this ones a bit weird. Can’t find link but stallman looks at a few big OS’ and said one that had free software only in their repos and comes as free software in every way is debian except that you can add a non-free tag to their repos list to get such software and get suggestions to install non-free wifi drivers in install and things but apart from that, debian is very very free. If you want a mostly free, stable, basic, secure distro, you might want go debian. Pretty sexy though it isn’t for me.
That’s probably the best way of handling this. You can use whatever distro you want but each distro carefully separates out the repositories so that you can choose to use only a core freed repository or additionally use other unfreed repositories.
You might not get endorsement with that approach but it should keep most users happy.
2 Likes
Guido actually created a team within Debian for this purpose: DebianOnMobile (I am a happy member of that team :))
Packaging work extends to most of the software Purism releases plus other software that are relevant, see here what is already in main: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?email=debian-on-mobile-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net
Work is taking place here: https://salsa.debian.org/DebianOnMobile-team (not everything that we did already reached Debian main).
On the objective to get to a point where we could run vanilla Debian on the L5, that is on the roadmap but it depends on Purism’s work upstreaming, ie: to the kernel, u-boot and few remaining gnome components.
We will get there eventually 
In the link you posted, the FSF doesn’t say that Debian main contains non-free software, it says that Debian “promotes” the use of non-free software by making the non-free repo available to end user and providing documentation on how to use it.
2 Likes
This is true. However it is enough for them to NOT include Debian in the list of free distributions.
Not exactly the same, but:
While the FSF does not include Debian on this list because the Debian project provides a repository of nonfree software, the FSF does acknowledge that Debian’s main repository, which by default is the only place packages come from, is completely free.
1 Like
Debian - “The Universal Operation System” - is such an amazing project, truly universal. It’s a very important GNU/* distribution with huge impact in free software.
Take a look at this immense number of derivatives spawned from Debian existing around year 2012 (according to wikipedia):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/DebianFamilyTree1210.svg
1 Like
true, you can probably install it on a tree 
2 Likes
hi folks!
i dont know if the kernel of void is deblobbed or not, but one needs to explicitly allow the nonfree repos before using anything from it. so its not that much of a big deal to compile the kernel in the worst case, as the rest is solved, while one can even make a package template that pulls in a precompiled kernel from anywhere… 
(https://github.com/toluschr/xdeb maybe? )
in exchange for that, it is free from systemd (uses runit) and it has probably the best muls support in the known universe, and these properties would be probably awesome for the librem 5 too!
the musl support means maintaining much patches, maybe alpine can compete with it on this front, but not really, as it is dated, in the name of stability… gentoo could also compete on this front, cuz support for it is given, even for other c libs, but no much backers are there to make it enjoyable…
btw dpkg relies on some glibc dependent heuristics (for something like detecting dependency versions or dunno), and therefore musl support is probably still not just behind the corner… (sorry, the source of this dpkg info came from a hungarian musl developer and by a hungarian y*utube video, that i dont even have a link for, however maybe i could search for it in case of need, but probably there is a shorter way to get the info )
glibc is supported too on void, and with some minor hacking they can coexist. it is cuz dynamic linking of a c lib, but installing them under different root directories and using chroot (or anything like) can solve it, or static linking can be the other way around, but thats for musl (glibc cant be statically linked if im right), while the previous approach means a musl based system with some packages that use glibc in case of missing support for muls for anything, that is probably rare…
alpine is the nearest to the spirit of void in the sense of musl support, being free of systemd, and being minimalist, with the main difference is that it moves forward much more slowly, cuz they aim stability, while void takes a rolling release approach, but it still isnt cutting edge, that means its more like debian testing than debian sid or arch… also, void has a way much better infra and tooling than alpine imho (everything they have is in a small amount of repos, they can be read easily like in a few days, while the alpine stuffs seem like they dont receive enough care and love )
i saw much of the products of purism in the void repos, and it already has support for pinephone, so probably most of the hard work is done there towards librem 5 support as well
and finally, void has a kinda nice support for various architectures, even p4 is supported, and without a dozen of packages (including firefox for example) that require sse2 instructions, it can even run on a p3
sooo, yep. void is awesome and void is the future of linux imho!
ps: a binary-only app doesnt differ in too much from a tangled bloatware in the sense that one will never read or touch their sauces (sure, sure, i know, some of the community maybe will, those more perverted ones who arent like the rest of us X’D and sure, it makes difference )
bests!
