the pressure, they aren't showing it.

Re:OK, fine...

[gambolt]

I don't quite get why people are vegan. Who wants to give up cheese and steak? I respect it as a personally valid lifestyle decision and moral stance, however. This is a lot like that, IMHO.

Re:OK, fine...

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

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.

I predict the day I can safely ignore the need for 'free' and opensource drivers will come long before the day there is an actual need for them.

Outside of a happy feeling, what do you gain by knowing all your software is free? I guess if you worked in a really restrictive environment where the BSA might raid you it would be nice to somewhat speed up the audits, but outside of that I really can't think of a reason.

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?

We already have as free of a desktop as we're going to get. Firefox is also not entirely free in the sense of this OS, either. Firefox is like ubuntu out of the box -- Free until someone goes and installs Flash or uses gmail or whatever else-- It's free at its base, but not everything it uses is free. This would be like someone forking firefox and removing its ability to link to non-free plugins or load non-creative commons websites. You could make the same argument about a need for a free internet too, and you'd get the same response from me -- Nice in theory, but I'll be over here watching youtube.

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.

I already know what would work and what wouldn't -- No gaming, poor media playback (no mp3, aac, or arguably anything that isn't ogg theora or vorbis. Just because theres an opensource decoder doesn't mean it isn't patented to the point of needing a license(mp3)), poor wireless as pointed out in the parent post..

All for what?

It wasn't even just a theory before now, just install debian and stay away from non-free and you had the same thing.

Re:OK, fine...

[MrDERP]

Yeah, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated that a little temporary convenience thanks to binary blobs is acceptable.

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.

EXACTLY.. what GOOD will come out of this? Seems like a waste of time, instead of a new distro make another one better, companies are going to ignore gNEW..whatever "nuisance" as someone said.. I want my distro to work with all the bells n' whistles

Re:OK, fine...

[Max Threshold]

I think you mean, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated a desire to use their binary blobs and a willingness to do all the work of packaging and distributing them. Companies are starting to see the benefits of open design in the form of offloading code maintenance and tech support. The only thing holding them back is negotiating open licenses with the owners of the technology they themselves licensed to produce the binary drivers.

Re:OK, fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that when Linux finally has a relatively large user base,

LOL.

I think I may die of laughter right here...

Re:OK, fine...

[extrasolar]

You know, you don't absolutely have to use and buy that hardware with the proprietary drivers, you know? And, if you find a free alternative, that might give them incentive to make their drivers free, which gives us knowledge about how their hardware works benefiting all of us. Let them write the drivers, it's their hardware.

Re:OK, fine...

[laddiebuck]

You're missing the long view. You call it purist crap, and people have said the same of GNU at so many stages -- and look, today we have a totally free system, precisely because people have _not_ compromised, but stuck to an uncompromisingly free system and developed and worked on it. Who gives a toss, in the long run, about any particular hardware manufacturers today, about Linux's market share, about 3d video drivers, or any of that? There will be totally free 3d video drivers, there will be free drivers, there will be all of what people use proprietary components for today. It's by focussing on that long view that FLOSS has gotten as amazingly far as it has today, and only by keeping focussed on that will it get there. We cannot stop and say "this is good enough" while there are any proprietary components needed for the systems we use. And as a byproduct of this development effort, other people, naysayers or otherwise, will be able to use the system and join the FLOSS world.

Re:OK, fine...

[Kjella]

I think we're seeing this too with gNewSense and Ubuntu where the majority of users would rather have some proprietary drivers and non-free software than no software or less functional software. You forgot the biggest reason - to most people it's not gNewSense vs Ubuntu, it's either a Linux stack or a Windows/Mac stack. I use proprietary drivers. Why? Because otherwise I'd probably stick with Windows, so how could I possibly be worse off having one bit of proprietary instead of a whole stack? As long as Linux is in the single digit marketshare, nobody is going to fight for a fraction of a fraction. If Linux has a huge marketshare, sure there'd be closed source products but others would open source (or at least give specs) to differentiate themselves. Why do you think people use open source, to have a shitty experience? No, they use it because allegedely this OSS development model works and gives better results. That means a company opening up their hardware, OSS devlopers doing their magic, then people use it because it's better. Expecting people to use crap because it's free as in speech would never get Linux anywhere. It might work for some zealots and developers working to actually make it usable but it will never catch on. I'm all for using open drivers but then the product must be there for me to use first, otherwise it can't do its function. It's like asking a music lover to buy a half-assembled stereo because it's really cool and comes with schematics and any electrical engineering student can tinker with it. He'd just go WTF?

Re:OK, fine...

[j79zlr]

Where are these mythical open source ATi drivers? They promised and failed to deliver in the past and looks like more of the same. Sure there are OS drivers for cards made 5 years ago, but to get new cards with 3D you still need the fglrx blob, which has been quite buggy for quite some time. I replaced all of my ATi cards with nVidia's and haven't been happier. I understand the importance of opening drivers, but until they actually do it, I will stick with the more stable blob of binaries which at the moment nVidia has hands down.

Re:OK, fine...

[Darkness404]

PDFs are (at least somewhat) open. There is little need for Adobe to release a non-bloatware, open-source PDF reader. However, with Flash they should as Flash is not open. Adobe is not needed for PDFs, they are for Flash.

Re:OK, fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now there's a Ubuntu knockoff that developers will like because of the totally free software basis of this distro. But as the article says, it's not for everybody. Who wants to give up their wireless networking capability on a notebook? Not me. Who wants to give up 3D capability in X? Not me.

You mean you don't want the freedom of a laptop that doesn't function?

Re:OK, fine...

[chromatic]

The only thing holding them back is negotiating open licenses with the owners of the technology they themselves licensed to produce the binary drivers.

Do you have a source for that? I talked to a couple of driver developers from NVidia last year, and they said the company's position was that they wouldn't get sufficient value from non-NVidia employees even if there were no licensing problems (S3 texture compression being the big one).

Perhaps things have changed in a year, but eight years after that little crusade which finally convinced NVidia to release beta binary blobs, I remain dubious that end-user pressure matters, at all. If Linux-based render farms decided not to use binary blobs, we might get somewhere.

Re:OK, fine...

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

Open source drivers would be nice, but I fail to see how this distro does anything to further that goal.

Well it would if a lot of people started using it. Now, you may say that's almost certainly not going to happen, and I'd agree with you on that (for the short-to-medium term at least). But it definitely wouldn't happen if it hadn't been made.

Re:OK, fine...

[Darkness404]

No, it would be like someone being vegan and trying to get everyone else to not eat cheese/steak and not only making it voluntary but trying to move for a cheese/steak ban. Honestly, is there a point for a 100% open-source distro, yes, is taking Ubuntu and taking out precisely what made Ubuntu popular and calling it totally *free* a good idea? Not really.

Re:OK, fine...

[paroneayea]

Render farms don't need 3d acceleration, as they aren't doing anything real-time, so that's a non-issue. But yes, the point does stand that if people actually refused to use blobs, and someone offered a non-binary blob solution, there may incentive to compete with that.

Re:OK, fine...

[RiotingPacifist]

OTOH nvidias commitment to produce stable(ish) drivers means most linux users with nvidia cards ( the 98% that arnt stalmanists can use 3d graphics in X) and much like myself, nvidia couldn't give a flying one about the 2% of 4% of computer users, who cant use them.

Re:OK, fine...

[RiotingPacifist]

I got a laptop and went the otherway because i needed a new laptop fast, and i couldnt be less happy with ATI :(. I had beryl working on nvidia back when i had to install proprietary drivers without envy or any of that stuff and they still worked better than ATI do today.

Re:OK, fine...

[RiotingPacifist]

why?
if somebody else offered a non-binary blob that supports nvidia cards that means nvidia can forget about Linux entirely.

Re:OK, fine...

[Aladrin]

That's personal preference. I've been (trying) to use KPDF and XPDF for a while now and they lack features. KPDF won't print an A4 shrunk down to Letter size, and XPDF is ugly as hell. As the Adobe Reader for Linux works and looks fine, I find myself using it after all to view PDFs in Linux. I haven't been using it more than a week now, but I haven't found any features that are missing from it.

Re:OK, fine...

[nurb432]

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.

So you have never tried freebsd, have you? We have been doing that for quite a long time now.

Re:OK, fine...

[nahdude812]

No company has ever open sourced its goods without customers refusing to run non-open source software? Somebody should tell the many dozens of companies who have already done this.

You need an appropriate adoption level first if you want to force companies to open source. You won't get that adoption level unless users want to use the distribution, and users do not want to run a desktop without Youtube and software-rendered graphics.

Re:OK, fine...

[thePsychologist]

I don't know about OS X or foxit, but for Linux this is bullshit. Every Linux PDF reader I've tried does a fine job for almost everything, but NOT everything. Here are two examples:

*Large PDF files with lots of vector graphics. Adobe Reader on Linux kicks the crap out of evince/gpdf.
*Subpixel rendering. NO, evince (anything xpdf or poppler based) does NOT support subpixel rendering. Antialiasing yes, subpixel rendering NO. Same for kpdf. Don't tell me it does because it does NOT.

