Are there currently any projects on right now or plan to be for free OS alternatives to the pureos mobile for the L5?
is that even free software?
If you remove all proprietary blobs (which you donât need for the Librem 5 anyway), it will be free software AFAIK.
does the OS actively/can be changed to actively not work with non-free software in attempt to not promote such software and only free software in its repos and such?
Do you want it to specify what software can and canât be installed? Sounds more than a bit like apple.
1 Like
I want it to limit me to only free software to avoid accidently ruining my own freedom. I donât want debian; I want trisquel, parabola etc.
Limiting your software choices is ruining your freedom.
2 Likes
I think it respects my freedom as in my privacy, security and right to hack around with software. Freedom of choice is where it does some damage. I want something that sacrifices freedom of choice a bit to respect my other freedoms.
Why donât you just choose to not install proprietary software?
Well that would be simple if it gave a message saying âdo you want to run this non-free programâ but that isnât how things work.
edit: That is why things like linux-firmware-libre exist so you donât do things such as install non-free drivers as you have to then fight around. When I see that fight, I know to not touch that software on my computer.
edit1: The only free software in repos is for when I go through installing a program with a package manager, I want to instinctivily know that it is software that respects my freedom rather than reading up on every piece of software I install or every piece of software in an OS to make sure it is completely free.
edit2: I believe the OS should come completely free and there should be an alternative version where non-free software is not supported but can be run if the user heavily persists or things like just adding repos with non-free software. I want to stick to option 1.
1 Like
I donât understand. If reading up on software is something you canât be bothered to do, then what good is FOSS software to you? It sounds like youâre relying on someone else to tell you âthis software is safe/private/whatever,â which is the same thing as dealing with proprietary software.
3 Likes
I suggest GNU Guix System.
One is open and one isnât. One is easily verifiable and one canât really be by the community. If I had the time, I would study all source code of programs used on my system but, like some, I do not have such time. Having only free software in repos is a hella lot safer than allowing any non-free. I think we are coming back to question of can all O/S software be verified to be safe which is an obvious no. I donât read hours and hours up but I read enough. I make sure any program I explicitly install have good track history and they arenât up to a little funny business in their licensing for my use. There are so many parts that make up an OS that you would need the brain of the FSF to read up as you simply cannot (unless you have more autism that gentoo users).
edit: proprietary is with trusting the company behind the devs and the analysers they hire. Free software is trusting of the world of people.
For people who want their distro/package manager to âfilterâ out non-free software for them, it makes a lot of sense to have distros like Parabola or Trisquel or PureOS.
The alternatives are running the risk of installing non-free software if you donât always do your due diligence, or running Virtual RMS every time you install or upgrade something. Or, of course, living with non-free software.
Myself, I am content with Arch and using 95+% free software, with only a few things like Steam and any non-free blobs in my kernel that may be present being my only non-free SW.
If Iâm told I shouldnât pay for the software I want, that also limits my freedom.
Letâs say I have a software FORTRAN program that we paid $100,000 in 1974. It still works. Funny thing back in those days, they also gave you the source code so you can make a mod and recompile it at will.
Thatâs freedom, but it was still paid for, and wasnât free.
1 Like
How easily source can then be redistributed, this model still exists on any level ie payed software with source available and able to be modified at will in that the program is free ignoring say a paid service that can be attached to the program by the devs?
Those who do not understand what @user1 wants, could also consult the FSF:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
Indeed, Alpine Linux, which is what postmarketOS relies on, uses non-deblobbed Linux kernel, not Linux-libre by default.
Just for the record, PureOS/Phosh is 100% free software. If you want another distro, Debian main is 100% free software and Guido Gunther has been working with Debian to get Phosh & stuff packaged in Debian. After Evergreen is released, Iâm pretty sure that someone at Debian will make sure that the Librem 5 can run on Debian main + Phosh (if Gunther doesnât do it).
If you install the Debian kernel from main, you arenât getting any proprietary stuff. From what I understand, the linux-libre kernel isnât getting backported security patches, so I would only use it if you are using a rolling distro that constantly updates the kernel to the latest version.
3 Likes
Debian main is 100% free software
Not according to the FSF (strict) standards: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html