Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Trisquel 6.0 'Toutatis' Is Now Available

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the celtic-deity-increment dept.

GNU is Not Unix 109

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.'"

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

almost! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155887)

just about filled out my FOSS bullshit bingo card on this sumary.

if you complete a row, you shout:

FIRST POST!

Why not just base it off Debian? (2, Interesting)

sheehaje (240093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155895)

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?

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155977)

You get the benfit of most of the work done by the Ubuntu project.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (4, Interesting)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156003)

Because, despite things like Unity, Canonical actually does a lot of good work to fix up a lot of little problems in Debian. It's simply easier for Trisquel and others to rip out Unity than it is to fix up sid.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

twistedcubic (577194) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156329)

What are these problems with Debian?

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156415)

Best guess... lack of obnoxious default desktop environment.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (2)

Sesostris III (730910) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156613)

What are these problems with Debian?

My opinions (which may be wrong):

  • Debian unstable (sid) - up-to-date, but unstable
  • Debian testing (wheezy) - more stable, but not fully so. Not so up-to-date
  • Debian stable (squeeze) - rock solid stable, but usually very much out of date

Compare this with Ubuntu - based on Debian unstable - which is both up-to-date and stable

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156713)

Tht sounds like you just pulled the version info from Debian's website. I've run sid as a desktop OS before, and rarely had issues.
Very occasionally, a library update would break an application for a couple of days until the application was updated for the new lib, but even that was never more than a couple of days, and always an unessential application.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158661)

I generally agree with you.

I once got bitten by a bug in Debian unstable's X11. (Long time ago. Potato XFree86 if I remember correctly.) X11 is a critical package for a desktop. That was a mess as my machine was unusable for the time it took for a new version to hit unstable. (Three or four days as I remember.)

Still, I have found unstable to be more stable than most distribution's stable releases in general. As for testing, things can be broken for a longer time with testing than with unstable. (See http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html sections 3.1.5 through 3.1.7 for reasons why unstable may remain unstable for a shorter period of time than testing.) While on the other hand, unstable has more churn and hence may have more shorter lived instabilities.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

robsku (1381635) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156851)

My opinions (which may be wrong):

  • Debian stable (squeeze) - rock solid stable, but usually very much out of date

Compare this with Ubuntu - based on Debian unstable - which is both up-to-date and stable

Heard or Debian Backports (3rd party repository)?

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (3, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156953)

Debian stable is very much up to date, don't confuse it with having the latest version.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157239)

Now consider how many people still run Windows XP. Why would "out-of-date" be a big deal with Debian?

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (4, Interesting)

Rysc (136391) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157551)

Compare this with Ubuntu - based on Debian unstable - which is both up-to-date and stable

Hah. I'll contain my laughter.

Canonical releases are rarely what I would call *stable*. They're full of issues both small and large and mixing packages from outside of their main repo can quickly destabilize what you do have.

Debian sid sometimes has *package dependency issues* or regressions, but that's where its "unstable" moniker stops applying. Debian policy leads to Debian stability and which archive you pull from doesn't matter much. To get something that might be broken in Debian, other than install-time difficulty due to mismatched dependency information, you usually need to go to experimental. If you're not familiar with it that's *good*, because it's not for you.

Ubuntu is poorly put together and less reliable than Debian. Anyone who's familiar with Debian from a sysadmin point of view will probably be able to confirm this for you. The only reasons Ubuntu gets away with it are (1) its users don't do much with their computers, and (2) after 6 months you dist-upgrade, so problems from the last release go away and get replaced by problems from the new release. It's all terribly slipshod and amateurish.

LTS or six month releases? (1)

kbahey (102895) | about a year and a half ago | (#43161853)

You seem to be confusing the LTS with six month releases for Ubuntu.

The Long Term Support releases are every other year, usually in April, and are supported with security updated for 5 years on the server, and 3 years on the desktop.

The six month releases are the unstable ones, but the LTS are very stable.

Been using them for many years and yes, I sysadmin several systems, both servers and desktops (KDE though), and things are good.