And what about filling forms? Adobe may be a non-free bloated program, but for large PDFs, loading time on Adobe is far superior to the Linux counterparts. Sometimes Evince takes forever with the "Loading..." message, whereas Adobe is quick all the time.

Re:OK, fine...

[wrook]

that gives incentive for them to be developed

Um... to whom, exactly? Some nerd who's going to spend the next three months in a darkened office reverse-engineering the proprietary drivers?

If you don't try to run a totally free system, you won't know what needs fixing. There are lots of distributions which compromise. That someone has put in the time to create a distribution that doesn't compromise indicates to me that there are people who want to see what's broken. Or if nothing is broken, want to run a completely free system.

Before I bought my current laptop, I thought that the Intel 945GM driver would be capable of playing some games on Linux. That was about 1.5 years ago. Everyone was singing the praises of this free driver. But it turns out everyone was using NVidia video cards. Because you *couldn't* play games *at all* back then.

The situation has improved quite a bit recently. And the improvements have been aided by people who are not being paid to write the driver. But there's still a long way to go to bring it up to par with what's on the Windows side (currently it's still way too slow to play games that work perfectly on Windows).

This is the type of thing that you discover when you stop compromising. And yes, if I wasn't already busy with my own free software projects I would be volunteering time on this driver. Intel already pays a team (on contract) to work on this driver. But their priorities are different than mine.

So I guess my response to your question is: Yes. We need to get completely free systems into the hands of people who want to improve them. No matter who they are. Those who don't want to help are welcome to choose another distribution. There's room in the world for everybody.

Re:OK, fine...

[Lost Engineer]

Dude I'll settle for actual vendor-supported drivers any day. Then Linux will be as good as Windows :P

Seriously, though, you have to understand the position the company is in. Decent drivers not only cost a lot of money to develop, but they also provide a competitive advantage. For better or for worse, these guys are not just in the hardware business. Moreover, open source drivers make it very easy to reverse engineer the hardware itself -- again giving away your IP for free.

In short, it makes sense to encourage hardware makers to support Linux, whether it be open source or not.

Re:OK, fine...

[Lost Engineer]

Reader for Linux is great except it is slow as shit and crashes randomly due to some search cache issue.

Actually the two are probably related, I don't think Reader has yet figured out that my home directory is on an NFS share. Unfortunately, if you try to symlink it back home, as it were, Reader conveniently detects the situation and rectifies it, so to speak.

Oh and the plugin has a nice habit of freezing my Firefox.

Re:OK, fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base You mean Windows?

Re:OK, fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe isn't going to care about GNASH, because at the end of the day it serves the same purpose as Adobe's own player: to popularize the Flash format, which in turn leads to increased sales of the Flash IDE. There can be a million competing Flash players. So long as Adobe is the only provider of a Flash IDE, they won't care.

Re:OK, fine...

[chromatic]

Moreover, open source drivers make it very easy to reverse engineer the hardware itself -- again giving away your IP for free.

By "very easy", do you mean "Once you've spent a billion dollars building a fab, masking a few dies, and realizing you'll always be six to eighteen months behind what the state of the art?" That's like saying having the GCC source code makes it very easy to reverse engineer the Core 2 Duo.

Re:OK, fine...

[Lost Engineer]

Consider a GPU. It's a basically a big vector engine. Anyone with access to a fab, regardless of who owns the fab, can make one. If you're nVidia or ATI this includes Intel, which has great fabs but can't make a driver to save its life. This is the reason that you have open source 2D drivers (anyone can do that) and closed source 3D ones.

The reverse engineering of compatible hardware will continue to happen, as it has since the beginning of computing, but providing open specs, much less source code, aids that process. Hence the reluctance of companies to do this.

Re:OK, fine...

[Lennie]

I have a core duo system here with an intel GPU and Ubuntu on it, 3D looks fine by me and is fast.

Re:OK, fine...

[Lennie]

I don't usually play games, so I tried them now, the fps and top of the screen clitches suck pretty badly.

Re:OK, fine...

[Risen888]

The difference here is that technically speaking, binary drivers on Linux are not the way to go. They will always be buggy because they're trying to aim at a moving target, and if they're not willing to open the source they can't get included in the kernel tree. This gives companies who are willing to provide open drivers (or at least specs) a huge competitive advantage because their drivers will always be more stable.

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can finally sleep at night knowing that I am not tied down to some EVIL corporation. Thank you
gNewSense for allowing me to rest easy. I am finally FREE!!!

Great!

[clang_jangle]

Great! Now I can miss out on a good fourth or so of all web content and experience inferior xserver performance just like the old days...

Re:Great!

[Gnavpot]

I would be curious to know what part of that "web content" you're missing out on would actually stand up to scrutiny as "content".

I assume that this distro does not display Youtube videos. In my book, they qualify as content. A lot of them is even original content and not just something ripped from a DVD or a TV show.

I have used Linux since kernel 2.0. The most unpleasant part of my Linux community experience is all the posts claiming that "this is obviously not worth having". Those posts seem to pop up in any context where something is not available in Linux. Are you sure that your post is not just a variant of this knee jerk reaction?

Re:Great!

[NetRAVEN5000]

Your assumption is wrong. There are FSF-endorsed projects which play Flash/Shockwave content. It'll be able to play Youtube videos through that. Plus, if worse comes to worst, you can just download the plugin from Adobe.

Oh NO!!!

[oldhack]

They ripped off Debian!!!

Re:Oh NO!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, that's what I was thinking. Surly I'm missing something.

To me, it like Debian with lots of useful stuff added only to have it stripped back out again. Is there any real advantage to this?

Re:Oh NO!!!

[gambolt]

debian has a lot of non-free stuff in the kernel, as well as the non-free repository

Re:Oh NO!!!

[jhoger]

Oh please. How can you seriously count non-free when it's not added by default?

Also, are you saying that non-free binary kernel firmware is removed from gNewSense?

Debian is the universal free software distro. This gNewSense distro is pointless.

Re:Oh NO!!!

[gambolt]

Yes, they remove all sourceless firmware and microcode. They actually removed the entire kernel modules package that comes with ubuntu until they have time to audit every source file. At this point it has pretty much zero sound or wireless support.

Um, great?

[Reality Master 201]

So, it takes a capable distribution and removes a lot of the stuff that makes it as usable as it is, in the name of freeing the user?

Huh.

Re:Um, great?

[saibot834]

Sometimes we should not only see the short-term pleasure that our system works, but also the long-term interest to be able to live in freedom. Of course the convenience of getting all machines to work seems most important now, but free software is not about convenience, it's about ethics. If we stop caring about proprietary drivers then the hardware manufacturers will think we don't care. And they probably even go a step further and DRM+TC everything. Then maybe in twenty years you look back and ask yourself why you let the industry take away your rights.

Re:Um, great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights... Freedom... Ethics.. DRM... Trusted Computing... Industry... BINGO!

Your post is the perfect example of why no one gives a shit about what you have to say. Buzzwords galore without any actual evidence to support any of your claims.

Re:Um, great?

[saibot834]

I don't really understand why you think that "Rights", "Freedom", "Ethics" and "Industry" are buzzwords. They are clearly defined.
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).

Your post is the perfect example of why no one gives a shit about what you have to say.

Well, actually some do. For example my post was important enough for you to respond.

Re:Um, great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know? Freedom is slavery.

Re:Um, great?

[Darkness404]

Sometimes we should not only see the short-term pleasure that our system works, but also the long-term interest to be able to live in freedom. Of course the convenience of getting all machines to work seems most important now, but free software is not about convenience, it's about ethics.

Freedom should never come before functionality, and even more so when the functionality is important and the freedom is minor. For example, unless you are a kernel hacker, a well-coded proprietary driver and a well-coded free driver makes little difference to you. 99% of Ubuntu is free and most of it is the important stuff (the main kernel, all the applications, GUI, Window manager, etc.) only about 1% or less is proprietary (wireless, graphic card drivers, etc.). And the one thing that worries me about gNewSense is that by default you can't install any proprietary applications (such as Flash) and the free alternatives (such as GNASH) are nowhere near up to par.

Re:Um, great?

[p0tat03]

Then maybe in twenty years you look back and ask yourself why you let the industry take away your rights.

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.

Of course the convenience of getting all machines to work seems most important now, but free software is not about convenience, it's about ethics.

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?

If we stop caring about proprietary drivers then the hardware manufacturers will think we don't care. And they probably even go a step further and DRM+TC [wikipedia.org] everything.

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:Um, great?

[westlake]

the convenience of getting all machines to work seems most important now, but free software is not about convenience, it's about ethics. If we stop caring about proprietary drivers then the hardware manufacturers will think we don't care.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

It isn't dear old dad shopping for a graduation gift at his favorite big box retailer.

Re:Um, great?

[Anonymous Coward]

who are you to tell us what free software is about to each of us? to many, it is about convenience.

Re:Um, great?

[RCL]

Which rights? GNU cybercommunists think that you have the right to give away any program that is sold/licensed/etc to you, and every license that forbids that is "unethical".

Why don't they extend their four freedoms on other goods? Shouldn't we get the access to "sources" of other information (video, audio, textual) we buy/own/license, too?

Re:Um, great?

[clang_jangle]

GNU cybercommunists

That puts you on the same infantile level as those who call MS' OS "winblows". Time to grow up.