1 Like
Actually it is. Free software is defined by four freedoms that the user has:
- Use the program for any purpose
- Study how the program works and modify it
- Sell or distribute the program at any price to anyone
- Sell or distribute the modified program at any price to anyone
If it isn’t allowed to resell the program at any price you wish then it’s proprietary software. Stallman recommends to charge as much as possible for free software. I think the free option should in general be the most expensive option as it benefits the user the most. And that is always the case as proprietary software is unacceptable.
1 Like
When I was searching for my next operating system after using Debian for twenty years Void Linux was one of my favorite candidates. So I understand what draws you to it. Unfortunately the people behind this project don’t understand free software. The first hint is the name. Linux is just a kernel. Why name the operating system after the kernel it uses? This means they think they are using an operating system invented by Torvalds and they don’t know about GNU. And that of course means that they are using the official Linux version with all the binary blobs in it.
I finally decided to switch to GNU Guix System. Notice how Linux is not even mentioned in the name. Like it should be! And Guix really feels like it’s the future of operating systems. I will install it on my phone when I get a Librem 5 fir.
- [https://ambrevar.xyz/guix-matters/index.html](Why GNU Guix matters)
- [https://ambrevar.xyz/guix-advance/index.html](Guix: A most advanced operating system)
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure Void has blobs in the kernel. Mainline Linux started adding blobs in 1996. Since Debian 6.0 (squeeze), released in Feb. 2011, the Debian kernel has not had an blobs, although you can still install them from the non-free repo.
For me, the value of a free distro is that it tells you what in your system requires blobs and makes you aware of it, so you can avoid it the next time you buy hardware.
Strangely, Google, the company which does the most to violate people’s privacy, is the company that has also done the most to make it possible to run hardware without blobs. Google basically told all the hardware makers that it didn’t want to deal with proprietary drivers in its Android kernel. It was really shocking to me when every WiFi/BT maker started releasing FOSS drivers for Linux, but it was basically because of Android. It’s too bad Google doesn’t care about proprietary firmware, so we still have that problem.
Google has also done all the hard work to keep updating Coreboot for new processors for its Chromebooks. Because Google wants Coreboot, Intel and AMD collaborate with Coreboot. Google also gave us FOSS firmware for the embedded controller. From what I understand, Google asked Intel to get rid of the proprietary bits, including the ME (but Intel ignored its request). Without Google, it is very unlikely that Purism and System76 would be able to release new hardware with Coreboot. For example, the reason why we don’t have dedicated graphics in Purism laptops is because Google doesn’t care about dedicated graphics for its Chromebooks.
I wonder if the Librem 5 could have found enough components to make a phone that runs on 100% free software if Google hadn’t insisted that it wanted FOSS drivers for Chrome and Android. I doubt that Redpine Signals would have released its FOSS driver for the RS9116 without that kind of pressure from Google.
We have such a bizarre relationship with Google, because the company does more than any other company (except Apple) to discourage the use of the copyleft licenses and refuses to distinguish FOSS from gratis software in its Play Store, so it really has undermined the free software movement, but it has changed the attitudes of hundreds of hardware companies in terms of “open source” drivers.
I feel like I have bipolar disorder whenever I think about Google, because it is currently the best leverage that we have in the hardware industry. At this point, we have very little leverage to make hardware companies listen to our demands, because we have so few Linux hardware companies that do original manufacturing and can ask hardware companies to release components that don’t require blobs.