Re:LTS or six month releases? (1)

Rysc (136391) | about a year and a half ago | (#43162829)

I'm not confusing them, I'm well aware. Lots of normal people keep rolling with the 6 month releases for freshness and run afoul of all manner of problems. The LTS users get the moderately tested and bugfixed version, but it's no better engineered.

Re:LTS or six month releases? (1)

kbahey (102895) | about a year and a half ago | (#43162985)

Is that Ubuntu's problem that people just upgrade? Perhaps they should default to LTS and require people to override it explicitly. File a bug for that.

Not sure whether it is better engineered or whatever. But it is certainly more stable from experience, and spaces out any issues the upgrade causes by years rather than months.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43162405)

Funny, I've not had any stability or install issues on Ubuntu with extensive amount of installing packages from outside of official repositories or from manual installation. On the other hand, I've had some dependency issues come up with Debian trying to get some of the same software to work.

However, I don't see this as meaning Debian as unstable and Ubuntu as necessarily rock solid. The problem is such systems are so complex and people can use them rather different ways, that people will have different experiences. It is easy enough to have a case where for one person, "it just works," while for another it is a nightmare, and in both cases being people who extensively use their computer as a power user.

A sysadmin at a company with some diverse use cases will be able to say which systems tend to work a lot more than others, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate another person's claim that a particular system has worked well or poorly for them (although can invalidate the idea that the user's experience is universal).

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159333)

1. Out of date software.
2. Lack of support for PPAs
3. Overly long install process.
4. Lack of hardware support in the default kernel
5. Lack of third-party software as available in Ubuntu's partner repositories
6. Lack of One cloud support.
7. Additional configuration required at install time.
8. Lack of multimedia support out of the box.
9. Lack of long term support life cycle.

The fact of the matter is Debian is years out of date and falls further behind every year. Ubuntu has more software, more features, a better installer, better hardware support and a longer life cycle.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158465)

a lot of little problems in Debian.

Such as?

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156649)

Pretty fonts.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157455)

Is Trisquel something that was just forked out of Ubuntu at some point, and has since then been following its own course ever since, or is it something that resyncs w/ Ubuntu every time a new version is out?

Once Debian completes their HURD, Trisquel could come out w/ their own HURD distro, couldn't they?

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (2)

andrew3 (2250992) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157711)

Trisquel re-syncs with Ubuntu, using scripts to remove all the proprietary parts. Read about it here: How Trisquel Is Made [trisquel.info] .

There probably isn't really any reason to use Hurd, since Linux-libre is completely free anyway. But who knows, maybe Trisquel will change in the future...

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158011)

Yeah, but they can't update its license to GPL3. With Hurd, they could - once Debian completes their Hurd port.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160959)

I thought HURD itself is not in a state where the GNU developers recommend it for production use. That puts a GNU/Hurd release from Debian a ways off, doesn't it?

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158655)

In hardware hacking circles it is often joked about that an Arduino is included for blog credit. I think with Linux Ubuntu is included for blog credit.

Re:Why not just base it off Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43162599)

I can't speak for all Ubuntu spin-off users, but I like Ubuntu community. I don't like Debian community, their attitude and their advocates.

Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155979)

Does anybody know how well the Linux Steam client runs on this?

Defeat the purpose (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156021)

Steam? I thought installing non-free software such as games [pineight.com] defeated the purpose of using Trisquel over, say, Xubuntu.

Re:Defeat the purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156489)

tepples: http://i.imgur.com/Iw4whku.gif [imgur.com]

Re:Defeat the purpose (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156959)

It's still a good question. It won't recommend non-free software, but the question is if it actively prevents non-free software from running.

Re:Defeat the purpose (1)

andrew3 (2250992) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157741)

Trisquel doesn't stop proprietary software from running. You can set it to use PPAs or the Ubuntu repositories if you want.

However, they don't exactly support or recommend doing that. The Trisquel package repos are only supposed to contain free software as well.

Re:Defeat the purpose (1)

GoogleShill (2732413) | about a year and a half ago | (#43162349)

I think that Linux-Libre removes support for binary-blob drivers, so good luck getting any gaming video card to display a steam game well.

Re:Defeat the purpose (1)

andrew3 (2250992) | about a year and a half ago | (#43164887)

In Linux-land "blob" normally refers to proprietary firmware.