Re:Um, great?

[Darkness404]

Why don't they extend their four freedoms on other goods? Shouldn't we get the access to "sources" of other information (video, audio, textual) we buy/own/license, too?

Honestly, that is a great idea and it is already taking hold in response to the actions of the *AA. Extremism one way breeds extremism the other way, for example, if we only had "nice" non-free software (no DRM, no serial codes, no activation, relatively bug-free, not over-priced, etc.) the F/OSS campaign wouldn't have taken hold, now we have Vista with DRM and WGA, XP with WGA, buggy MS and other software that is overpriced and that is only fueling the extremism the other way to 100% F/OSS.

Re:Um, great?

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of utter nonsense in your post is what drove me to respond, not my agreement with it.

And, you did in fact link to Trusted Computing, click it yourself.

Re:Um, great?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we stop caring about proprietary drivers then the hardware manufacturers will think we don't care. We don't care.

Yours,
99.99% of Linux users.

Re:Um, great?

[RCL]

Ok, that sounded childish, but look how often (and in which way) the word "community" is used by Free Software Foundation.

They can have little or no connection to realworld communists, but IMO the word can still be applied to them, given their pro-community POV ("Copyright vs. Community" etc).

Re:Um, great?

[Kalriath]

Yes, and that's why they called it Nuisance.

Re:Um, great?

[Kalriath]

Wikipedia doesn't agree with the "Treacherous Computing" bullshit, and redirects it to "Trusted Computing"

They're both bollocks, really.

I'm gonna make a derivative!

[everphilski]

I'ts gonna be based off of gNewSense, and be called MakesMoreSense, and it'll put the missing bits back in!

debian - ubuntu - gnewsense - MakesMoreSense

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[atari2600]

Wish I had mod points - your post is funny and insightful - we need a +5 commonsense here.

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are against our freedoms. I am going to create a free software distribution based on MakesMoreSense, and call it GnuMoreSense.

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[atari2600]

Your presence of mind to regurgitate the essence of gNewSense into GnuMoreSense is total nonsense. Don't even make bring up the issue of license.

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[uptonm]

Then their shold be a verision loaded with WAREZ!! What will tehy call it??

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[AttillaTheNun]

I'll take your derivative one step further. It'll be based on MakesMoreSense, but it will replace all of the free bits with proprietary binaries. I think I'll call it WinBuntu

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[UncleTogie]

And with permission, I'd like to use your distribution to create my own. It might even be a live CD, a first of this type:

Financial software for the back-end of a bank. Not just any bank, h'wever. I've decided that the "wildebeast" niche hasn't been addressed, and have tailored this new distro for it. Yes, a banking software for large water-buffalo-type animals.

...and if you've not guessed by now....

Yes, it's called GNUcents.

Thanks! I'll be here all week... Don't forget to tip the waitstaff, and be sure to try the fish!

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[ArsonSmith]

Windows?

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[soulfury]

FreeBSD - pfSense! Yey!

Re:I'm gonna make a derivative!

[gambolt]

Linux Mint?

Great - a basis to know what to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still using fedora, but gNewSense is a great thing to have. I've had so many problems with wireless cards that use proprietary bits of code and there's nothing anybody can do to fix them if the manufacturer is no longer interested. I'm really glad to be able to use gNewSense to find out which hardware has a future.

Re:Great - a basis to know what to buy

[Darkness404]

Ok, but how is that really going to work? It isn't like you can go up to a computer in *insert computer store here*, pop in a gNewSense CD and see if all the hardware is detected. And it isn't like you can usually find the real model name of a piece of wireless hardware (yes it may be called D-Link but the real card could be Atheros, Realtec, Etc.) to compare it to a list.

Re:Great - a basis to know what to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't like you can go up to a computer in *insert computer store here*, pop in a gNewSense CD and see if all the hardware is detected.

Actually, where I live I can to exactly that. There are lots of white box builders. I go to them and say "I'd like to buy a computer to run Linux on".. they say "okay no problem". I say "okay when you've got it built I'll come by the shop and test it". They let me. Anything which doesn't work gets swapped for something that does. They're even in one place so they will cooperate to get the stuff I want. Not everyone is quite so lucky, but if you go to your nearest small computer shop you can probably get what you want.

remember you are the customer. Insist on getting what you need.

Ubuntu 8.04 is too buggy and should be beta.

[elucido]

So far my experiences with 8.04 have been terrible.

The sound does not work on Realtek AC888.

There is a huge bug in Dolphin as well which makes an error window pop up when using the mouse curser.

I'd rate this release as a C. It's not production quality. The only reason it's not D or F is because the install works great and for the most part it's functional, but it's just not ready for a serious user.

Re:Ubuntu 8.04 is too buggy and should be beta.

[atari2600]

I've had it on my Thinkpad R61 for 28 days now and it works amazingly well. I do realize that just because it works for me doesn't make it an awesome release. Just because you have had a couple issues doesn't make it a beta quality release either.

Define a serious user for me. Realtek AC888 not working is a corner case and will be patched soon. If you have issues with Dolphin, use Konqueror or Nautilus. I personally avoid KDE - so can't help you much there. If you are a serious user, try having a more descriptive line instead of a "makes an error window pop up when using a mouse".

It isn't a perfect release and I know Linux isn't as user-friendly as people desire it to be. Sadly that also means it isn't idiot-friendly either. You point out two issues in a vague manner and call the experiences terrible...

Re:Ubuntu 8.04 is too buggy and should be beta.

[clang_jangle]

Dolphin? Sounds like you may be using Kubuntu 8.04, which I also had a lot of trouble with. In fact, now that I've tried all three I have to say xubuntu is the way to go. Ubuntu claims that switching from kubuntu to xubuntu is a simple matter of "sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop", but that didn't fix the kubuntu bugginess. Downloading and using the xubuntu installer did the trick, and now everything works as it should. HTH.

Re:Ubuntu 8.04 is too buggy and should be beta.

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

The sound does not work on Realtek AC888. I've had problems with RealTek sound as well. My experience is that it just wouldn't work with ALSA. Setting the system to OSS made it work for some reason, but that killed sound mixing. I'd assume installing OSS4 would work better. I'll probably have to do that to make my new X-Fi work (the ALSA team are working on it apparently, but I don't have even a rough timescale as to when support will be implemented).

There is a huge bug in Dolphin as well which makes an error window pop up when using the mouse curser. Works for me, though I prefer Konqueror for file browsing. Have you filed a bug report?

I'd rate this release as a C. It's not production quality. The only reason it's not D or F is because the install works great and for the most part it's functional, but it's just not ready for a serious user. My experience differs. I've seen good and bad releases (I thought 6.10 was a pretty bad one) but I'd rate 8.04 pretty highly. I hope 8.10 will be good as well.

Re:Ubuntu 8.04 is too buggy and should be beta.

[wrook]

I believe Kubuntu 8.04 with KDE4.0 is also *known* to be unstable and there is a suggestion to use KDE3.5 if you want things to work (unless things have changed in the last few weeks). I know a few people have gotten bitten by this one.

Too many variants

[jd]

Not enough layering. The problems I have with the proliferation of variants are that it's hard to pick the specific spin of a specific package that you want and that picking a desired end result will often lead to Ubuntu's installer complaining that that permutation isn't valid because of a conflict, even if the permutation would not conflict if a sane installation policies were in use. What's needed is to break the problem down into more manageable chunks and to provide far greater granularity.

seems a bit silly

[mabhatter654]

gNewSense seems a bit too nitpicky to me. Ubuntu is derived from totally free Debian, but they add optional libraries for "free as in beer" things like binary drivers and firmware bits they get the rights to distribute. The FSF seems over the top here, if they don't like Ubuntu, just use vanilla Debian with the same package list. I think the issue is that Ubuntu's build system, and bug tracking system are not free software so the "free" distro is tainted because of that? Splitting AGAIN seems silly, especially when Ubuntu makes it really easy to choose only Free Software for your install.

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.

Re:seems a bit silly

[howlingmadhowie]

the fsf guys split with debian because debian includes huge binary blobs in the kernel.

Re:seems a bit silly

[Drakonik]

Thank you. I agree whole-heartedly.

I am 100% in favor of free software. I don't want to be a victim of DRM or vendor-lock-in more than the next guy, but this is the reason nobody can take Linux seriously.

Ever seen the Pokemon nerds have an argument with the Yu-gi-oh nerds at school or in your local geek shop? That's what we look like to people who don't understand the difference between proprietary and free software.

Re:seems a bit silly

[Anonymous Coward]

the fsf guys split with debian because debian includes huge binary blobs in the kernel. No, they just hate us cause we don't think all their licences are free (GFDL).

Re:seems a bit silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever seen the Pokemon nerds have an argument with the Yu-gi-oh nerds at school or in your local geek shop? No.