One of the reasons why I support the Librem 5 over the PinePhone is because I think that the only way for us to win in the long term is to go and find the hardware companies that are already friendly with FOSS and work with them and encourage them to be better. I don’t know what it will take to convince NXP to work faster on its mainline Linux support, but I’m sure that we have a better chance of convincing NXP which already does code commits to the mainline Linux than most of the other ARM chip makers which never do any code commits to mainline Linux.
2 Likes
i believe it IS possible to run Linux without ANY software that comes from the GNU project it’s just that not many people know how to do so …
the GNU project was very lucky that Linus Torvalds decided to release the code of the Linux-kernel under a GPL license … overal GNU + Linux distributions are a happy marriage between what it takes to run a business and not smother freedom entirely …
I guess that you could replace GNU Tools (commands like ls and cd) with the BSD tools, but every Linux distro uses GNU. You can now compile the Linux kernel with Clang, but every Linux distro still uses gcc.
One of the reasons why the Linux kernel succeeded was the GPL license, because it made it possible to competitors trust that any code they contributed could never be privatized and it helped keep the code from forking, so it made everyone willing to work together. There were companies that used the BSD kernel like SUN and Apple, but they never worked together precisely because the BSD license didn’t encourage it.
I’d say that Linus Torvalds was really lucky that the FSF existed, because its software made his kernel work useful to all sorts of companies, which then decided to contribute and turned Linux into a success. Likewise, he’s lucky that Stallman went through several experiments with the Emacs license before he found one that worked, which became the GPL, because the GPL is a big reason why all the companies decided to contribute to Linux and centralize their efforts, rather then fragmenting.
All of that said, Linux probably would never attracted so many companies to the platform without the OSI’s “open source” rhetoric. However, there are a lot of people like me who started using the software because of the FSF’s “free software” rhetoric that converted me to the idea back in 1995, and the FSF’s rhetoric is more compelling for many users (as opposed to software developers and software companies), because if focuses on the rights of the user.
As I see it, the Linux kernel and the FSF needed each other to succeed, and the OSI and FSF help reach different audiences, so we are better off having all of these groups.
5 Likes
Linux is a GNU project. Even though the FSF and Torvalds deny it. The developers of Linux at the time changed the license to the GNU GPL v2. That made it possible for Linux to become the kernel of GNU. And Torvalds said it was the best decision he ever made.
GNU is bigger than a few obscure programmes. The GNU project is the only reason why free software exists today. Also the free BSDs have to thank Stallman for the inspiration. It’s like rms said:
Giving the Linus Torvalds Award to the Free Software Foundation is a bit like giving the Han Solo Award to the Rebel Fleet.
1 Like
Open Source is a tactic and a campaign to eliminate free software. It’s about the freedoms that the user of the software has. Who cares about the devepers? Of course they have to be some developers but the society should care first and foremost about the users. Users should not accept anything other than free software.
When you think you about Open Source as a campaign to protect the interest of the developers that’s like protecting the rights of slave owners. Those people might be good people in some sense, they have family which depends on them, but still slavery has to end. We cannot accept it regardless that some businesses will fail in the process. In the same way proprietary software has to end!
1 Like
Of course you have to care about the developers. There are no users without developers. I, for one, sure as hell wouldn’t be a developer if there was no money in it.
Sure, in theory everything could go the way of Debian, but videogames as we know them, for example, would cease to exist.
The greatest catalyst for innovation is competition. Competition doesn’t exist if there’s nothing at stake, and I don’t know what would be a good substitute for financial gain. If the system is pure collaboration, then the system will gravitate toward some central idea that someONE will be in control of, and then you end up with google.
Proprietary software has its place because people at large can’t be trusted to not try to get personal gain by controlling what everyone uses. There needs to be other options, and the best way to do that is to create an avenue for competition. The best avenue for competition is to get paid for your efforts. And the best way to get paid is the idea of intellectual property, be it videogames or WiFi drivers or whatever.
I’m not a huge fan of proprietary software, but to say it’s unnecessary is naiveté. Society depends on it, which means society depends on developers.