When it comes to 3D support, Intel and nouveau provide free drivers and firmware for many cards. AMD/ATI users are often out of luck though. I believe nouveau in Linux 3.8 brings 3D support to even more NVIDIA users than previously.

When it comes to firmware, the main area which Linux-libre lacks support in is for wireless cards. But luckily compatible wireless cards come cheap these days, in both PCI-e and USB forms. I recently bought an Atheros card for my laptop for < $20 and it works fine with Trisquel.

Re:Defeat the purpose (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43164909)

Why is everyone calling Linux "Libre" all of a sudden? it has always been free, and will remain so. As for supporting binary blobs, they work as one would expect. All you'll see (if you're paying attention) is a whine about it tainting the kernel.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156053)

no your average Ubuntu user will not move to trisquel, trisquels philosophy is diametrically opposed to what steam stands for. ubuntu users will either go to mint Debian or maybe fedora.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156695)

Why got to Mint Debian verses Mint Mate or Mint Cinnamon. I think you don't understand what the biggest problem with Ubuntu is (it is Unity). Both Mint's based off Ubuntu work great. Mint Debian is more of a hack. They couldn't get it to work so they release "packs". I love Debian... but for the desktop? It doesn't work that well.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157113)

It's my current desktop and it works extremely well.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158103)

so does FreeBSD but it's so not worth the effort.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

l3v1 (787564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157801)

I love Debian... but for the desktop? It doesn't work that well.

Your desktop is not everyone else's desktop. I work on a Debian testing development machine every day and it's beyond awesome. Now, if you'd say it doesn't work that well for everyone, I would agree. And for avoiding yet another Debian vs. flamewar, I'm stopping here :)

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (2)

Rhaban (987410) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157339)

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.

Re: Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubunt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157923)

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.

Re: Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubunt (2)

Pale Dot (2813911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157959)

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.

Re: Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubunt (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160991)

I think that's a stretch. I'm a dissatisfied Ubuntu user and right now I am switching back and forth between my Aptosid and Fedora partitions as alternatives.

Re: Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubunt (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43165009)

I'm a dissatisfied Ubuntu user

Well, you're obviously more patient than I am. ;-)

I've been primarily a Slackware user since the mid-'90s (though until recently I ran Arch on my laptop), but occasionally I pull down a current version of Ubuntu just to see what I'm missing. However, I always find Ubuntu annoys me to the point that I end up blowing it away after a couple of hours.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156059)

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.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

overlordofmu (1422163) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156405)

RMS is not a violent man.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156433)

Yeah, the only violent part is the stench.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157207)

Unless you're a ninja.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158683)

You must be a hoot at parties.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156269)

Does anybody know how well the Linux Steam client runs on this?

Unless they really ripped things up more than expected(or Steam demands a bunch of proprietary libraries, rather than just blobbing them in), I'd assume that it would run more or less entirely the same.

The only significant caveat, of course, is that games tend to be hard on the GPU, and FOSS GPU driver performance can be a bit... touchy. Intel GMAs work about as well as they ever do with free drivers(does Intel even bother to maintain a proprietary branch on linux?); but just aren't that fast. AMD GPU performance under free drivers varies by family; but tends to lag their proprietary driver in pure punch(although it sometimes leads it in playing nicely). Nvidia's proprietary driver is generally considered the best; but the alternatives are either Nouveau, which makes the AMD FOSS drivers look mature and powerful, or almost nothing(Nvidia's official advice is as follows Our advice to owners of NVIDIA GPUs running Linux is to use the VESA X driver from the time of Linux distribution installation until they can download and install the NVIDIA Linux driver from their distribution repositories or from nvidia.com. [freedesktop.org]

So, you will likely be able to install it; but unless you have an Intel GPU, or specific AMD parts, or even more specific Nvidia parts, you'll end up shoving so much binary blob into your kernel in order to meaningfully use it that your objective in installing it isn't really clear...