Re:seems a bit silly

[MrvFD]

Debian has a less strict view to the Freedom of software, or the point where leaving something out is sensible. I'm not meaning the FSF's wish to not even reference to non-free software, but eg. the current situation with the few GLX source files with non-DFSG license - it's been simply ignored apparently because the problem is rather small and anyway on a "to do" list to be corrected at some point of the future. But gNewsense doesn't accept non-free licenses at any point, even if a large functionality depends on it - so they went ahead and removed GLX (and thus, 3D support) from gNewsense 2.0. Like stated in many other comments, gNewsense is doing an important investigation work on various pieces of software, and highlighting the few problematic points. If concenctrating on a perfect (99.9%) Free desktop like Ubuntu is doing, one cannot expect to spend huge amount of resources of doing freedomness investigation if even Debian is not doing it all, so it's good there are some people who are really checking it all. It's hard to be perfect, and that's why it's good that there are different folks (Debian, Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, gNewsense) each looking into the freedomness of various pieces of software. That's how we make sure that we can continue to be sure to have the freedoms to use the software also in the future.

Proprietary Debate

[martinw89]

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.

Re:Proprietary Debate

[Kjella]

I think Shuttleworth is well aware who'a paying the bills, and it's not the gNewSense crowd. They are just the rabid sales team to spread mindshare and gather marketshare, and you only put as much effort into it as you get back. The real money is in delivering solutions that work, and they'll make sure to deliver on that.

Re:Proprietary Debate

[masinick]

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.

Like many things, this is a balancing act. Pragmatism suggests that we create something that gets the job done. We've done that for years, and we've had a lot of success with that. It is more than high time to do more than that. Yes, I want to be able to do things, access content, etc., but for a great deal of what I do, simply accessing the Internet through Web pages, Email, and news content is quite enough.

Why not work with those who can live within those constraints and try to expand what is truly free until every single component can be freely modified and improved using free software?

If that ever becomes the norm from the bottom to the top of the infrastructure, that just makes it possible to create so many more free and innovative components on top of that platform infrastructure.

We keep getting better at this, and the result is that we are starting to see more and more products based on a free infrastructure. Network centric computing, especially so-called "Web 2.0" based applications greatly accelerate the importance of further building upon what has already been established.

As I recall...

[Kingrames]

Some of that proprietary software is the reason my wireless works on Ubuntu.

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?

Re:As I recall...

[nawcom]

I use gpl software in slackware. If the kernel supports it, it works. The main issue these days with stuff like ubuntu is that it's designed to be picked up automatically. You arent supposed to have to compile drivers, and set up the configs. This is usually what causes peoples issues with wireless. I've solved a ton of wireless issues by simply compiling the driver modules and network settings. Especially when one is trying to use ndiswrapper - it is a ton easier to compile the driver, set it up with the windows driver files via command line than it is to go through repository hell.

I am not saying that Ubuntu is for lamers, and real linux users compile; I am simply stating that linux isn't yet ready for simple computer users who have only mastered the mouse quite yet.

Re:As I recall...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's stopping you from removing the other software yourself, if it's that unsightly? Nothing. And people that have done that decided to save other people the effort and are sharing the result.

Re:As I recall...

[daigu]

Free software is not the same as open source. Read Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software. The first two paragraphs:

When we call software "free," we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of "free speech," not "free beer."...These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but because they promote social solidarity--that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as more and more of our culture and life activities are digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images and words, free software comes increasingly to equate with freedom in general.

Now, it may be more important to you that your wireless just works. But, for some people, it's more important to promote social solidarity and freedom, and they want a distribution that makes that easy - without then having to figure out all the dependencies and what is "free" and what isn't. This distribution serves that purpose.

Of course, you could go with Debian, but again, Debian suggests non-free software that people like yourself might simply use because they don't understand the differences between open source and free software or that they have free alternatives - like compiling the software themselves as the other reply to your post suggests. Distributions like Debian enable the creep of carelessness, which is why people like RMS (Richard Stallman) want to encourage totally free distributions.

If it's not your thing or if you are in a situation that requires using something non-free, then do what you have to do. But, I would encourage you to at least be aware of the choices you are making and at least try to be free where you can or to present the alternatives to others as I am doing here.

For disclosure, I used Linux (or GNU/Linux, if you'd rather) as my sole system a decade ago, and even then used Applix for office applications. Now, I use Windows exclusively. I need to run software that requires Windows and don't have as much time to spend troubleshooting computer problems. So, you are running more "free" than me. Still, I thought it worth trying my hand at explaining why these efforts are important, and perhaps it is better than someone that isn't a "true believer" present the case.

Re:As I recall...

[Anonymous Coward]

That analogy only holds up if there are people who take moral issue with cupholders.

Re:As I recall...

[stinerman]

Right.

I don't understand the OMG NOTHING BUT FREE SOFTWARE distros like gNewSense, et al.

If I want to use only free software, I'll just not install anything that isn't free. I'm smart enough to omit "contrib non-free" from my sources.list.

The argument about installing non-free drivers and programs by default is a non-starter, too. Anyone who is aware of F/OSS is aware enough to check the licenses of the programs in their package manager.

The only possible use of such "free only" distros is that some people have a problem with non-free packages existing in the same package mirror as their free stuff or people who get their knickers in a bunch when something non-free is installed by default -- which can be removed in 2 minutes.

Re:As I recall...

[manwal]

Debian suggests non-free software that people like yourself might simply use because they don't understand the differences between open source and free software or that they have free alternatives

This sounds like careless users should rather boot gNewSense than Debian. I like your next statement better, about making people aware of their choices. If it's ideological you want more minds, not more boot sectors.

True about the purpose of gNewSense though. It's something some people want and need.

Any reasons are good enough to use any software, in my opinion. Software is just software, while you're the one doing stuff with it. Ethics apply to persons. Software doesn't write you.

Re:As I recall...

[pizzach]

Some of that proprietary software is the reason my wireless works on Ubuntu. I'm all for open source code, and all, but what guarantee do I have that my laptop would work with that?

1. You go to gNewSense's website, and see if your laptop or the one you are planning on buying has compatibility.

2. If it's listed, you know that your hardware should work with any Linux distribution and that it is well supported without overly strange hacks. You won't have to worry about Nvidia eventally dropping support for your card, and there will never be binary incompatibility because the binary blob was never updated for the latest kernel.

gNewSense is not a great consumer OS per say, but you're wrong if you think the community can't benefit from it.

Re:As I recall...

[moosesocks]

The "point" of Free Software is whatever you define it as. Not what RMS tells you to believe.

RMS, and the GNU folks in general tend to inject a tad too much idealism and dogmatism into their products for my liking.

The BSD folks who donate their code, and expect nothing in return seem to be the more "noble" of the two.

Re:As I recall...

[Kingrames]

So where's the list of compatible laptops? I don't see it on their website.

Gobuntu? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why these need to be separate distros anyway; as far as I understood non-free stuff didn't install until you approved it in Restricted Drivers. Is it some other pieces of code that get auto-installed?

Re:Gobuntu? why?

[poetmatt]

Yes, Many.

Mono for one example....and we all know how crappy it is putting MS on linux already.

Re:Gobuntu? why?

[daradib]

Ubuntu installs a number of non-free software by default, including but not limited to anything in the restricted repository (binary kernel modules, etc.). Additionally, binary kernel firmware and non-free GLX are included in Ubuntu; I don't believe these are in restricted/multiverse even though they are non-free.

Hairsplitting

[proxima]

gNewSense sounds like Ubuntu made to be Debian without the non-free parameter in sources.list. No binary video blobs, fine. Firefox? gNewSense replaces it with Epiphany, while Debian renames it because of trademark issues (specifically, you can't fork Firefox without calling it something else). Debian's course seems idealogical enough already, gNewSense is just over the top, IMO.

The article claims that one benefit of gNewSense is that it is a distribution the FSF can get fully behind. If I recall, the FSF won't endorse Debian because they offer non-free if you enable it in their repositories. That just seems like hairsplitting to me. I can fully understand the desire to have free software/open source replacements and encouraging development of them, but I fail to see how gNewSense achieves that any better than what we had. In Debian you have to go out of your way to get non-free software. In Ubuntu it's fairly straightforward to avoid it if you want to. Is it really worth a distribution with perhaps the worst name I've ever heard for software?

Re:Hairsplitting

[nasch]

The article claims that one benefit of gNewSense is that it is a distribution the FSF can get fully behind. If I recall, the FSF won't endorse Debian because they offer non-free if you enable it in their repositories It's not acceptable to give users the freedom to choose software that... wait I didn't say that right. The FSF wants to force users to... that sounds wrong. The FSF will not endorse anything that empowers users... OK you're right it's stupid.

Re:Hairsplitting

[howlingmadhowie]

i repeat my reply from above: the main reason gnewsense exists is that gobuntu and debian both have kernels with binary blobs in them.

Re:Hairsplitting

[proxima]

i repeat my reply from above: the main reason gnewsense exists is that gobuntu and debian both have kernels with binary blobs in them.

It's my understanding and experience that all the video blobs are packaged separately in Ubuntu, and not distributed by Debian (last I checked). From reading the other responses, I'm getting the impression that these binary blobs you're referring to extend to some firmware and such.

If that's the case, fine. Why not just offer an alternative set of kernel packages? It would not be hard at all to just offer an alternative repository which replaces the "offending" Ubuntu packages with free ones. Of course, the FSF's reaction is that simply offering non-free software in your repository is unacceptable; this is what I think most of the /. responders find ridiculous.

