FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Gobuntu Developer

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-15-2008, 12:49 PM
Mark Shuttleworth
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

The "current and future" thread on this list has got me thinking.
Perhaps we really are on the wrong track, that the only way to meet the
needs of the gNewSense folks is to have completely different source
packages to Ubuntu. If that is the case, then I think it would be
better to channel the energy from Gobuntu into gNewSense.



I had hoped to see more participation and collaboration around Gobuntu
because of the benefits of keeping up with the standard Ubuntu (regular
releases, security updates etc). However, it seems that the audience
for a platform like this is willing to accept infrequent releases and
less maintenance in return for a platform which can be modified more
radically. That's OK, it's just a bit unexpected - I thought we could
get the best of both worlds, with six-monthly releases of something
that excluded *binary package* that were controversial in the eyes of
the FSF, but retained access to everything else in Ubuntu.



I don't mind having been wrong in that expectation, I can see the
arguments in favour of less collaboration in the case where it is more
important to be different than to have infrastructure in common, and
from what I've seen on this list, the desire to be different (have
different source packages as well as binary packages) is stronger than
the desire to collaborate (share infrastructure, release cycles etc).



I'm not sure that the current level of activity in Gobuntu warrants the
division of attention it creates, either for folks who are dedicated to
Ubuntu primarily, or to folks who are interested in gNewSense. I would
like us to have a good relationship with the gNewSense folks, because I
do think that their values and views are important and I would like
Ubuntu to be a useful starting point for them. But perhaps Gobuntu
isn't the best way to achieve that.



So, I would like to hear from the gNewSense guys how they would like to
be involved in Ubuntu, to help ensure that Ubuntu is a useful starting
point for their important work. If Gobuntu is not the best way to
achieve that, then I think we should stop working on it and encourage
folks who want that to focus their efforts on gNewSense, while at the
same time figuring out how Ubuntu can be more useful for gNewSense.



Mark



--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-15-2008, 05:57 PM
"Chris Andrew"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Although I have had to hand-over the work I was doing co-ordinating
Freedom Verification (chris_debian), I think that Mark is making a
valid point.

We always need help at gNS, and unlike commercial entities, there is
no reason why we have to complete. Let's just all work together.

Would any of the Gobuntu guys like to help out at gNS?

Many thanks,

Chris.

On 15/04/2008, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>
> The "current and future" thread on this list has got me thinking. Perhaps
> we really are on the wrong track, that the only way to meet the needs of the
> gNewSense folks is to have completely different source packages to Ubuntu.
> If that is the case, then I think it would be better to channel the energy
> from Gobuntu into gNewSense.
>
> I had hoped to see more participation and collaboration around Gobuntu
> because of the benefits of keeping up with the standard Ubuntu (regular
> releases, security updates etc). However, it seems that the audience for a
> platform like this is willing to accept infrequent releases and less
> maintenance in return for a platform which can be modified more radically.
> That's OK, it's just a bit unexpected - I thought we could get the best of
> both worlds, with six-monthly releases of something that excluded *binary
> package* that were controversial in the eyes of the FSF, but retained access
> to everything else in Ubuntu.
>
> I don't mind having been wrong in that expectation, I can see the arguments
> in favour of less collaboration in the case where it is more important to be
> different than to have infrastructure in common, and from what I've seen on
> this list, the desire to be different (have different source packages as
> well as binary packages) is stronger than the desire to collaborate (share
> infrastructure, release cycles etc).
>
> I'm not sure that the current level of activity in Gobuntu warrants the
> division of attention it creates, either for folks who are dedicated to
> Ubuntu primarily, or to folks who are interested in gNewSense. I would like
> us to have a good relationship with the gNewSense folks, because I do think
> that their values and views are important and I would like Ubuntu to be a
> useful starting point for them. But perhaps Gobuntu isn't the best way to
> achieve that.
>
> So, I would like to hear from the gNewSense guys how they would like to be
> involved in Ubuntu, to help ensure that Ubuntu is a useful starting point
> for their important work. If Gobuntu is not the best way to achieve that,
> then I think we should stop working on it and encourage folks who want that
> to focus their efforts on gNewSense, while at the same time figuring out how
> Ubuntu can be more useful for gNewSense.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Gobuntu-devel mailing list
> Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
>
>


--
Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:

http://www.getgnulinux.org/

A great GNU/Linux distro:

http://wiki.gnewsense.org/

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-15-2008, 05:58 PM
"Chris Andrew"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Last message should have read _compete_, not _complete_ :-) Sorry.