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156747)

The free software Intel graphics drivers are the best. I'm not sure why you diss them. My only thought is you must be a hard core gamer. The NVIDIA proprietary driver creates lots of issues as does the AMD driver. Neither are free. Neither work with Trisquel (with a lot of hacking you could install them but this defeats the purpose of running a free system). Now the NVIDIA proprietary drivers does have a performance advantage over the free graphics Intel driver. However that is only because the Intel graphics are not in the same league. The free intel graphics driver is actually excellent and something others should be looking up to. They are being tweaked by game developers so games run best on these chipsets. Intel has also caught up in recent years. Phoronix (the source for linux graphics and gaming news) has described them as impressive and almost on par with NVIDIA at the low end. For most people the Intel graphics are the best choice. They are the least problematic. For gamers? Well, you could go with an older NVIDIA graphics card (9500GT) and then the free graphics nouveau driver for NVIDIA works good enough. It doesn't have the optimizations that the propitiatory driver has yet... but given time it'll at least have support. Chance are NVIDIA will drop support for your graphics cards at some point and then you won't have any support. If your a gamer it won't matter because you will have moved on. For everybody else though it matters big time. Last thing to say is the nouveau driver has gotten the blessing of Linus and hit the mainline kernel. If the code actually sucked as bad as people are suggesting it never would have gotten in.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156897)

I've just installed an updated driver for my 7600GT. Granted it's on legacy support (till 2017). Nvidia supports their cards for really long.
Their are two issues with your post : it's hard telling users who want to run a game they should live with 20 to 30% of the performance for the hardware they paid for, and less 3D features, more bugs etc. I can run some Steam games brilliantly on that now ancient card, I think a 9500GT with nouveau would be significantly worse (nor do I want to waste precious CPU cycles in the driver)
The other is there's no Intel graphics card to buy.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43163837)

I have nothing against the Intel drivers, it's just that none of Intel's GPUs are particularly powerful, and(more annoyingly) Intel tends to reserve the most powerful GPUs for their more powerful and expensive CPUs(which are total overkill for most applications that any Intel GPU is capable of).

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156683)

Who cares? You don't run Trisquel unless you give a shit about your freedoms. I don't even understand people who run GNU/Linux just to turn it into Microsoft Windows. If you want to run Microsoft Windows just run Microsoft Windows. Stop trying to turn an environment that is free into one that isn't. You defeat the benefits of the platform doing that and then you go off and bitch about how nothing works. No shit it doesn't work. Proprietary software doesn't work! And it doubly doesn't work on a system that is designed around free software.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158065)

I don't think you understand what 'freedom' really means here. It means those 4 things on the GNU page, something you don't get w/ Microsoft Windows. That doesn't imply that anything that looks like Windows, or works like Office or Steam is revulsive. What it means is that while people can have things that look or work like Windows, they should have the wherewithal to change it, which they only can if they have the source code, and know how to do it. There is no reason something that installs on Ubuntu shouldn't install on Trisquel or RMS' own favorite - gNewSense, unless the makers of those distros have deliberately crippled it. But not everyone who appreciates free knows how to do '.configure && make && make install'. Which is why you have all those intermediate distro packages, like .deb or .rpm.

Re:Sounds like good news for switchers from Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157783)

You sir, are the most delightful and intelligent troll ever. Congrats, you win the internet today!

Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156083)

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.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

BluPhenix316 (2656403) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156095)

I posted this, I didn't mean to post as Anonymous, I was on another computer and thought I was already logged in.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

lucm (889690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156111)

Is this a Libre version of your original post?

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156105)

Nobody is expected to use it. I did a shift at the FSF stand on free software day a few years back. I gave out a lot of Trisquel CDs but for every disk I handed out I suggested the recipient walk around to the Ubuntu stand and get a disk from them as well.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156533)

Hi, I've been using Ubuntu 11 for the past couple of years and I love it but I'm afraid I'll have to upgrade soon. I'm not going to stay with Ubuntu. I truly hope another distro comes around soon to fill in the gap. I don't care which it is, as long as it's one (1) single distro that all of us non-geeks will use, and it offers both usability and openness.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156843)

I think Ubuntu is perfectly fine. Why not stay with it?