Also, are these firmware blobs part of the vanilla Linux source tree? If they aren't, then those concerned so much with free software (and the article claims this will mostly be developers and hardware testers) can simply install from source. I used to do it, as did most Linux users back before the default kernel packages worked as well as they do now.

All I'm saying is that if you have time on your hands and your goal is to develop and test free software in a "pure" environment, there are more efficient ways of doing that than replicating an entire distribution. Debian is darned close right now; just offer a set of kernel packages in another repository and don't use non-free. If you want to audit every file of source, great; I bet the Debian people would appreciate it and move the software to non-free or develop a replacement.

Re:Hairsplitting

[howlingmadhowie]

All I'm saying is that if you have time on your hands and your goal is to develop and test free software in a "pure" environment, there are more efficient ways of doing that than replicating an entire distribution. quite apart from the fact that replicating an entire distribution does not take very long, it has always been the aim of the fsf to make a truly free operating system, not to offer a few free packages to replace the non-free ones in another distribution

bah!

[nawcom]

I suggest Slackware to all linux software and kernel developers, just because you don't have annoying distro-specific frontends in your way. There are no odd programs that you have to get around. It's Linux the way it should be. You get all the development software by default, and compiling isn't a mess (especially with shared library hell).

I took a quick look at TFA, and for some reason it didn't feel like a Linux developer's distribution. It looked more like a developer's distribution for Ubuntu-specifics. As my reading was more like skimming i might of taken in a part wrong. someone correct me if i did.

GNUbuntu?

[khasim]

Yeah, the name sucks.

But I like the idea. You can gauge your hardware against a 100% Free (as in Freedom) system.

Re:GNUbuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that called "Debian"?

Re:GNUbuntu?

[cheater512]

Its a bit pointless.
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:GNUbuntu?

[gambolt]

No, Debian voted by general resolution to keep some non-free crap in the kernel. The non-free blobs which can be legally distributed but are not free software were moved to non-free were they can be installed if desired. Of course there's a lot of stuff in the vanilla kernel that can't be legally distributed by anyone.

They have all that mono tainted stuff. I don't know if Gnusense has gotten rid of that or not.

Re:GNUbuntu?

[hairyfeet]

But can you get an actual functional system out of it? I remember reading RMS talking about how he had recently gotten an OLPC and even he couldn't get a 100% functional system out of gNewSense(he had to give up his wireless connectivity). So while I agree that having a completely free system is a worthwhile goal, how useful can it really be if all you end up with is a crippled PC? And is there ANY laptop that you can get to function 100% using all free software? What about desktops? Just asking since it would be nice to have a list of makes/models that you could be assured would function 100%. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

Re:GNUbuntu?

[setagllib]

IANAL, but I think until a distribution settlement or injunction applies to Mono, it's free for all. Even if Microsoft made threats, unless they were willing to prove it in court, there'd be no legal issue with distributing Mono.

Anyway, who needs Mono? Now we have OpenJDK which is a much better implementation of a managed static language platform. It's just plain better, and with no patent threats.

Re:GNUbuntu?

[RiotingPacifist]

[Citation needed], otherwise your nothing but a troll.

Re:GNUbuntu?

[RiotingPacifist]

There are HCL and its not too hard to look up the vendor of of your wireless, graphics card, small peripherals(web cams) & printers. I think the problem is knowing what hardware is in your laptop more than if its compatible.

I had an intel (gfx) based acer, which i had running on 100% free software (well other than the stuff i installed on it), but RMS would probably of had a fit because i was using proprietor firmware (broadcom cards can work without ndiswrapper but you still need the firmware)

Re:GNUbuntu?

[gambolt]

http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007

http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing

still open bugs:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=242866
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=243022
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383403
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=412950

Re:GNUbuntu?

[RiotingPacifist]

In that case i apologise for my troll accusation, interesting i always thought debian were quite strick on the freeness.

Re:GNUbuntu?

[mmkkbb]

while you're quoting wikipedia-isms.

Just. Use. Debian.

[borgheron]

Period.

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.

Re:Just. Use. Debian.

[atari2600]

Kind of like PETA attempting to remove "lol" from lolcats in an attempt to rescue kittens.

Re:Just. Use. Debian.

[gambolt]

They take out the binary blobs that debian leaves in. Everything is free in debian but the kernel.

Re:Just. Use. Debian.

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 for abstraction

Re:Just. Use. Debian.

[Anonymous Coward]

But FSF and Debian define "free" differently. I'm very glad there are "too many distros", including some free software nuts fighting the good fight, even though I personally just use Debian -- mostly because I'm too lazy to distro-hop after having found something that works for me.

"Mathematicians are _supposed_ to live on the edge!"

Re:Just. Use. Debian.

[MrvFD]

gNewsense is more Free Software conscious than both Debian and Ubuntu. Even Debian is really doing a practical, largely deployed distribution, and freedom is only one part of it. If some people really devote to one thing like gNewsense people are doing, they may find out problem points others aren't aware of - and they've done that already.

Re:Just. Use. Debian.

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian itself is not endorsed by RMS. There are some binary bits packaged in the kernel, at least.

Re:Just. Use. Debian.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly....
Why gNeSense if there is Debian already...
Maybe they're trying to re-invent the wheel but square.

Who really uses this.....?

[jeff419]

I mean is it really worth it to sacrifice functionality just to be a 'purist'?? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to focus effort on building free alternatives to the priority code in Ubuntu rather than maintaining a separate distro that most users will end up installing proprietary code on anyways?

Re:Who really uses this.....?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not sacrifice functionality if you don't need the non-free parts. The distribution is there also for the reason that Ubuntu knows better what's it is still lacking. gNewsense is what Ubuntu would hope to be, and a great baseline, but of course if one wants to be realistic one can do eg. what Ubuntu is doing, compromises. But there's always a need for the clear, non-compromised vision, too.

Re:Who really uses this.....?

[MrvFD]

Well, that's the whole issue behind discussion of Gobuntu vs. gNewsense. Currently it's being thought that it's impossible to do _everything_ inside Ubuntu, but maybe some day it will - it's definitely in Ubuntu's interests, but there are quite a lot of stuff to work on in the Ubuntu infrastucture etc. to fix all the problems. Since gNewsense is based on Ubuntu, it's pretty easy to keep track of the differences and import them to Ubuntu, just like Debian can import changes from Ubuntu back to Debian.

Zealotry

[db32]

I really don't understand this purist nonsense. I certainly understand a preference for F/OSS stuff, but at some point it becomes more religious than practical. Why screw up your own capabilities just to prove a VERY shallow point like this? Computers aren't here to be religious icons, and anyone with an ounce of sense is going to look at movements like this and say "ok, this is just a bit stupid".

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:Zealotry

[EQ]

Purists are aping RMS.

Basically he's the Soup Nazi of Free software. Cross him and his hyper-pure hyper-strict rules, even "suggest" a non-free piece of software and BAM!

No Program For You!

Re:Zealotry

[gambolt]

It's a lot like vegetarianism, IMHO. It's a personal ethical preference.

Re:Zealotry

[concernedadmin]

Vegetarianism isn't strictly ethical, it's a much healthier lifestyle on average. For the record, I've never seen an obese vegan before.

Re:Zealotry

[db32]

vegans are in it for ethical reasons. vegetarians are for health reasons. I have not seen an obese vegan or vegetarian, but I have met more than a few suffering the other imbalances related to no animal input. Vegans more than vegetarians, most vegetarians will still eat things like eggs and drink milk which helps their diet considerably. Vegans I think suffer from brain rot. No animal products period, no milk, no eggs, and even non food products that have animal parts. Welcome to living completely out of touch with reality and nature. I also don't understand the complete disconnect in thinking it is ok to murder plants but not murder animals as science has been so kind to show that plants do react chemically when other plants are being diced up nearby (creepy as hell but it doesn't stop me from eating em).

I can respect a vegetarians choice. But I think the Vegan is the mindless zealot. Kinda boils down to the same thing with software. You probably won't find any vegetarians that would rather die than to go outside of their no meat preference to fix a body problem. Vegans you are more likely to find that kind of nonsense. Then of course there is the bloated fat ass that doesn't eat anything than triple bacon burger melts on the opposite end too.

gNewsense user here

[br00tus]

I have been using gNewsense since October of last year. I have been happy with it. I actually did a major upgrade earlier this month due to wanting the latest version of I-don't-even-remember-anymore, which had X number of dependencies, so it asked to upgrade everything and I went for it. It did run into a few problems, and I even had to edit /var/lib/dpkg/status for one tricky and broken dependency chain, but all was well that ends well and all of that is on the Ubuntu side anyhow. I have an old Debian system in another location which I also did not update much and started to break hard on the upgrading circa spring-summer of 2007, so I just leave everything as it was in spring-summer 2007, especially considering I only have remote access to the machine most of the time. As I said, this is all Debian/Ubuntu related though, and not Gnewsense related.

I had a problem with Gnewsense prior to May where sound would conk off once in a while. The latest update of everything seems to have fixed that. I have to say I have been pretty happy with Gnewsense, I have been surprised about how much has worked automagically.

