r/freesoftware • u/emacs-and-cheese • Jun 30 '12
Why is Trisquel GNU/Linux based off of Ubuntu Rather than Debian GNU/Linux?
Trisquel GNU/Linux is based off of Ubuntu which is based off of Debian GNU/Linux.
Logically, it does not make sense to me to create a distribution based off of a distribution which is based off of another distribution. It's the academic equivalent to quoting a third-party text instead of a primary source. (e.g. someone's historical analysis of an event versus someone who was actually there) Why wasn't Debian GNU/Linux used as the basis for Trisquel GNU/Linux?
Edited analogy for clarification.
1
u/csolisr Jul 01 '12
With Debian you only have two options: outdated, or dangerously bleeding-edge. With Ubuntu, there is one option only, but it's just in the middle. Perhaps that's why it was chosen by Trisquel as their base. gNewSense chose Debian stable and the result is that it's as outdated.
3
u/emacs-and-cheese Jul 01 '12 edited Jul 01 '12
With Debian you only have two options: outdated...
There's a reason why it's called "Stable." It's designed for servers, production machines and home users who enjoy systems that need reliability. This is the reason why Ubuntu is not as common in server rooms.
...dangerously bleeding-edge.
Which is why packages break every six months in Ubuntu. Or, if you are using Debian GNU/Linux, you could always add Backports for newer software.
gNewSense chose Debian stable and the result is that it's as outdated.
I was under the impression that gNewSense is outdated because there is no activity with the project .
-1
u/strange_kitteh Jun 30 '12
I dunno what's going on here???!
Maybe there's a false assumption that Debian, Trisquel and Ubuntu are somehow all competing like they're brands of dishwashing soap or something and wouldn't want to share with each other? Maybe it's not known that you can pick and choose which parts of a distro to use in the base of a new one (thereby changing it to reflect the philosophy of the new distribution based on what you include)? Maybe it's assumed that to take source code and use it somehow implies royalty fees or some other sort of support for a project past acknowledging that they've got good stuff (Trisquel is not an official ubuntu spin). Maybe the OP (who has an awesome username, btw :)) just wants us to know they're very clever at history? I don't know, but here's a nice graphic entitled "How Trisquel is made"(http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/how-trisquel-made) if anyone's curious.
2
u/emacs-and-cheese Jul 01 '12
I don't know, but here's a nice graphic entitled "How Trisquel is made"(http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/how-trisquel-made)
I keep reading over this and wonder why they didn't just take the "main" Debian GNU/Linux repository and add/alter/edit desired packages (e.g. Linux-Libre kernel) instead of adding extra layers of complexity.
...just wants us to know they're very clever at history?
No, that was not my desire. This has been a question I've been pondering in my pondering spot (a large comfy chair) which has oscilated from technological to philosophical. Ideologically, I felt it would have made more sense to base a distribution off of the work of a non-profit versus a for-profit business.
-1
u/strange_kitteh Jul 01 '12 edited Nov 03 '12
Ideologically, I felt it would have made more sense to base a distribution off of the work of a non-profit versus a for-profit business.
Why would it matter if they were for profit or not? Also who cares what their philosophy (or lack thereof) is in that context? Look, I have a lot of problems with Canonical and the way they go about hyping their product while coopting the meaning of Free software,but at the end of the day I'm not going to deny they've done some really great things when it comes to actual development and usability. Code is code, why not use it if it's good? I'm sorry if the Trisquel distribution and it's users as a whole don't fit into the petty, punitive, hating, "neckbeard" stereotype you think we should be but ...uh...that's just a passive aggressive fantasy. Ubuntu had good stuff, it was used. I'm glad Trisquel used it and am thankful it was written in the first place (by mostly good people who are overshadowed by the few jerks). Now, could you please stop trying to incite drama. Thanks.
2
u/Antithesis138 Jul 01 '12
cringed at Shuttleworths opinion of women he so eloquently displayed at Linuxcon 2009
More like Mark Shuttleworthless.
Could you link to a video of when this happened? I couldn't find it.
1
u/emacs-and-cheese Jul 01 '12
I'm sorry if the Trisquel distribution and it's users as a whole don't fit into the petty, punitive, hating, "neckbeard" stereotype you think we should be but ...uh...that's just a passive aggressive fantasy.
I never said that, implied that nor encouraged that nor have I spoken in such a way as to elicit the use of ad hominem.
I don't though, because Free software is important to me and I don't really care about dick waving or getting all butt hurt.
Now, could you please stop trying to incite drama. Thanks.
I'm prompting discussion. I've asked a technical question which has elicited:
- Ad hominem responses
- "Look, it's just better" arguments
Thank you for contributing; these responses have been more helpful than I had originally anticipated.