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156911)

Just tell people the new Ubuntu is Linux Mint. Same thing under another name but it's the better variant you'd better use, just like the OpenOffice to LibreOffice migration.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157019)

I must admit, Linux Mint is pretty good. I can't wait for them to start shipping with Unity though, then it will be just about perfect.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157087)

You forgot to use the sarcasm tags.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157331)

I think unity is pretty good. Not perfect, but it scores high on usability IMHO.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157987)

If you want Unity, what's wrong w/ Ubuntu in the first place?

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158307)

I think Ubuntu is perfectly fine. Why not stay with it?

New features come before bug fixes.
No attempt to do proper testing, so they create shitloads of regressions.
New spyware with every release!
You should trust us, because we've got root on your computer.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157459)

When the Gnu CD handouts hit the Windoozy-8 launch events, I became aware of Trisquel. Had a good laugh at the videos and the befuddled WinLoozers reactions to something good and free (double shock for them). Myself, I run XP (and _not_ upgrading_) for my vestiges of legacy software, otherwise everything has run on Linux Mint for a couple of years now.

With the news exposure I gave Trisquel a try and found it to be a compact and well constructed distro. It is aimed at the "purist" FOSS user though, so after Mint it feels like being reduced to hopping about on one leg during a cross-country run. Ubuntu lost me on the first install when really core basic things did not work, and alienated me for life with the introduction of Unity. Mint, just works. Cinnamon flavour for me, though Mate is good too.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156685)

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.

These two sentences does not make sense. You claim canonical does not invent anything and then you support it by naming Mir which is an invention came from Canonical. Whatever canonical does peoples like you will bash. I'm so sorry for you.

I remember how redhat dumped the whole Linux desktop back in 2000 or something, because they didn't believe in desktop and thought they have to spend their money on servers and then they introduced fedora which is always UNSTABLE, BUGGY and NEVER ON TIME for releases.

I also remember when Canonical came into the scene and started where redhat leftoff (with a broader vision). We all owe canonical for what they have done to make linux desktop relevant again. remember that they have spent bazillion Dollars on ubuntu so far.

BTW, the fact that a lot of distributions nowadays are based on Ubuntu/Debian shows that they have done a damn good job so far

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (0)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158769)

These two sentences does not make sense. You claim canonical does not invent anything and then you support it by naming Mir which is an invention came from Canonical. Whatever canonical does peoples like you will bash. I'm so sorry for you.

They make perfect sense, you just appear to be illiterate. This [wikipedia.org] is what NIH syndrome means.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156777)

What are you talking about? The only thing I'm even aware of that Canonical isn't releasing under a free software license is server components. And I'm not even sure they are releasing the binary so the source is irrelevant. Now we should avoid that kind of dependence although this is another matter of discussion. There is no problem with basing Trisquel off Ubuntu from a philosophical perspective. There may be a good reason to do so for technical reasons and deviations from what the project is trying to achieve or can achieve using the Ubuntu base. This has been talked about on the Trisquel forums. When Mark Shuttleworth pulls his money out of Canonical or otherwise stops funding it in a few years and the distribution shrinks or goes bye-bye then it'll be time to consider Debian again. It is almost a toss up though between Debian and Ubuntu given the changes Canonical has made.

Trisquel should be all GPL3 (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157537)

The purpose of this distro is for FOSS fans. They want something completely free.

Not FOSS fans, just the FSF, or the 'Libre-Linux' crowd. The few purists who think that liberated software is an end in itself, regardless of the quality compromises that have to be made in order to attain it. The handful who thinks that having binary blobs of things whose source code is not readily available for free distribution is contaminating software.

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.

Why should Canonical stay w/ GNU, when the FSF, for starters, had long excluded Canonical from their list of endorsed distros (see the GNU website)? Besides, Canonical has adhered to all the licenses of all the software that they use - their Linux is still GPL2. Only thing - for their newly created stuff, they dual- license them - like Mir will be multi-licensed under GPL3, LGPL3 and BSDL.

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.

How is Mir creating any fragmentation, when Wayland is not yet ready? Yeah, there is Wayland 1.0, but it's hardly been widely adapted, and waiting for it means extra delays in their plans. I thought that the whole thing about 'software freedom' was that developers had the freedom to develop whatever they wanted and put it out there, and let the market decide whether they want it or not. How is the creation of a new Windowing system, or a new Desktop Environment, or a new kernel, or a new OS, or a new anything work against the 'rest of the community'?