One exception to this is my HP printer. I am not a CUPS or HP driver expert, but I hooked it up, it detected it - as the proper HP printer, but it is not printing to it. I guess one fear you have with Gnewsense in these situations is some firmware blob that would just make it work is not included - although the situation might be the same on an Ubuntu, I don't know what the problem is, but I only spent a few hours looking at it.

I do install things like non-GPL'd-yet Sun Java, mplayer, vlc and the like on my Gnewsense system in its own little segregatd section. The main thing is, I know they are not free. It is really an awareness thing for me, I have all of the non-free stuff segregated in its own little section. I just installed Gnash, and will test it out and see how well it works. Most of the non-free stuff I use revolves around Java (which is being GPL'd) and movie players. I want to at least be aware of this stuff and have it segregated. Otherwise I might as well use Windows.

Re:gNewsense user here

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the non-free stuff I use revolves around Java (which is being GPL'd) and movie players. I want to at least be aware of this stuff and have it segregated. Otherwise I might as well use Windows. So your saying it's OK to use non-free software if you know it and otherwise it would be just like windows. Heck, I'm sure by now most of the windows users actually know it's non-free.

So they're just like you. Using non-free software knowingly. No difference.

(I personally have nothing against non-free, I have have it enabled ol all my Debian installations. It's just that the argument was infernally stupid.

Re:gNewsense user here

[Anonymous Coward]

dumbass. You're implying that using Ubuntu is akin to using Windows? Who is the true hypocrite? "I do install things like non-GPL'd-yet Sun Java, mplayer, vlc and the like on my Gnewsense system" How's that slippery slope feel?

Re:gNewsense user here

[77Punker]

VLC is GPL. Check the website. Actually, so is mplayer. Where have you been?

Re:gNewsense user here

[dbcad7]

It is really an awareness thing for me, I have all of the non-free stuff segregated in its own little section.

I cheat on my taxes too, but I keep the money in a cardboard box in the closet.

I understand the whole issue.. but I agree that Debian is "close enough". When one of the "blobs" jumps up and bites someone (the issue of not being able to examine the source) well then I guess that particular blob will create an outcry.. but I think that using them when that's all you got, while fighting for source is the way to go.

Re:gNewsense user here

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you might aswell just use Ubuntu, you stupid fucking hypocritical FOSS fuckstain!

Helping the community

[Anonymous Coward]

"has indicated that he would rather focus on gNewSense because the work on that distribution can help the Ubuntu community as a whole. ""

How about making a version like Fluxbuntu for the community. This would be fantastic for UMPC's and low end machines.

http://fluxbuntu.org/

"Ubuntu community as a whole"

[pembo13]

How about the Linux community as a whole? This seems to be a (possibly) more stable replica of Fedora, as Fedora has (as far as I know) the strictest FOSS packages guidelines of the popular Linux distros. How about they work more upstream?

RMS hair splitting

[manwal]

It's true.

Stallman: "Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software." (from here)

Re:RMS hair splitting

[Anpheus]

It's ironic to me that Stallman in this case supports distros which offer users less, as opposed to more choice.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[woot account]

When will people understand that Stallman doesn't believe in choice. He believes in having it his way and his way only.

I'm not saying I agree with him, but saying he believes in having choice is just silly.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[p0tat03]

This seems almost soup nazi-ish (yay Godwin's Law!). It reeks of "if you don't agree with my moral stance, NO SOFTWARE FOR YOU! NEXT!"

Re:RMS hair splitting

[manwal]

I think what he means is less choices now makes more choices tomorrow. And here we've reached the exact point where the hair splits. Same Stallman, same thread:

"... 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)

"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)

Re:RMS hair splitting

[Anpheus]

While the most common open source app on Windows is of course... Firefox.

But he can't endorse that because they like to protect their brand name with a trademark, you know, because Stallman thinks trademarks are evil.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[manwal]

But if it's only the trademark issue, why not gNewFox?

Re:RMS hair splitting

[Anpheus]

Because he truly thinks intellectual property is evil and won't associate himself with a product that encourages it with that form of licensing. The mere fact that you can't call a fork Firefox offends Stallman, or evidently does so.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[MrvFD]

This is the usual comment seen every time, but really it's not about removing choice, it's about advocating the free choice. gNewsense is (also) free software, you can really do anything with it you like, including installing Adobe Flash, NVIDIA binary blobs and whatever you wish. It shouldn't be so hard to understand that FSF thinks the best way to advocate free software is not to point to installing non-free software. I don't agree with it even myself (I like the Ubuntu / Debian way of simply separating those better), but I can surely _understand_ it.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[Anpheus]

But Stallman has specifically said that even giving people the choice to install non-free software is heinous. In this case, the fact that Debian even has the OPTION of non-free repositories is bad. Not that it's even the default.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Got cite? Otherwise, you're full of it.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that ironic?

Stallman's also against proprietary software, and arguably, this leaves users (those who follow his advice, anyway) with less choice: instead of being able to choose between a proprietary and a free solution, they can't choose the proprietary one anymore.

Now, some people (those from the BSD camps) would indeed argue that this is a bad thing, and although I don't agree myself, I can see where they're coming from.

But ironic? No, ironic is something it isn't at all.

Re:RMS hair splitting

[Anpheus]

"... 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."

"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."

This is from this very same thread started by me, view the GGP thread to see sources (can't figure out how to put URLs in this AJAXy system and the previews didn't convert <a> a tags.) This is also the reasoning for the existence of gNewSense, because Debian -is- only Free Software. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever he couldn't just say, here's gNewSense, it's Debian renamed and without the non-free repositories.

Instead, he appears to be offended by the fact that they make it easy to install non-free software (gasp, choice) and that Debian uses trademarks to prevent other people from soiling the name.

Yes, great.

[KiloByte]

Ugh, due to that kind of thinking we still have to put up with crap like Nvidia's drivers.

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.

Not as Advertised

[Secret Rabbit]

Problem is that this distro still contains non-free software in it. Though it might have a totally free (in the FSF definition) *goal*, it's rather dis-honest to advertise something that has yet to be accomplished. Quite frankly, if one wants a totally free *NIX OS, then one should be looking at OpenBSD rather than this thing. You know, the people who are actually fighting against Blobs, etc instead of just removing things that can be easily put back in.

Re:Not as Advertised

[thannine]

And you'll be willing to spesify those packages that are non-free so that we don't have to suspect you're just spreadin pro-BSD FUD, won't you?

Re:Not as Advertised

[mrbooze]

What non-free software does gNewSense still contain?

Re:Not as Advertised

[gambolt]

last I checked OpenBSD had stuff like realplayer and windows codecs in its ports tree. No mainstream linux distro would offer that.

It seems like OpenBSD likes to brag about how it's all free and every line of code is audited, but they don't mention that that only applies to the base system which is pretty much useless by itself.

Isn't this just software asceticism?

[sentientbrendan]

I'm all for more open source, but crippling your operating system by taking out all of the proprietary bits that were only there *because they are necessary to make things work* seems like just flagellating yourself.

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:Isn't this just software asceticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you're misinformed.

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:Isn't this just software asceticism?

[cjb658]

When did the FSF become the catholic church? Yeah, isn't that Apple's job?

Re:Isn't this just software asceticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html

Right about then. The same day it started. When did you get clueless and misinformed?

Had this before

[bob.appleyard]

Seriously, if GnuSense didn't get any takers last month, pimping it again won't make much difference.

Re:Had this before

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no slashvertisement, it's a troll! Slashdot is trying to stir up an argument between the proprietary-software-is-morally-bad people and the proprietary-software-is-technically-bad people.

Firmware?!?

[certain death]

How do you remove firmware from software? I am thinking someone needs to poke the editor with a CMOS chip for leaving that in.

Re:Firmware?!?

[thannine]

Why don't you go and study the matter before writing these stupidities? Might actually learn something.

Re:Firmware?!?

[certain death]

Hows about you go fuck your self with a chainsaw? It was an attempt at humor, obviously wasted on you. Where do you get off calling someone stupid that you don't even know anyway? Fucking dork.

Re:Firmware?!?

[zitch]

Just to split hairs, he didn't actually call you stupid. He called what you wrote "stupidities". On the other hand, he is implying that you're ignorant. Still different from stupid, in that it suggests the possibility that you will learn. Yes, I am a "fucking dork".

Re:Firmware?!?

[certain death]

My Bad...that makes it all better, now I can take the bandaid off of my boo-boo. :o~

Hmnn, Slashdot full of inverted logic lately?

[Vexorian]

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:Hmnn, Slashdot full of inverted logic lately?

[maxume]

Without disagreeing with your point about not worrying about what other people are doing, it is perfectly pragmatic at this point to buy hardware with a plan to replace it in about 3 years.

What??

[PopeRatzo]

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.

How in the world do they measure a "less-than-optimal reaction from the community"?

Nobody asked me. I'm not sure how I feel about being left out of "the community" and not having a say in such an important measurement of sub-optimal reaction. Who knows, my opinion might have just been enough to push the reaction over the line into "optimal" territory.

Are they really saying they didn't release it because "some people" said "some shit" about it in "some forum"?

Re:What??

[popeydotcom]

They asked people to step up and help out with the production of Gobuntu. Pretty much nobody did. Compare that with the massive community behind Ubuntu itself, and other derivatives such as Xubuntu, Mythbuntu and so on.

