Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: gNewSense 3.0 Switches From Ubuntu To Debian

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    Let me know how that goes considering gnewsense has almost zero support for any type of wifi chips due to not having binary firmware blobs.
    I don't know how many more times this neds to be said, but I guess I'll say it again.... If you want well supported hardware then you need to buy well supported hardware. If anyone wants to use a wifi adapter on this distro, then it is up to them to learn wich wifi adapters are well supported and then choose to buy one of them.

    If you have unsupported hardware due to philosophical reasons, then you will have to just buy hardware that works within the bounds of that philosophy.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    I'd just like to interject for a moment. What youíre referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, KDE/GNU/Linux, or as Iíve recently taken to calling it, KDE plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning KDE desktop environment made useful by the KDE desktop, KDE windowing system and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
    Not sure if serious. I still agree, though, on what you wrote.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    I'd just like to interject for a moment. What youíre referring to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, KDE/GNU/Linux, or as Iíve recently taken to calling it, KDE plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning KDE desktop environment made useful by the KDE desktop, KDE windowing system and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
    Only valid if you don't count the massive amount of servers running headless without any form of GUI. My servers run GNU/Linux, not KDE/whatever/GNU/Linux.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TestingTe View Post
    I'd be lying if I said I understood what you meant... I do know that they don't like anything non-free, and would probably recommend a computer which is able to run on nothing but Freedom all the way down to the BIOS. I also know that they are only ok with the amount of non-free in the kernel if it is disabled/removed and never used.

    Personally, though I prefer to run on Freedom any chance I get, I realize that sometimes I may not have too much of a choice in the matter.

    My laptop requires non-free firmware to get any wifi and any 3d (two things I regularly work with) and as a result, I can't run gNewSense or and of the FSF endorsed systems.

    I can, however, run on Gentoo or Debian via getting what I need then closing up the repo/masking everything non-free ;P
    What I mean is: the firmware we are talking about runs on the device (graphics card, wireless card). What I don't understand is why the fsf doesn't have any problem with all the closed source firmwares, microcodes, etc. that every computer has, as long as it is stored on the hardware itself. If we have to just copy that firmware every time the device starts then now it is not acceptable. The firmwares that gnewsense is removing from the kernel don't even run on your cpu.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtastic View Post
    What I mean is: the firmware we are talking about runs on the device (graphics card, wireless card). What I don't understand is why the fsf doesn't have any problem with all the closed source firmwares, microcodes, etc. that every computer has, as long as it is stored on the hardware itself. If we have to just copy that firmware every time the device starts then now it is not acceptable. The firmwares that gnewsense is removing from the kernel don't even run on your cpu.
    Now I understand! Their views on this can be seen here

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeSoftwareFoundation
    Strictly speaking, there was a non-free program in that computer: the BIOS. But that was impossible to replace, and by the same token, it didn't count.

    The BIOS was impossible to replace because it was stored in ROM: the only way to to put in a different BIOS was by replacing part of the hardware. In effect, the BIOS was itself hardware--and therefore didn't really count as software. It was like the program that (we can suppose) exists in the computer that (we can suppose) runs your watch or your microwave oven: since you can't install software on it, it may as well be circuits, not a computer at all.

    The ethical issues of free software arise because users obtain programs and install them in computers; they don't really apply to hidden embedded computers, or the BIOS burned in a ROM, or the microcode inside a processor chip, or the firmware that is wired into a processor in an I/O device. In aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was, indeed, not a problem.
    (taken from here https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html )

    Their priority is freedom of the software; the hardware we have little control over... unless we wish to go into the hardware-making bizz

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLHerne View Post
    ...and that's exactly why GNU/Linux is such a pointless naming scheme. There might have been a time when the kernel and the core GNU tools were the dominant components of a typical Linux-based system, but no longer. Now I have KDE apps, GNOME apps, independent apps using either of the dominant toolkits or their own - not to mention non-GNU core userspace utilities (systemd, networkmanager, ALSA, Xorg...).
    It's still quite useful in order to indicate that you don't mean Android (which can't be considered GNU/Linux).

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Only valid if you don't count the massive amount of servers running headless without any form of GUI. My servers run GNU/Linux, not KDE/whatever/GNU/Linux.
    Don't they actually run LAMP/GNU/Linux or so? (Hmm, well, AMP/GNU/Linux or GLAMP would be more accurate, but doesn't have the same ring to it)

    Quote Originally Posted by TestingTe View Post
    Their priority is freedom of the software; the hardware we have little control over... unless we wish to go into the hardware-making bizz
    That's a bit of a grey area... What about dumbphones? On one hand, you can't replace its software with anything. On the other hand, you can still install new software in the form of Java applets and such. Or, if you look at the component level, does a locked bootloader equate to hardware?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    That's a bit of a grey area... What about dumbphones? On one hand, you can't replace its software with anything. On the other hand, you can still install new software in the form of Java applets and such. Or, if you look at the component level, does a locked bootloader equate to hardware?
    Replicant OS ;P

    http://replicant.us/

    Combined with F-droid, of course ;P

    https://f-droid.org/

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    That's a bit of a grey area... What about dumbphones? On one hand, you can't replace its software with anything. On the other hand, you can still install new software in the form of Java applets and such. Or, if you look at the component level, does a locked bootloader equate to hardware?

    I think the difference here is in: can the manufacturer update the software? If he can't then I think the fsf would consider it hardware, if not, I don't think so, because it is an artificial limitation. In fact if only the manufacturer can update the software and it is open source, it is what stallman calls tivoization. So no, I wouldn't say an android (for example) phone with locked bootloader would be considered hardware, but maybe if the os was installed on a rom it would.

    Quote Originally Posted by TestingTe View Post
    Replicant OS ;P

    http://replicant.us/

    Combined with F-droid, of course ;P

    https://f-droid.org/
    When he says dumbphones he means feature phones, you can't install android on that. Also if the bootloader is locked you also can't.
    Last edited by funtastic; 08-08-2013 at 06:30 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Don't they actually run LAMP/GNU/Linux or so? (Hmm, well, AMP/GNU/Linux or GLAMP would be more accurate, but doesn't have the same ring to it)
    No. The applications that run on it are not part of the OS. I wouldn't call my Windows system GRID 2/Windows just because GRID 2 is at this point the most used application on it. Application != OS, the OS is used as an environment for the applications that are used. While you may count your GUI as part of the OS (when using a GUI) the applications are definitely not.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtastic View Post
    When he says dumbphones he means feature phones, you can't install android on that. Also if the bootloader is locked you also can't.
    My mistake/misunderstanding. In that case, thy view may very well be correct.

    Also, the replicant site shows what phones work and have installation instructions ;P

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •