Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FSF Adds PureOS To List of Endorsed GNU/Linux Distributions (fsf.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the come-along-and-share-the-OS dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader donaldrobertson writes: The Free Software Foundation on Thursday announced PureOS as an endorsed GNU/Linux distro. PureOS is an operating system focused on privacy, security and ease of use. Endorsement means the system meets the FSF's Free System Distribution Guidelines by providing and promoting only free software, with a dedication to making sure the system always remains free.

23 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. Promoting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I understand the Free Software Foundation's focus. I understand their principled stand on free software.
    But it's very easy to run a mainstream GNU/Linux distribution with only free software; these endorsements seem to imply that Debian and other normal distros are non-free.

    1. Re:Promoting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Debian project maintains a list of non-free software titles that users are able to install onto their Debian system. This is unacceptable to the FSF. It doesn't matter that the non-free titles in question are cleanly segregated from the rest of Debian, the fact of the matter is that the Debian project is endorsing these non-free software titles. In order to get the FSF's approval for the recommendations, the Debian project would have to completely disavow maintaining the list of titles and they should not endorse users towards these titles. If the list of non-free titles acted as a blacklist that actively prevented users from installing such titles, I would suspect that the FSF would condone such acts.

    2. Re: Promoting? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mention Debian, which is actually a good example of where we need more choice. When I last installed Debian I do not remember being given the option to choose which init system I wanted to use. Systemd was forced on me, against my will.

      No, it wasn't. You can replace systemd with whatever alternative you want. Debian doesn't stop you. As you're clearly aware, Devuan do it routinely.

      I am as sceptical of systemd as the next guy, but there is nothing infringing your freedom here. Well, not unless you think people maintaining a large, complicated software ecosystem that they make available to you for free should be compelled to customise it to whatever degree you personally wish out of the box, in which case I'd like to introduce you to a new adventure called living in the real world.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re: Promoting? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You can replace systemd with whatever alternative you want. Debian doesn't stop you. As you're clearly aware, Devuan do it routinely.

      You can, but you can't reasonably do it without non-Debian repos at this time. So yeah, if you're running vanilla Debian, you're forced to run systemd.

      Luckily, nobody is forcing most of us (any of us, perhaps) to run vanilla Debian. Still, it was a questionable decision at best.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Promoting? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Two things you need to understand about the Free Software Foundation is the definition of free software and the fact that they encourage everybody to profit by selling free software.

      BSD takes issue with how restrictive a the FSF GNU license is.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    5. Re: Promoting? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Do we have to continue pretending that 'selling' applies to Free software in the same way it applies to payware?

      If you're not required to pay in order to get access to the product, that's not what people normally mean by 'selling' your product.

      With the Internet, distributing software is trivial. Does anyone make money selling FOSS? (And no, that doesn't count support contracts.)

    6. Re: Promoting? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      That's the spirit! Light up the flame war and let's all gather round. 'tis the season!

    7. Re: Promoting? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      You can switch after installation and remove systemd

    8. Re: Promoting? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      You were going pretty strong up to the last line. (I happen to disagree that proprietary software is inherently immoral, but that's not the point here.)

      Those business models are legitimate and I completely support making money from FOSS that way, but it's not right to call it 'selling free software'.

  2. FSF needs to take a stand against systemd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The FSF needs to take a stand against systemd, and any GNU/Linux distros that use it. Systemd is, in my view, essentially a form of proprietary software, even if the source happens to be publicly accessible. It's a product created by and directed by corporate software developers, from what I can see, rather than being a community effort. In fact, much of the GNU/Linux user community wants nothing to do with it. Systemd has caused severe problems for many of us. We can't trust newer versions of the major GNU/Linux distros to work properly. We also can't trust niche or hobbyist non-systemd distros like Devuan. So we unfortunately have no choice but to stop using GNU/Linux and move to FreeBSD or some other non-GNU/Linux OS instead. If the FSF cares at all about the viability of GNU/Linux, they should launch an all-out defense against systemd. Removing systemd from the major distros is the only way to save GNU/Linux.

    1. Re:FSF needs to take a stand against systemd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you ask Stallman, he doesn't consider Systemd to be proprietary software because the source is available and is also licensed with a free software license. Simply put, he doesn't care about Systemd's technical matters and is amoral to the fact that that it is directed by corporate software interests by virtue of the licensing terms of Systemd.

    2. Re:FSF needs to take a stand against systemd. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:FSF needs to take a stand against systemd. by Athanasius · · Score: 2

      Indeed, my experience of Devuan is that it's just too slow to get updates, even critical security updates. So I've stayed with Debian + sysvinit on servers and "let it do what it wants" Debian with systemd on my home desktop so I can have some experience of it. Applying security updates is more important to me than avoiding systemd at this point, and I detest systemd from the little I've used it.

    4. Re:FSF needs to take a stand against systemd. by tramp · · Score: 1

      Devuan is making a lot of progress but lacks the resources of which Debian prior to the systemd debacle had available. Devuan Jessie works perfectly 24/7 on about half of my servers and security updates are available same day they arrive at Debian. About the other half of my servers are running FreeBSD. I do not like to bet on one horse after Debian went systemd.

  3. security? by tero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So yet another random distribution that is telling us it's taking OSS security seriously... and then promptly goes on to confuse privacy and security.

    So does anyone know how they're going to do the "security" part of it? Do they pay people to audit code? Is it hardened from the start? Do they compile grsecurity in?

    I checked their website - not a word about any security features, but plenty of privacy touting.

    1. Re:security? by therealspacebug · · Score: 1

      This is not really a "random distribution".
      It's really debian with some small customizations.

      The company behind it makes secure FOSS laptops (and soon phone).

      Check out https://puri.sm/

    2. Re:security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By default, it has Apparmor enabled, but I don't if its in enforcement or reporting mode. Other than that, I don't think it has much more hardening that what Debian already supplies.

  4. Uses systemd by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Hence it is just another distro backdoored by corporate interests.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Re:Moot by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    PureOS is what Purism use on their laptops, which are clearly intended to be freedom-respecting.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  6. Re:ethically pure, pragmatically limited. by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    You can run proprietary programs in Linux, too, you know.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  7. Re:ethically pure, pragmatically limited. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure you can, but you won't get FSF approval as a "free" distribution if you make it possible run non-free software on users' systems.

    From the FSF's free systems guidelines page:

    A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that are not committed to only including free software; even if they only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on.

    So would including Wine in the PureOS repository violate those guidelines since the purpose of Wine is to ostensibly allow Linux users to run on their systems Windows programs which the vast majority are non-free.

  8. Uses systemd now? by CrAlt · · Score: 2

    Well in to the trash it goes.

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
  9. focused on privacy, security and ease of use by war4peace · · Score: 2

    " focused on privacy, security and ease of use" - oh, nice.
    I got the latest ISO, fired up VirtualBOX, created a new "Other Linux x64" machine, mounted the ISO and started it up in live mode.
    Got this:
    https://imgur.com/lzRMgga

    I'm sorry but if the bloody thing doesn't even manage to start in live mode, then "ease of use" isn't really a feature, is it?

    Installing it on a virtual HDD worked though, so I'll play with it but already found out that sound doesn't work - there's no audio output.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)