Kinda telling when on the Gobuntu list there are lots of freedom-lovers who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

We interviewed Mark Shuttleworth on our little podcast http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/ and he spelled out the reasons why, and that after 8.04, Gobuntu is effectively dead.

You still get an option "F6" in the Ubuntu installer now which does much the same thing, but it's incorporated into Ubuntu now, rather than being a separate derivative. Also means you have to download an ISO which contains non-free stuff which you don't then install. You can bet some people will get their knickers in a twist over that alone!

Re:What??

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they didn't get the adulation and attention they were whoring for?

Re:What??

[PopeRatzo]

They asked people to step up and help out with the production of Gobuntu. Pretty much nobody did.

Thanks, popeydotcom. It was an honest question and you gave me an informative answer.

What non-free software do I have installed

[Anonymous Coward]

I have these proprietary bits of software installed (by myself) on my Ubuntu system: - Opera - the web browser - because I really really love it (not that I hate Firefox but I feel Opera is a better alternative) - The drivers for my wireless and graphics card - the open-source drivers for my graphics card don't offer 3D acceleration - Skype - because I need it to make calls over the internet and most of my friends use it I don't have Java installed and I use Gnash instead of the proprietary adobe flash plugin.

FLOSS' solution to the Dining Philosophers Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

More forks!

linking to ancient stories cause confusion

[akahige]

So I'm reading TFA and they make a point about linking to a story about Mozilla's draconian approach to controlling what happens to the code via trademark law. Based on this, the new distro has decided to NOT include Firefox in favor of whatever this other unencumbered thing is. So I'm reading *that* story, and I notice the date -- 2006 -- and it occurs to me that this is kind of like deja vu all over again or something.

So if you don't want the TM protected Firefox artwork/branding... isn't that why they came up with Ice Weasel? There's nothing to say you can't use the code without worrying what MoFo thinks.

Re:linking to ancient stories cause confusion

[Kalriath]

Yeah, to be honest I can completely understand why Mozilla Corp doesn't want the name "Firefox" used on forks - because Firefox actually has a large user base, and it'd be all too easy to ruin that by a single badly written fork with the Firefox name on it making the trunk release look bad (Firefox's target audience is people who'll see a fork, think it's the normal version, install it, say "this doesn't work, Firefox sucks", and go back to IE)

100% free!

[david.given]

...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:100% free!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why god gave us brains to interpret the code as he intended.

Of course I'm still trying to bug god to release the source for the human brain.

Re:100% free!

[Anonymous Coward]

What motive would there be for making the microcode of the hardware you list free? Even if the source code was released, the devices you speak of are so specific in nature that you really couldn't edit it and make the hardware do something different, nor could you benefit others via redistribution because the code is tailored to that specific model and hardware revision. Most of the hardware you mention also stores this code in ROM anyway, so there is no way the software can be improved even to correct bugs. RMS and the FSF have stated that it really isn't necessary to make such specific proprietary code free because nothing could be done with it, ever. The only exception would probably be the BIOS, now that re-flashing is possible.

So it's like Ubuntu

[bigtangringo]

But even more crippled by idealism. Well where do I sign up?

Re:My god youre an idiot

[mabhatter654]

but it is.. gNewSense uses some other bug and packaging model other than Canonical Launchpad because Launchpad (their management server) source is not released by Canonical as Free Software and that's "bad" somehow and the FSF/GNU has to do something about that to make a stand. Therefore because the whole "path" isn't Free Software, they forked it, and manage it some other way. They don't like that Ubuntu includes ANY links to "free as in beer" software.. firmware, drivers, etc that are allowed to be downloaded but not "open source". Hell they even get picky about stuff that's not Free Software and split hairs over too much MIT or BSD licensed stuff in there.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I get it!

[Vegeta99]

They took Ubuntu and made Debian!

I get it!

Re:I get it!

[gambolt]

They took out all the non-free stuff in the kernal that Debian leaves in. They manually go through every file in every package and check the licenses.

Clueless Joe says....

[Anonymous Coward]

>I am simply stating that linux isn't yet ready for >simple computer users who have only mastered the >mouse quite yet.

Why not just state that youre retarded?

I've installed various Linux distros for over 40 senior citizens.
My parents are both in their 70's and my father has no problem with his PCLinuxOS/XP boot or the Xubuntu on his old T21.
My mom never touched a computer and she has learnd Kubuntu.

This story has nothing to do with your comment.

I would never install GoBuntu or GnewSense for a newbie and somehow combinin this topic with your fear of Linux for newbies shows you are not to clear about either.

Re:Clueless Joe says....

[nawcom]

read to what i was replying to. It was a response to hardware support in linux and using non-gpl hardware. Your response has nothing to do with what point I was trying to show - that linux hardware support has yet to reach a level of friendliness, especially with wireless, where it should be. Why didn't your grandma install it herself? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

If your goal is to just insult, at least don't ne an AC. It makes your point worthless. And read what I typed before you bleed through your ego tampon.

gNoSense

[malevolentjelly]

If Debian with its IceWeasel BS is not free enough for you then you have problems. gNewSense also suffers from a badCase of camelCase.

If nothing else, I think gNewSense is probably a good barometer for what the open source movement is actually contributing. Then again one might see it as a massive waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, the first package I installed in my system is and always will be *ubuntu-restricted-extras. Canonical made huge strides by dumping their debian-esque ways of the past and embracing the common users' desire for functionality. The reason I use linux is so that my software usage is not really bound by any rules or laws other than the that of the masses. If people want it to work a certain way- it often does. This seems to me like it's more restrictive than commercial software that I can do whatever I damn well please with, ethics be damned. Linux does what I want how I want it- we should keep it that way. Free is still free as in costs no money and that's what users really care about.

I would recommend this as a great alternative for anyone who doesn't use their computer as a computer so much as an urn for hacked, broken, reverse-engineered drivers.

The Pure Free OS is Important and Beautiful!

[MarkvW]

From a legal perspective, I think that it is an absolutely wonderful idea to publish the best fully-free operating system that can be published, on a regular basis. Such publishing tells the world: This operating system is fully free--deal with it. Anybody who wants to claim an ownership interest in the asserted free code had better make their move before the appropriate statute of limitations expires or they will just have to accept the fact that the code is free. Not just the code in that free os, but the identical code contained in all open source operating systems. As time goes by, all software goes into the public domain. Archived software in the public domain stands as a monument that can be used to attack future software developers who wrongfully claim intellectual property rights in property that has really gone into the public domain. People in this thread have argued that this free OS somehow dilutes the chances of Linux reaching 'critical mass.' No amount of operational system elegance or stalinist-type thinking is going to get Linux to critical mass. Cool applications, and only cool applications, will get Linux to critical mass. I'm switching when I can use the Adobe tools (or a functional equivalent) to edit multimedia stuff on Linux. Others have happily switched already. While I dislike the Stallmanites who attack intellectual property that others have created, I dearly love the Stallmanites who subvert the proprietary intellectual property of others by creating their own, better and free, intellectual property. Those free software people make this world more beautiful, and I thank them.

Epiphany is part of a standard Gnome install

[pizzach]

gNewSense sounds like Ubuntu made to be Debian without the non-free parameter in sources.list. No binary video blobs, fine. Firefox? gNewSense replaces it with Epiphany, while Debian renames it because of trademark issues (specifically, you can't fork Firefox without calling it something else). Debian's course seems idealogical enough already, gNewSense is just over the top, IMO. Strangely enough, Epiphany and Evolution are part of a default Gnome install. The Ubuntu version of Gnome removes the two for alternative programs.

Pointless exercise

[d_jedi]

Doesn't seem to me to be a good use of time and developer resources to *remove* functionality from Ubuntu just to satisfy "free software" zealots, for whom any piece of proprietary software (no matter how well it works) is the spawn of satan, their kryptonite (insert other metaphors)..

Hey, I guess if devs have time on their hands.. but I'd suggest fixing some of the serious issues with 8.0.4 of Ubuntu, proper, ought to be a higher priority..

Freedom is worth the inconvenience.

[jbn-o]

Few things in the world are for everybody, but history shows us that freedom is worth some hard work to build and defend. If that means I do without something for a while, or I have to do something another way, that's a small price to pay. As it happens I don't need 3D hardware and my ASUS cardbus wireless card works with gNewSense GNU/Linux because it requires no firmware, hence there's no issue of uploading proprietary firmware to the device to make it useful. Using it couldn't be easier: I plug it in, it lights up and the system finds a wireless access point. If I leave it plugged in I only have to turn on my computer to get online wirelessly. I think that software freedom is worth some sacrifice and I find that I have to sacrifice less and less over time. I find it interesting to note how dependent on proprietary software many GNU/Linux users are. The push to put more proprietary software on a GNU-based system more clearly illuminates to me the difference between "open source" and "free software" right along the lines described in the latter part of "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software":

The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

Firmware

[celtic_hackr]

I'd like to know more about your business model, installing Ubuntu for people. Sounds like a fun job.

I do however have a concern from the article. I'm not familiar with any firmware in Ubuntu distributions? Does Ubuntu distribute chips with CDs? Firmware is,always has been and is by definition software downloaded onto a chip and placed inside a device. Until the software is written into a device it is still software.