Chris.

On 15/04/2008, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>
> The "current and future" thread on this list has got me thinking. Perhaps
> we really are on the wrong track, that the only way to meet the needs of the
> gNewSense folks is to have completely different source packages to Ubuntu.
> If that is the case, then I think it would be better to channel the energy
> from Gobuntu into gNewSense.
>
> I had hoped to see more participation and collaboration around Gobuntu
> because of the benefits of keeping up with the standard Ubuntu (regular
> releases, security updates etc). However, it seems that the audience for a
> platform like this is willing to accept infrequent releases and less
> maintenance in return for a platform which can be modified more radically.
> That's OK, it's just a bit unexpected - I thought we could get the best of
> both worlds, with six-monthly releases of something that excluded *binary
> package* that were controversial in the eyes of the FSF, but retained access
> to everything else in Ubuntu.
>
> I don't mind having been wrong in that expectation, I can see the arguments
> in favour of less collaboration in the case where it is more important to be
> different than to have infrastructure in common, and from what I've seen on
> this list, the desire to be different (have different source packages as
> well as binary packages) is stronger than the desire to collaborate (share
> infrastructure, release cycles etc).
>
> I'm not sure that the current level of activity in Gobuntu warrants the
> division of attention it creates, either for folks who are dedicated to
> Ubuntu primarily, or to folks who are interested in gNewSense. I would like
> us to have a good relationship with the gNewSense folks, because I do think
> that their values and views are important and I would like Ubuntu to be a
> useful starting point for them. But perhaps Gobuntu isn't the best way to
> achieve that.
>
> So, I would like to hear from the gNewSense guys how they would like to be
> involved in Ubuntu, to help ensure that Ubuntu is a useful starting point
> for their important work. If Gobuntu is not the best way to achieve that,
> then I think we should stop working on it and encourage folks who want that
> to focus their efforts on gNewSense, while at the same time figuring out how
> Ubuntu can be more useful for gNewSense.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Gobuntu-devel mailing list
> Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
>
>


--
Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:

http://www.getgnulinux.org/

A great GNU/Linux distro:

http://wiki.gnewsense.org/

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-15-2008, 06:14 PM
"Matthew East"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Chris Andrew <cjhandrew@gmail.com> wrote:
> We always need help at gNS, and unlike commercial entities, there is
> no reason why we have to complete. Let's just all work together.
>
> Would any of the Gobuntu guys like to help out at gNS?

As far as I can gather, there isn't currently any real community
contribution to Gobuntu. As a result, I think the real question here
isn't one of sharing manpower, but rather is:

"How can Gnewsense work better with Ubuntu to ensure that both
project's goals are made easier to achieve?"

Basically, I think what Mark has identified is the need for Gnewsense
and Ubuntu to give back to each other - Ubuntu is committed to free
software, and for that reason has always sought to introduce a
rational basis for the distinctions which it makes between its various
components. Gnewsense, as a strictly free derivative of Ubuntu, relies
on that rational basis. For that reason collaboration between the two
in making Gnewsense's life easier will also benefit Ubuntu.

Initially I'd hoped that Gobuntu would provide that link for freedom
to feed back into Ubuntu without compromising Ubuntu's objectives, but
the project has not taken off. A community has not really developed
around the project, and there has been very little in the way of
concrete contribution.

Whether or not it will be possible to feed some more life back into
the Gobuntu project, it makes sense for Gnewsense and Ubuntu to
collaborate.

Brainstorming caps on!

--
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-15-2008, 07:30 PM
"Chris Andrew"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Hi, all.

0) Can we define the goal of Gobuntu?

1) Can we define the goal of gNS?

2) Are these goals compatible?

3) If so, is one project stronger than the other?

4) If the goals of both are similar, can we concentrate on one, at
the (perceived) expense of the other?

5) Are these Debian based distros based on Debian, or is Ubuntu
completely independent of Debian, but just uses the DEB package
system?

6) If there is a firm relationship with Debian, would we be
better-off basing the future distro on the Debian release cycle? Pro:
Stability, Con (?): Long release schedule.

7) Can we post these questions somewhere where people can add comments to them?

8) Very importantly for me, what does Brian Brazil think of this, as
it was his great idea that got me caught-up in all this?