Also you should find another analogy besides “slave owners.” Not that I’m offended (why should I be? I’m not a slave), but it comes across as zealotry.
1 Like
i ofc respect your way of wording your opinions but in this case i’d use ‘get rewarded for your efforts’. that can come in various forms. value in the form of monetary currency is just one of them …
famous last words ?
2 Likes
You can use what words you like in your statements. But out of curiosity, what “rewards” can you think of that will keep the lights on and food in the fridge?
I don’t tell the internet more than it needs to know. Having said that, I will not partake in any discussion/argument about tracking because A) there is a fundamental difference between what I think it needs to know and what you think it needs to know and B) I am disinclined to iterate over every process I take to ensure the internet only knows about me what I think is acceptable.
Yes, there were a bunch pro-corporate people who hated the “free software” label and tried to eliminate its usage, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t benefits to having both discourses that we can employ. If you want to convince RealTek to release FOSS drivers for its WiFi/BT, then “open source” is the right discourse, but it was the discourse of “free software” which Peru, Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela used when they decided to promote the use of FOSS in their governments.
PS: Frankly I think “free software” is a poor label for strategic reasons because of its ambiguity and it’s difficult to search for, plus businesses that expected to commercialize it, couldn’t use it. RMS could have called it “Freedomware” or “Libertyware” and his terminology would have won. “Software libre/livre” has become the predominant way to refer to the software in all the Romance languages, so “Libertyware” could have won in English.
Your analogy only makes sense for a narrow set of “open source” software, and frankly I don’t know why you would want to insult the vast majority of software developers who contribute to projects that use the term “open source.”
Yes, there is some software which is termed “open source” such as the AOSP part of Android and the Chromium part of Chrome that was created with the purpose of extracting personal data from users so it can be monetized. Maybe your slavery analogy makes sense in those instances, but the code that actually collects the user data is almost always added proprietary code. The open source portions (AOSP and Chromium) can be used without any exploitation of the user’s data, so saying open source is “slavery” is simply wrongheaded. There is another class of open source software which is created with the goal of selling services, training, support contracts and proprietary extensions. The vast majority, however, is simply developed because businesses need the software. Look at who contributes to the Linux kernel, Apache, PostgreSQL, PHP and many other projects. Almost always they are employees of companies that need to use the software or they provide services based on the software. In almost every case, your analogy of slavery makes no sense, because it isn’t based on the involuntary exploitation of people, their labor or their data, and frankly it disparages all the people who contribute to the code.
By the way, if you think that Linux would work for very long as a viable platform without corporate contributions to the code, then you haven’t bothered to investigate how FOSS gets developed. LibreOffice has 9.51 million lines of code, Firefox has 22.2 MLoC and Chromium has 25.6 MLoC, and over 90% of their code was written by people who were paid to write the code. The Linux kernel has 19.2 MLoC and I’d guesstimate roughly 80% is written by people who were paid to contribute code. Large portions of GTK and GNOME are developed by employees of IBM/Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical and Google.
Without all that corporate support, Linux would quickly become a system that doesn’t work for most people. BSD keeps working in large part because it can borrow a lot of code from the Linux world. However, have you ever bothered to install an operating system that is truly developed by all volunteer labor? Install ReactOS or Haiku and see how functional it is. Then, you will have a proper appreciation of how important it is to have corporate contributions to the code.
3 Likes
i believe Amos has touched on this subject right above so i don’t feel that i’m going to add to that just underline the fact that what i said doesn’t contradict what you or Amos wrote but merely as a reminder that food and lights are low hanging fruit for enough people in the world that don’t even have a proper high-school education (in my part of the world that is) …
So… your reminder is that there’s other ways to keep the electricity running and to acquire food? If so, that’s my point. If people aren’t paid (or “rewarded”) to code, they’ll do something else that pays (or “rewards”). Most of them, anyway, like all the corporate folks Amos mentioned.
If you’re saying something else, then you’ve quite lost me.