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.

Better idea - if you want to make a liberated distro, how about getting people to actually work on creating new liberated components that go into the making of such a system. In this case, why not work seriously in getting HURD out - in which case, you don't have to bellyache about Linux having non-free software in the first place. I'm glad that in one thing, they are putting their money where their mouth is and including GNOME 3.4 (that's something that neither Ubuntu nor Debian are doing), and hope they do more of it. Hey, even they could do their own version of, say, a NeWS like display server to replace X11, and put it under GPL3. If they do everything, they could end up w/ a completely liberated system which they could then promote to the world. But that would require FSF people turning away from evangelizing liberated software to first producing that liberated software in the first place.

Re:Trisquel doesn't make sense to me (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159651)

Just out of curiosity, what makes Mir / upstart / pulseaudio / all the other "Ubuntu" bits less FOSS than the standard Linux ones? Is there a council that decides which bits are properly FOSS approved?

Bitter people (0)

lucm (889690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156139)

From the website:
"Trisquel was born in the Galicia region of Spain, so the primary language was Galician, and Castilian and English were also included. In version 2.0, Catalan and Basque were added".

Galician, Castilian, Catalan, Basque... No wonder a fork from a fork is coming out of a country where they have so many different sub-languages. Those people can't even get along with other Spaniards. Even money that Trisquel itself will fork before the rooster crows.

Re:Bitter people (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156927)

Castilian is what we usually refer to as "Spanish", I think.

Re:Bitter people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157953)

That's right.

But then you get into a conversation that can easily turn to a very heated political/nationalist debate...which I don't completely understand yet, but I find fascinating after having moved to Spain almost 5 years ago. I did learn Catalan, and understand a bit of Galician but don't speak it.

In Spain there are 4 languages recognized as "official" in the Constitution, as mentioned before. For example, you can have legally binding contracts written in any of them. And there are also other regional languages that are spoken (though to a lesser degree).

So, inside Spain, they can all be considered "Spanish" languages, and that's why it's common to see the language known as Spanish outside of Spain referred to as "Castilian", especially in the regions where the other 3 official languages are predominant (Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia), but this greatly depends on who you're talking to; some people will insist that you use the "correct" denomination, others will not care at all, and everything in between.

I guess Trisquel was made to address these things. Though IMO, the Catalan language support in other distros (RHEL and Fedora being my first-hand experience) are very good.

wow, version 6.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156171)

never heard of versions 1-5.. so they must be doing something right.

"Libre" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156173)

I wonder if this "libre" naming convention fad will ever end.

Re:"Libre" (0)

Pav (4298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156213)

Ummm, you DO know that this is a Spanish distro don't you?

Re:"Libre" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156281)

Yes, but in an English language release?

Re:"Libre" (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#43161517)

given that english does not have a clean way of saying free = unrestricted and not free = no "money" cost i don't think so

(and yes you can have a US$M program that is GPLed )

Debian 7.0 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156813)

Why not just run Debian?

Re:Debian 7.0 (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156941)

What's the support policy? If it's still three years, then Ubuntu LTS now has longer support than debian stable : five years for all uses.

Re:Debian 7.0 (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156977)

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.

Re:Debian 7.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157405)

How is "having an option" the same as "recommending"? Even IRL when I go into a store I can ask for recommendations based on my wishes. Debian, IMO, is a clerk that almost never recommends a non-free option, and if it does, warns the user that it has problems (libre-wise).

Re:Debian 7.0 (3, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157555)

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.

Re:Debian 7.0 (2)

Rysc (136391) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157617)

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.

Re:Debian 7.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158143)

That means that the user might be tricked into running software that does not honor the user's freedom. That is considered non-ethical.

Well, you can take that honor and freedom and shove them up your fucking ass. The FSF is the Westboro Baptist Church of computing.

Re:Debian 7.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158363)

So "freedom" means that you're not even allowed to mention the existence of any software that doesn't jive with your beliefs, then, even if you point out its non-free-ness right in the name of the repository?