Burned CDs and DVDs contain software.

BIOS chips, programmed video PROMS, and other programmed PROMS contain firmware.

Bootable memory sticks also contain software, but it might also possibly be argued they contain firmware, but I tend to think of them as the new floppy disk.

Q: What do you get if you strip from Ubuntu the the proprietary and non-free software?
A: Debian.

So, why go through all the trouble of re-inventing a Debian distribution, when one already exists? Doh!

Of course, I prefer Mint, which is one more step removed away from Debian. I'm totally into ease of use and maintenance these days. Yeah, I've gotten lazy.

Re:Firmware

[TheRaven64]

Firmware in this context typically refers to WiFi cards. Network cards used to come with a ROM, and later an EEPROM, containing control software for their on-board CPU. Modern (cheap) ones instead map some host RAM and have the driver load the firmware here. This is almost never Free Software, but if you're lucky the vendor gives you redistribution rights. This isn't enough for the FSF since it doesn't allow you to modify them and so gNewSense won't include them.

I'm not sure if Debian includes them, but it does have a 'non-Free' repository that allows users to install non-Free software, which makes it non-Free for the FSF.

Programmer's and making money

[celtic_hackr]

I notice however, you mention your day job. I'm a programmer, but sadly haven't found the time to meaningfully contributing to FOSS code. I could if I were to totally ignore my family, I suppose. I could see making money by selling support of FOSS one creates, but they would have to write something people wanted to have support for.

It would be nice to work for a company that let's one work on FOSS, but those jobs are few and hard to find. OPf course, there's a lot of programmers making money on FOSS, but it's not something that's very practical to try to build a business on. It can be done, but it's much harder than making money on proprietary coding. My last major software program sold for about $39,000 as a contract piece plus markup.

Re:Programmer's and making money

[Kalriath]

I notice however, you mention your day job. I'm a programmer, but sadly haven't found the time to meaningfully contributing to FOSS code. I could if I were to totally ignore my family, I suppose. I could see making money by selling support of FOSS one creates, but they would have to write something people wanted to have support for. It'd also have to be buggy enough to require support. I've never understood the "sell support services" geniuses, because the only way to ensure people need your support services is to sell a buggy product.

Re:Programmer's and making money

[Aladrin]

No, it doesn't need to be buggy. Complicated and feature-loaded will do the same thing. The average business-class computer user can -not- configure his/her own system. That's why they buy the support package.

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.

Re:Programmer's and making money

[UncleTogie]

I've never understood the "sell support services" geniuses, because the only way to ensure people need your support services is to sell a buggy product.

...Guess you've never met the "any key" users...

Yes, they still exist, and those're the folks that'll ALWAYS need hand-holding...

Re:Programmer's and making money

[Kalriath]

Yeah, I understand that - except for one thing. Even in the Windows world these users exist, and I assure you they don't call Microsoft for support (too cheap for that), so why would they call (Insert OSS Company Here> for support? Why wouldn't they just visit Google and punch in " broken"?

Re:Programmer's and making money

[UncleTogie]

Even in the Windows world these users exist, and I assure you they don't call Microsoft for support (too cheap for that), so why would they call (Insert OSS Company Here> for support? Why wouldn't they just visit Google and punch in " broken"?

We install, among other things, point-of-sale systems. I can assure you that our food-service clients have NO desire to google ANYthing in the middle of a lunch/dinner rush. There are other examples, but they basically boil down to this: They have limited time to spend on the problem; they need to focus on their business.

In short, they just need it to work...right THEN.

Re:Programmer's and making money

[Kalriath]

Sorry, I should have been more specific - I was referring to End Users, not businesses. I know businesses have no reluctance to use or pay for support.

Re:Programmer's and making money

[UncleTogie]

Sorry, I should have been more specific - I was referring to End Users, not businesses. I know businesses have no reluctance to use or pay for support.

Usually not, but we've got a family that brings in at least one PC every six months. They've got around 6 computers at home, and regardless of sound advice and software suggestions, manage to ruin a perfectly working rig within a year, easily. Malware and viruses of every sort; they LOVE clicking the purple monkey for the $5 coupon good at Spatula City.

They're not the only ones. A former client of mine managed to hit darn near every hostile adult dating link she could in a 4-month time. Had to give that one up... FAR too high-maintenance. {Calls at midnight for buying a printer right THEN for a production the next day, etc...}

Still Debian-based

[StormShaman]

It's funny that the DFSG don't consider some GNU stuff (GFDL) free, and GNU doesn't consider Debian free, so gNewSense really lives under both restrictions. In other words, most info files are missing. I love Debian, but at least Gentoo gives me all my documentation.

Winston Churchill quote

[justleavealonemmmkay]

No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.

Try making *these* free

[tepples]

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. If you are using a mass-produced PC motherboard, you still more than likely have non-free software in your BIOS or in your CPU's microcode.

gNewSense hardware compatibility list?

[tepples]

As it happens I don't need 3D hardware What do you recommend for people who do, such as people who play (say) OpenArena? I don't see how you could recommend video game consoles, as those are even more non-free than a "typical" Linux distribution.

and my ASUS cardbus wireless card works with gNewSense Has anybody made a buying guide to put together a PC that's fully compatible with coreboot and gNewSense, a list of SKUs to drop in my shopping cart at Newegg? Google gnewsense hardware compatibility list didn't appear to produce any relevant results.

I find it interesting to note how dependent on proprietary software many GNU/Linux users are. Like the proprietary BIOS that comes on over 99 percent of PC motherboards.

Re:gNewSense hardware compatibility list?

[jbn-o]

I play games I can play. If those games require 3D drawing, I guess that the CPU does it. This is far from the best way to do this task, but to focus on this gives games too much ground. Games are not critical for getting jobs done. They're fun to play but most computer users don't need them to do work. Far more important and pressing than games are the issues surrounding programs people use daily. Document format issues, fighting software patents, and providing free software implementations of programs people need to do their everyday work is critical.

The BIOS issue is being worked on with Coreboot.org. I plan to purchase a new computer someday soon (my current main machine is roughly a decade old) and I intend that that computer will run Coreboot. I'm told that my XO-1 runs a free software BIOS; this machine would be fine for me if it were a little faster to improve interactive response, but I use it all the same. I understand that there's now at least one mail-order place that will sell users a machine with gNewSense GNU/Linux preloaded and I think they're eager to ship a Coreboot machine preloaded so I'll keep my eye on them for my next computer. Proprietary software is anti-social, and a proprietary BIOS is certainly no exception.

I don't know of a hardware compatibility list for gNewSense GNU/Linux, but I do know that the FSF has maintained lists of hardware that work with free software. I'd imagine that the folks who maintain gNewSense would appreciate your help in maintaining such a list.

gNewSense's website is semi-broken

[tepples]

You go to gNewSense's website, and see if your laptop or the one you are planning on buying has compatibility. How? I went to gNewSense's website. I didn't see anything in the navigation bar at the left that look like it referred to hardware compatibility. So I typed hardware compatibility into the search form at the upper right, submitted, and got this:

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 8388608 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 4097 bytes) in /var/www/pmwiki-2.1.27/scripts/pagelist.php on line 455

It took me a while to figure out that I should follow the link "Wiki" and then follow the link "Recommended Hardware".

coreboot

[tepples]

except for the proprietary BIOS software The gNewSense web site recommends motherboards that can run coreboot, a free alternative to BIOS. Granted about the rest because so many global communication standards are patented out the wazoo.

Idiots...

[V!NCENT]

They probably never heard of Gobuntu, which is an official Ubuntu variant which has strictly FLOSS software...

But next isn't free, thus the need for openstep.

[Glytch]

I know, bad joke.

Why a whole separate distro?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want a Debian box with no proprietary stuff, I can just take "non-free" and "contrib" out of /etc/apt/sources.list and I'm done.

What is stopping people from doing this on regular Ubuntu?

what about proprietary drivers?

[ajopaul]

I dont understand this free vs non-free war, for utilizing the capabilities of hardware one must use the proprietary drivers, unless a free open source one is available!

Leave them be, let the users choose!

[nicodoggie]

The great thing about having all these derivatives of Linux is choice. Choice on which to use, to support and to force upon your Windows using friends.

Go ahead, let those people who want to use gNewSense for that shiny white purity of free as in speech/beer OS. If swarms upon swarms of open source developers use it and fully open source drivers come out from it, then great It'll serve its purpose!

If they snap out of their damn senses and realize that there is already a completely free Debian GNU/Linux available, IMHO, better!

If they get fed up trying to use it because it doesn't "Just Work", then they ought to use Ubuntu or the other, friendlier distros.

But hey, /.ers wouldn't be nerds/geeks if they didn't try to force their opinions on everyone else.

Huh?

[NetRAVEN5000]

I can understand not switching for the lack of wifi support. . . but on a desktop, you don't need wireless, and do you really care about not having "3D capability in X" on your desktop? I sure don't. X really isn't used for 3D unless you're using Compiz (which most people aren't). So you'll have to go download the driver from nVidia. . . big deal. There's already a project underway for open-source 3D-accelerated nVidia drivers, and the ATi drivers are open-source already.