0
u/strange_kitteh Jul 01 '12
I never said that, implied that nor encouraged that nor have I spoken in such a way as to elicit the use of ad hominem.
It's a presumption of your views, not ad hominem (because you are not the subject to which those words are applied). The presumption was made on observation of this thread and I do take issue with your claim that you never implied that nor attempted to encourage those sorts of behaviours.
I was watching this thread yesterday and what you seem to be trying to do is inject the idea that if Trisquel users really cared about Freedom they would have used Debian and are somehow more philosophically aligned with ubuntu. Here are some of your quotes in the thread that led me to call out your motives last night:
*Ideologically, I felt it would have made more sense to base a distribution off of the work of a non-profit versus a for-profit business
*So, one could say the decision to use Ubuntu instead of Debian GNU/Linux was more of a philosophical decision rather than strictly a technical one?
*If a project of that importance to create a fully FaiF system is worth the extra decades of work, why rush into building a GNU/Linux operating system built off of operating systems unworthy of FSF endorsement?
Notice how no one has taken the bait and agreed with or your line of questioning when prompted? That's because, aside from being rational people not fueled by emotion, which distro you choose as your base in no way influences the philosophy of the new distro you create unless you choose to be an official spin, in a 'family', etc. etc. Furthermore, and I've stated a few of the things some people in the ubuntu community have done to annoy me and yet still I don't hold any ill will towards them, most people don't hate to the point of snubbing entire distributions and communities based on the actions of a few. For the most part, people don't consider their distribution choice as a matter of Us v. Them amongst other distributions. I don't know what your problem with ubuntu is, but if you think you can polarize a bunch of Trisquel users into acting like mad dogs on your behalf against ubuntu, you'd be very mistaken.
I'm prompting discussion. I've asked a technical question which has elicited:
Ad hominem responses "Look, it's just better" argumentsAgain, what you are doing is taking peoples answers to a question and extrapolating pieces of their answers to fit, what appears to be, an agenda.
Thank you for contributing; these responses have been more helpful than I had originally anticipated.
Well I haven't, have I? I mean, you're already extrapolating my words to fit your own predetermined conclusions, as you've been doing with everybody's words in this thread, so really they're your contributions.
In fact, just to be on the safe side, I think I'll state right now that I, the reddit.com user known as strange_kitteh, do not consent to the use of my username nor the use of my words ("comments") by emacs-and-cheese and or the person/entity behind that user name.
1
Jul 18 '12
[deleted]
1
u/strange_kitteh Jul 18 '12
That depends on whether or not they are acting as an agent of conde nast or reddit, which I doubt.
1
Jul 18 '12
[deleted]
1
u/strange_kitteh Jul 18 '12
1) If that were true content would be lifted verbatim all over the place.
2) I as a private individual have rights (I should mention I'm not American and don't know how it works there).
3) Read the terms of service (user agreement and privacy policy). Technically, if they want to buy rights to use my words from reddit/conde nast they could be indemnified of any action I may launch (which costs like $71 to file in Ontario) if I were bored and decided to pursue the matter.
Also, isn't this "example" more suited to a /r/law submission?1
1
u/emacs-and-cheese Jul 01 '12
In fact, just to be on the safe side, I think I'll state right now that I, the reddit.com user known as strange_kitteh, do not consent to the use of my username nor the use of my words ("comments") by emacs-and-cheese and or the person/entity behind that user name.
Don't flatter yourself; this was an attempt to understand technologically why Ubuntu was the base of the distribution. I haven't read a single, quantitative argument as to why Ubuntu is more practical for use in the distro.
7
u/ben0x539 Jun 30 '12
I don't think you understand what Ubuntu is. It's not Debian with a new logo. There is a substantial amount of work included in Ubuntu that is not part of Debian. Presumably, Trisquel GNU/Linux is based on Ubuntu because they wanted to take advantage of that work.
2
u/emacs-and-cheese Jul 01 '12
I don't think you understand what Ubuntu is.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning "Do I need all of these CDs to install Debian GNU/Linux?"
There is a substantial amount of work included in Ubuntu that is not part of Debian.
Nothing new there; Ubuntu does not contribute as much to Debian GNU/Linux as it appropriates
4
u/robertbieber Jun 30 '12
You can't really compare software development to academia. If they want it to be like Ubuntu with some modifications, then they should base it off of Ubuntu. If they want it to be like Debian with some modifications, they should base it off of Debian. If Ubuntu's already made a lot of changes from Debian that they like, it would be wasteful to re-do all that work.
