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

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.

Comments

Promoting?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Promoting?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Promoting?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re: Promoting?

[drinkypoo]

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.

FSF needs to take a stand against systemd.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FSF needs to take a stand against systemd.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FSF needs to take a stand against systemd.

[Athanasius]

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.

security?

[tero]

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.

Uses systemd now?

[CrAlt]

Well in to the trash it goes.

focused on privacy, security and ease of use

[war4peace]

" 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.