9) Finally, this is meant to stimulate thought, not to antagonize. I
shall get my flame retardant suit on, in preparation for the
(needless) criticism I will receive for my questions.

Thanks, all.

Chris (chris_debian).




On 15/04/2008, Luis Alberto Guzmán García <l.guzman.g@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wise words
> I think is a good opportunity to achieve one goal, and improve others
> from the start.
> Helping each other is great idea.
> Working on both Ubuntu and gNewSense, could be the beginning of a new
> free software re-start.
>
> There is a lot of people that would support that.
> And i can say i'll be there
>
> El mar, 15-04-2008 a las 18:57 +0100, Chris Andrew escribió:
>
> > Although I have had to hand-over the work I was doing co-ordinating
> > Freedom Verification (chris_debian), I think that Mark is making a
> > valid point.
> >
> > We always need help at gNS, and unlike commercial entities, there is
>
> > no reason why we have to compete. Let's just all work together.
>
> >
> > Would any of the Gobuntu guys like to help out at gNS?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> > On 15/04/2008, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The "current and future" thread on this list has got me thinking. Perhaps
> > > we really are on the wrong track, that the only way to meet the needs of the
> > > gNewSense folks is to have completely different source packages to Ubuntu.
> > > If that is the case, then I think it would be better to channel the energy
> > > from Gobuntu into gNewSense.
> > >
> > > I had hoped to see more participation and collaboration around Gobuntu
> > > because of the benefits of keeping up with the standard Ubuntu (regular
> > > releases, security updates etc). However, it seems that the audience for a
> > > platform like this is willing to accept infrequent releases and less
> > > maintenance in return for a platform which can be modified more radically.
> > > That's OK, it's just a bit unexpected - I thought we could get the best of
> > > both worlds, with six-monthly releases of something that excluded *binary
> > > package* that were controversial in the eyes of the FSF, but retained access
> > > to everything else in Ubuntu.
> > >
> > > I don't mind having been wrong in that expectation, I can see the arguments
> > > in favour of less collaboration in the case where it is more important to be
> > > different than to have infrastructure in common, and from what I've seen on
> > > this list, the desire to be different (have different source packages as
> > > well as binary packages) is stronger than the desire to collaborate (share
> > > infrastructure, release cycles etc).
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that the current level of activity in Gobuntu warrants the
> > > division of attention it creates, either for folks who are dedicated to
> > > Ubuntu primarily, or to folks who are interested in gNewSense. I would like
> > > us to have a good relationship with the gNewSense folks, because I do think
> > > that their values and views are important and I would like Ubuntu to be a
> > > useful starting point for them. But perhaps Gobuntu isn't the best way to
> > > achieve that.
> > >
> > > So, I would like to hear from the gNewSense guys how they would like to be
> > > involved in Ubuntu, to help ensure that Ubuntu is a useful starting point
> > > for their important work. If Gobuntu is not the best way to achieve that,
> > > then I think we should stop working on it and encourage folks who want that
> > > to focus their efforts on gNewSense, while at the same time figuring out how
> > > Ubuntu can be more useful for gNewSense.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gobuntu-devel mailing list
> > > Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> --
>
> Luis A. Guzmán García
> Colaborador/Usuario gNewSense
> http://www.gnewsense.org/Main:es/gNewSense
> GPG: 9E90 7F23 30E4 EF95 C083 3D0C F467 5D3A [D563 8403]
>
>


--
Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:

http://www.getgnulinux.org/

A great GNU/Linux distro:

http://wiki.gnewsense.org/

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-16-2008, 04:27 AM
"Nathaniel Schwartz"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

I think the power of Ubuntu to influence people is tremendous, and I
certainly think that Ubuntu should have a visible role in a project
that promotes free software, as the gNS project does. I really like
the name, the logo and the potential of Gobuntu to introduce more
users to this type of rigorously free system. I think Gobuntu has an
advantage because of the name recognition over gNS, the recognizable
logo, and the base of users that could be pulled in. I guess this is
strictly marketing talk, but all the things that make Ubuntu
attractive (other than the non-free stuff) would certainly make
Gobuntu attractive.

One of the things that upsets RMS is that, aside from gNS and a couple
other distros, there are no GNU/Linux distributions that do not
include non-free software. This is very sad because, as I see it, the
only reason we have so much free software is because some people made
a hard personal decision to only use free software, and every single
time that we compromise in the name of convenience, we make it so much
easier to undo the hard work that has been done. I'm preaching to the
choir here, but my point is, *that* is the reason we should promote
Gobuntu and gNS -- to stand up and not compromise.