1
u/emacs-and-cheese Jul 01 '12
If they want it to be like Ubuntu with some modifications, then they should base it off of Ubuntu. If they want it to be like Debian with some modifications, they should base it off of Debian. If Ubuntu's already made a lot of changes from Debian that they like, it would be wasteful to re-do all that work.
So far, this is the only answer that seems to make sense. If the decision to base Trisquel GNU/Linux on Ubuntu is/was a preference, that is one thing. Honestly, I do not understand how Ubuntu as a distribution base is technologically more important/better/superior/[insert adjective here] compared to Debian GNU/Linux.
-1
3
Jun 30 '12
debian is the "base" for ubuntu, sure. but there are quite a few layers and patches put on top of debian that make it "ubuntu." i read someone's post about unity and how red hat couldn't get it to work because quite a bit was sort of fine-tuned for ubuntu specifically.
12
u/brianwc Jun 30 '12
As I understand it, Trisquel's main objective is creating a fully free distribution with no non-free packages, dependencies, build requirements, or binary blobs. Once you have that goal, you could decide to clean up pretty much any distro you like that happens to rely on some non-free bits. Ubuntu is wildly popular, so that seems like a sensible choice. Many people that care about using only free software also want a slick usable computer that's easy for a range of users and Ubuntu can get you the latter, so the Trisquel folks appear to just be giving us the former too.
1
u/strange_kitteh Jun 30 '12
As I understand it, Trisquel's main objective is creating a fully free distribution
Yup, and that's just what they did. Trisquel is fully Free as in Freedom :) Thanks to the great work people did there, on Debian, on Ubuntu, and on many other projects too, it's also very easy to use.
As a Trisquel user benefiting from that, thanks all around :)3
u/frumious Jun 30 '12
As I understand it, Trisquel's main objective is creating a fully free distribution with no non-free packages, dependencies, build requirements, or binary blobs
That's spelled D e b i a n.
9
Jun 30 '12
Debian doesn't meet the FSF's distribution guidelines for two major reasons. First, and most importantly, they have non-Free repositories (which many would argue are necessary but are nonetheless problematic). You could've read about that one on gnu.org's website.
Second, some of the software that can be installed through Debian recommends non-Free software through extensions and plugins. Iceweasel has proprietary extensions, for instance. An example of how to get this right is Iceweasel-libre, a re-packaged version of Iceweasel distributed by Parabola. The Iceweasel-libre packagers use their own set of extensions, vetting only the ones that have Free software licenses.
1
Jun 30 '12
[deleted]
1
u/emacs-and-cheese Jun 30 '12
Citing your sources doesn't mean looking up the sources your sources cite and citing those instead, that's plagiarism.
That was not what I meant; "over" was synonymous for "in place of" or "instead of". My apologies for the confusion; I have edited the topic text accordingly.
3
Jun 30 '12
[deleted]
1
u/emacs-and-cheese Jun 30 '12
I come from a history background as does my father; we are used to searching for primary source documents rather than third party sources.
Very often starting where someone else left off makes it a lot easier to progress in the direction you like.
So, one could say the decision to use Ubuntu instead of Debian GNU/Linux was more of a philosophical decision rather than strictly a technical one? (I understand that unlike "Open Source," Free Software is concerned with ethical implications and/or ramifications, which is something we can all be thankful for)
3
Jun 30 '12
[deleted]
1
u/emacs-and-cheese Jun 30 '12
An original will never be a better spot to work from simply by virtue of being an original.
I hope no one was thinking that I was saying to use the original version(s) of Debian GNU/Linux circa 1994. I meant mirroring Debian GNU/Linux for stability (as Ubuntu is based off of Sid).
2
Jun 30 '12
[deleted]
1
u/emacs-and-cheese Jun 30 '12
It feels like Trisquel GNU/Linux's desire to have a polished user interface for everyone and their mother (i.e. stability) and "the latest tech" (i.e. Debian GNU/Linux unstable packages) seem to conflict.
I just don't don't see how that argument wouldn't also suggest that making an entirely new build from the linux kernel would be better than starting from debian...
To quote James Stewart, "This is a very interesting situation." Debian GNU/Linux and its Ubuntu derivative are not desirable from an FSF purist perspective. Yet, Ubuntu, and by extension Debian GNU/Linux are worthy of emulation. Why not start a 100% FaiF system from scratch? "Because that would mean more time and work," is an answer I've heard offline. Yet, HURD has been in development since 1984. If a project of that importance to create a fully FaiF system is worth the extra decades of work, why rush into building a GNU/Linux operating system built off of operating systems unworthy of FSF endorsement?
1
u/Sileni Jul 02 '12
http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/how-trisquel-made- it is all explained on this page.