I'm surprised that "Trisquel" here (by the way, what happened to "GNUisance" or whatever the old name was?) doesn't outright prevent non-GPL software from running; after all, that's what freedom is all about, right?

FYI (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157185)

Toutatis was a god of the Gaules.

Trisquel in use (1)

bigbrownepaul (794162) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157305)

This is a great distro if you usually use Ubuntu but have problems on install with graphics compatibility. I use this as the main alternative distro when I am re-purposing old laptops for cash poor clients.

The political element is a nice and I fully understand its importance but its biggest selling point is its "like" Ubuntu but better on older / unusual hardware.

Its great work and I support it every day in my IT Support business for charities and home businesses.

Paul

Libre? (0)

sproketboy (608031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157341)

WTF does libre mean in this context? Or are we talking about Mexican wrestlers again?

Re:Libre? (1)

zoward (188110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157541)

WTF does libre mean in this context? Or are we talking about Mexican wrestlers again?

The term Libre is used by many in the FOSS community instead of "free", so they won't have to keep explaining the diference between "free as in speech" (free to use and modify) and "free as in beer" (cost).

They're downstream from Ubuntu instead of Debian because Ubuntu is more end user-friendly than Debian. I would imagine that could change depending on how Ubuntu changes over the next few releases.

I'll be downloading Toutatis today. Along with my main (gaming) rig (which runs Linux Mint), I maintain a "free box", which contains nothing but 100% Free (tm) software, mostly as an experiment to gauge the current status of how useful a box with only free software is (or isn't). I have to say, it's become a lot easier than it was in the old days, where almost nothing worked after you stripped out the nonfree bits. Modems and network cards were notoriously hard to get working. Brigantia, the prevous release of Trisquel, supports every peice of hardware on the box except the ethernet port (the box has an nVidia nForce-based motherboard), but the wireless worked, so I didn't really try. Interestingly, I've been increasingly using the free box over my gaming rig for day-to-day use, and may end up scrapping the gaming rig as I don't game as much these days.

Some things that are challenging on a free box:
- Anything that requires heavy graphical use, e.g., no serious games. The free box has an nVidia card, running X using nouveau.
- Flash-based stuff is iffy. I have flash video supported, but no apps (and in my case at least, little of value was lost).
- Any java programs that require Sun's implementation of java.
- The fonts are hard to look at. Does anyone konw here I can get some good libre fonts?
- Using proprietary audio/video formats. In many cases playback works, ostensibly becuase in many countries there are no software patents (yet). Since I''m in the USA and try to keep the Free box free, I stick to free formats (fortunately I ripped most of my music collection to FLAC a long time ago. For the free box, I wrote a script to go thorugh my collection and convert any remaining mp3's to Ogg).

As you can see, most of the issues revolve around proprietary languages, hardware, fonts, etc.

Congrats to the folks who put Trisquel together for getting Toutatis out. I can't wait to try it!

Re:Libre? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158081)

For the free box, I wrote a script to go thorugh my collection and convert any remaining mp3's to Ogg).

You transcoded your MP3 files to Vorbis? I always considered FREEtards to be stupid and you just proved it.

Re:Libre? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158379)

I know, right? Go FLAC or go home; storage space is cheap.

Re:Libre? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157575)

Previously, the FSF and Stallman used to use the term 'free software', which was pretty misleading, since the first thing that one would think of hearing it would be price. This led to their long winded 'free-as-in-freedom-but-not-as-in-beer' explanations. So more recently, they've substituted the word 'free' w/ 'libre' so that people wouldn't have that confusion.

I do think it's an improvement, but I'd have preferred them using the term 'Liberated Software' instead of 'Libre', so that anyone who knows English, but not necessarily Spanish, would instantly know what it means. I use the term 'Liberated Software' whenever I'm talking about what the FSF used to refer to as 'Free Software'.

Mir (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158115)

Do plan to backport Mir once released? ;-)

NoSQL alternative (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159197)

So if you were tired of running MySQL at level one, now you can dial it down to zero with NoSQL or up to three with TriSQL... oh wait
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>