Slashdot Mirror
Trisquel 6.0 'Toutatis' Is Now Available
New submitter ikhider writes "Trisquel, a 'libre' version of Ubuntu GNU/Linux, is now available for download and install (or update for those who already have it). It's one of the easiest 'libre' versions of Gnu/Linux to install and run. This version includes: Linux-Libre 3.2, Xorg, Abrowser 19 (a Firefox derivative that does not recommend non-free software), GNOME 3.4, and LibreOffice 3.5. They're also simplifying their release schedule: 'This release is a Long Term Support one, meaning that bugfix and security updates will be published until 2017. Along with this we have decided to change our release schedule from this point on: we will no longer publish short term support versions every 6 months, but focus on giving the best possible support to the LTS release, providing backported improvements to core packages like the kernel, the browser and the xorg server among others.'"
just about filled out my FOSS bullshit bingo card on this sumary.
if you complete a row, you shout:
FIRST POST!
I don't get all the Ubuntu spin-offs. Canonical is obviously going far, far away from what these spinoffs are doing - why not just use Debian as the base distribution instead of Ubuntu, which is based on Debian itself?
Does anybody know how well the Linux Steam client runs on this?
Steam? I thought installing non-free software such as games defeated the purpose of using Trisquel over, say, Xubuntu.
I'm pretty sure if you install Steam on this distro, RMS will be summoned to your house to punch your fucking mouth loose. Be warned.
The purpose of this distro is for FOSS fans. They want something completely free. So they base the distro off of Ubuntu one of the least Libre of all the distros out there. Canonical, especially lately, has been moving away from GNU/Linux and moving towards Ubuntu/Linux. They really have been suffering from NIH(Not Invented Here) syndrome and have been working against the rest of the community. Especially with Mir, which is causing a lot of unnecessary and harmful fragmentation. If you want to make a free libre distro, why not base it off of Debian or Fedora? At-least Red Hat contributes what they do back to the community at large. Canonical doesn't contribute much at all back to the rest of the world. Especially with their own licencing agreement.
Steam doesn't work on mint debian. It requires glibc 2.15, and lmde only has glibc 2.13.
It's always possible to install a more recetn version, but it's easier to just use a more up-to-date distrib.
Why not just run Debian?
The problem with Debian is that it recommends non-free software with its non-free and contrib repositories. That means that the user might be tricked into running software that does not honor the user's freedom. That is considered non-ethical.
What are the users - complete illiterates, that they can't read that certain software is 'non-free' and therefore not download it? Debian recognizes that for some software, particularly drivers, the liberated software may not cover it, so they provide the 'non-free' as an option. RMS thinks that people should deliberately be not told that these alternatives - actually supplements - exist, and since Debian doesn't do what he wants, he avoids endorsing them either. That's part of why the 'Libre-Linux' sub-movement exists.
No.
The problem with Debian is that Debian has a non-free repository and documents this fact. Whether the user will be confused about whether or not he is installing non-free software is not the issue at all.
RMS maintains that documenting the existence of non-free software, even if the repo is not enabled by default and requires manual intervention to enable, is "suggesting" that it be used and this suggestion is tantamount to a recommendation to use non-free software, which RMS thinks is a thing that a fully freedom-loving distribution should not do.
Can a distro fully respect your freedoms and still document the existence of non-free software? I think so, but since the FSF is in the business of promoting Free software to the exclusion of all else they cannot endorse a distribution which fully respects your freedoms but mentions that non-free software exists. This is an entirely reasonable stance for the FSF; they can choose who they endorse based on any arbitrary criteria, and I respect that.
The Debian folks must necessarily take a more pragmatic view since their primary mission is not to promote Free software to the exclusion of all else. This does not mean that they are behaving in an unethical manner or in a manner which is inconsistent with the FSF principles and ideals, it's just at odds with some of their policies.
I want my Cowboyneal
The average Ubuntu user won't go to another GNU/Linux distribution. They're more likely to move on to another OS altogether, maybe another Unix-like system like the Mac or even Chrome OS if their needs don't go beyond Twitter and Facebook. An Android system would also be attractive since it supposedly also runs Linux. I've just been to a local store (southeast Asia) where they're actually selling an Android 4.0 netbook by some no-name Chinese manufacturer. So full circle even if in a small way for Google's smartphone OS.