great alternative if you seek software freedom as GNU/FSF defines https://guix.gnu.org
Very interesting, will give it a shot when I find the time🙂👍
Looks interesting, but to what extent is it compatible to other distributions, allowing for package-related or other reuse?
As much as an Ubuntu fork that removes that semi-proprietary snap stuff would be in a good position to build a user base quickly, so would now a Debian fork that keeps the on-device code licenses clean.
compatible to other distributions, allowing for package-related or other reuse?
Guix package manager theorerically can run in any distro so you can use Guix packages in any distro; I run it on NixOS for example. Some distributions have a dedicated package for installing it, or use the official instructions https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/en/html_node/Binary-Installation.html#Binary-Installation
Just as NixOS, GNU Guix System cannot just run any arbitrary binary built in another GNU/Linux distribution because it does not follow File Hierarchy Standard and so on… But there are workarounds, like patching the binary to change the dynamic loader path.
But one can use Flatpak just fine on GNU Guix System and NixOS.
Appimage requires patching because it is not portable.
As much as an Ubuntu fork that removes that semi-proprietary snap stuff would be in a good position to build a user base quickly, so would now a Debian fork that keeps the on-device code licenses clean.
There are already PureOS and Trisquel https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
I suggested GNU Guix System because it is innovative in a very useful and joyful way.
I didn’t mean running on the top of some distro, but “native” compatibility to existing packaging. Snap/Flatpack/Nix etc. can also more or less run on the top of arbitrary distros, but I think more acceptance can be achieved if the packages are (at least source-level) compatible to something existing and widespread and run as first-class citizens there.
Not saying that Guix isn’t innovative, useful or joyful, though. Just thinking that it might not work as an alternative for Debian in every case.
Will look into PureOS and Trisquel. Are their releases roughly corresponding to some releases of Debian or Ubuntu, respectively (e.g. package-version-wise)?
I didn’t mean running on the top of some distro
i wrote that 1st paragraph just in case.
but “native” compatibility to existing packaging
2nd paragraph
if the packages are (at least source-level) compatible to something existing and widespread and run as first-class citizens there.
Traditional package managers and formats are so bad… Well Unix, GNU/Linux is a mess.
no current better way around it other than the Nix and Guix way. Flatpak is the 2nd better current model for portability. Today I only package to Nix and Guix; sometimes Flatpak as well.
Sigh.
wonder who and why
Free software is failing and getting co-opted because they thought getting a bunch of enthusiasts to boycott proprietary software was enough to win. As long as the means of production is owned by the ruling class, their interests will be favored. Our boycotts will cause little but inconveniences for ourselves.
Boycotting efforts against digital souvereignty alone is not enough. But the efforts to build a regulative solution won’t work without enough people willing to continue the boycott.
So true
Important step to sink the boat…
It has never made any sense to make a normal user(newbie) to have to search for drivers for wireless or video. The vote has probably made quite a few FSF/GNU zealots upset. I see it as a good thing. Drivers in the installer will make Linux adoption easier.
deleted by creator
This is not how on boarding of new users works. If you put up a RTFM wall and intentionally make their installation fail they either just stick with Windows or use another more newbie friendly distro.
And Debian is a community driven distribution. It needs new users (who to a small percentage become contributors) all the time or it can’t survive.
Edit: also I don’t see how this is disrespecting your digital rights. If you feel so strongly about the issue you surely made your homework and only run hardware with libre firmware, so this has absolutely no effect on you.
deleted by creator
No my last point was different. At no point is Debian forcing you to use these non-Free firmwares. They are a purely optional inclusion in their installer for those people that do need to use them to get a functional system. Thus your digital rights are not negatively impacted at all.
deleted by creator
Granted there are some rare edge cases where both options exist, but after installing Debian you are free to revert any such non-Free firmware on your actual system.
deleted by creator
I understand the point, but I was thinking that there were already Linux distributions fitting into that niche…
Not really. They are either not very beginner friendly or have other issues that make then objectively worse, like Ubuntu pushing their Snap crap etc.
Debian made some nice efforts to improve userfriendlyness in recent years, but their installer just failing to work on common hardware was a major sticking point. This should largely resolve this issue at no detriment to anyone.
The vote has probably made quite a few FSF/GNU zealots upset. I see it as a good thing.
It certainly made proprietary software stakeholders/companies very happy indeed.
Drivers in the installer will make Linux adoption easier.
No. That would be debian-only. Adoption-front is generally Ubuntu, Mint, …
Yeah, all it did was make newbies choose Ubuntu over Debian and that is just objectively the worse choice.
I believe there’s a lot of misunderstanding of what’s freeSW, what’s openSW, and what debian repos have been providing all along.
Debian has been providing a “non-free” repo for all versions they keep in their repo servers (experimental, unstable, testing, stable) since I can remember.
And to me it’s important to make a difference of what’s freeSW vs. what’s not freeSW, and I prefer to use freeSW, unless I’m forced to use something it’s not freeSW and there’s no way to overcome that.
This is one of the things openSW movements (remember, IBM, MS, Google, and several other corps all are part of, or contribute to openSW fundations, but never had supported the idea of freeSW) have influenced to, and convinced most into. Now the value of freeSW means almost nothing, and most are just happy with openSW. I can’t judge anyone, but just say, this is really sad. And once again I see people treating those defending principles as 2nd class citizens, :(
=(
deleted by creator
This link is relevant for context. It’s a small blog post from Steve McIntyre identifying the problems he sees with firmware in Debian and proposing solutions. Eventually McIntyre’s views led to this general resolution.
Quoting from that link:
In my opinion, the way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian is a mess, and this is hurting many of our users daily. For a long time we’ve been pretending that supporting and including (non-free) firmware on Debian systems is not necessary. We don’t want to have to provide (non-free) firmware to our users, and in an ideal world we wouldn’t need to. However, it’s very clearly no longer a sensible path when trying to support lots of common current hardware.
With his proposed solution being to
[…] split out the non-free firmware packages into a new non-free-firmware component in the archive, and allow a specific exception only to allow inclusion of those packages on our official media. We would then generate only one set of official media, including those non-free firmware packages.
So basically the same that was voted now, “Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer”.
In my humble opinion, as a literal nobody on the internet: sometimes you need to take a step back to take two forward. This inclusion looks undesirable but necessary, and I feel like giving differential treatment to non-free firmware vs. non-free software was the right move here, to minimise the ideological damage caused by promotion of non-free code.