Gobuntu could be a powerful influence toward keeping people aware of
these issues, and I'd like to see this project carry on and see just
how much it can do to help the free software movement.

Disclaimer: this is just my 2 cents, and I certainly don't intend to
offend or upset anyone.

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-16-2008, 08:47 AM
Mark Shuttleworth
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

Chris Andrew wrote:

0) Can we define the goal of Gobuntu?


"Deliver a great desktop that includes only free software packages from
Ubuntu, and encourages copyleft thinking in areas beyond code. Do this
in close collaboration with Ubuntu so that the platform can have the
same level of security coverage with very little work."




1) Can we define the goal of gNS?


As I understand it, "Deliver a great desktop that includes only free
software at source and binary package level."


2) Are these goals compatible?


The "deliver a great free software desktop" pieces certainly should be.
The thing that has lead people to choose one or the other for
contribution has been a desire to revamp source packages in a way that
makes it impossible to share archives with Ubuntu, and hence loses the
update stream from Ubuntu. I thought the emphasis would be on the
packages which get installed, ensuring that those only delivered pieces
that were FSF-pure. But the focus is just as strong on eliminating
non-free code from the source packages, whereas in Ubuntu we just
produce multiple binary packages and keep the problematic ones out of
the "main" component.




3) If so, is one project stronger than the other?


Depends on how you look at it. Gobuntu has a lot of immediate
recognition because of its affiliation with Ubuntu, and the fact that
it can feasibly make six-month releases and keep them maintained
(purely because of what it shares with Ubuntu) is a strength. On the
other hand, gNewSense has much greater participation, and is seen to be
purer because of their willingness to revamp any source package. That
means it can't be maintained as efficiently, so it gets updated only
every two years or so when Ubuntu makes an LTS release, and I don't
think it gets the same level of security maintenance even then, though
I could be mistaken.






4) If the goals of both are similar, can we concentrate on one, at
the (perceived) expense of the other?


If we could distill them down into Gobuntu, then Canonical could
continue to provide the anchor work around kernel and installer as well
as providing the update stream, but we would still need agreement
around the question of source packages.



If we distill them down to gNewSense, then we could take time to figure
out if there's anything we can do in Ubuntu to make it easier for the
gNewSense guys to make their releases, and keep them maintained so
there isn't a security reason for folks to choose Ubuntu over gNewSense.



Either way, I want to make sure we are helping to realise the goal of
an FSF-pure platform, rather than have some perceived antagonistic
relationship between Ubuntu and that goal.




5) Are these Debian based distros based on Debian, or is Ubuntu
completely independent of Debian, but just uses the DEB package
system?


Ubuntu is pretty clearly part of the Debian family, and we try to
collaborate as effectively as possible with DD's, with varying degrees
of success based mostly on the DD in question.




6) If there is a firm relationship with Debian, would we be
better-off basing the future distro on the Debian release cycle? Pro:
Stability, Con (?): Long release schedule.


That's an equally good option, in the case where release cycles aren't
important.




7) Can we post these questions somewhere where people can add comments to them?


Of course.




8) Very importantly for me, what does Brian Brazil think of this, as
it was his great idea that got me caught-up in all this?

9) Finally, this is meant to stimulate thought, not to antagonize. I
shall get my flame retardant suit on, in preparation for the
(needless) criticism I will receive for my questions.


You shouldn't need teflon on an Ubuntu project list.



Mark



--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-16-2008, 09:12 AM
bvidinli
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

As i understand, gobuntu will have only free software..
Then, will Ubuntu have non-free software ? it currenlty has, as i
think/know.. (restriced ones)

Does this mean that ubuntu will be non-free like windows in future ?

I think:
linux and open software may not be able to stay free forever.
nor they should be like windows, very expensive and insecure/less usefull
linux and open sofware may be sold with low price,
being non-free may improve linux and opensource..

so,
dont get into trouble of "how may i make ubuntu non-free, earn money
from it," and an idea like "make/offer gobuntu full free, later make
ubuntu non-free"

i see/feel (maybe wrong) the work of gobuntu as an attempt to make
ubuntu non-free..
if this is the case, i advice: dont be like windows in future, ubuntu
should be cheap, usefull... i should be able to use almost all
software for a reasonable price...

currently, in windows, making up a full licensed computer for a
graphic designer for example, "100$ win, 300$ office, 1000-1500 $
graphic software, total software cost 2500$ approx..., hardware cost =
500$ approx, software may be 5 times hardware... "
in practice/ideal, software should be no more than 1/5 of hardware... i think...


This was a brain gymnastic... anly for your information, your attention...

Anyway, ubuntu is a great distribution.. i use only it for 2.5 years
on my notebook/desktop (no windows) The only lack of important tool is
a development environment, ide for php/python/etc including gui
designer..

See you.

--
Ä°.Bahattin Vidinli
Electronic Engineer,
IT systems
-------------------
iletisim bilgileri (Tercih sirasina gore):
skype: bvidinli (sesli gorusme icin, www.skype.com)
msn: bvidinli@iyibirisi.com
yahoo: bvidinli

+90.532.7990607
+90.505.5667711


2008/4/16, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com>:
>
> Chris Andrew wrote:
> 0) Can we define the goal of Gobuntu?
>
> "Deliver a great desktop that includes only free software packages from
> Ubuntu, and encourages copyleft thinking in areas beyond code. Do this in
> close collaboration with Ubuntu so that the platform can have the same level
> of security coverage with very little work."
>
>
> 1) Can we define the goal of gNS?
>
> As I understand it, "Deliver a great desktop that includes only free
> software at source and binary package level."
>
> 2) Are these goals compatible?
>
> The "deliver a great free software desktop" pieces certainly should be. The
> thing that has lead people to choose one or the other for contribution has
> been a desire to revamp source packages in a way that makes it impossible to
> share archives with Ubuntu, and hence loses the update stream from Ubuntu. I
> thought the emphasis would be on the packages which get installed, ensuring
> that those only delivered pieces that were FSF-pure. But the focus is just
> as strong on eliminating non-free code from the source packages, whereas in
> Ubuntu we just produce multiple binary packages and keep the problematic
> ones out of the "main" component.
>
>
> 3) If so, is one project stronger than the other?
>
> Depends on how you look at it. Gobuntu has a lot of immediate recognition
> because of its affiliation with Ubuntu, and the fact that it can feasibly
> make six-month releases and keep them maintained (purely because of what it
> shares with Ubuntu) is a strength. On the other hand, gNewSense has much
> greater participation, and is seen to be purer because of their willingness
> to revamp any source package. That means it can't be maintained as
> efficiently, so it gets updated only every two years or so when Ubuntu makes
> an LTS release, and I don't think it gets the same level of security
> maintenance even then, though I could be mistaken.
>
>
>
> 4) If the goals of both are similar, can we concentrate on one, at
> the (perceived) expense of the other?
>
> If we could distill them down into Gobuntu, then Canonical could continue
> to provide the anchor work around kernel and installer as well as providing
> the update stream, but we would still need agreement around the question of
> source packages.
>
> If we distill them down to gNewSense, then we could take time to figure out
> if there's anything we can do in Ubuntu to make it easier for the gNewSense
> guys to make their releases, and keep them maintained so there isn't a
> security reason for folks to choose Ubuntu over gNewSense.
>
> Either way, I want to make sure we are helping to realise the goal of an
> FSF-pure platform, rather than have some perceived antagonistic relationship
> between Ubuntu and that goal.
>
>
> 5) Are these Debian based distros based on Debian, or is Ubuntu
> completely independent of Debian, but just uses the DEB package
> system?
>
> Ubuntu is pretty clearly part of the Debian family, and we try to
> collaborate as effectively as possible with DD's, with varying degrees of
> success based mostly on the DD in question.
>
>
> 6) If there is a firm relationship with Debian, would we be
> better-off basing the future distro on the Debian release cycle? Pro:
> Stability, Con (?): Long release schedule.
>
> That's an equally good option, in the case where release cycles aren't
> important.
>
>
> 7) Can we post these questions somewhere where people can add comments to
> them?
>
> Of course.
>
>
> 8) Very importantly for me, what does Brian Brazil think of this, as
> it was his great idea that got me caught-up in all this?
>
> 9) Finally, this is meant to stimulate thought, not to antagonize. I
> shall get my flame retardant suit on, in preparation for the
> (needless) criticism I will receive for my questions.
>
> You shouldn't need teflon on an Ubuntu project list.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Gobuntu-devel mailing list
> Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
>
>
--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-16-2008, 09:22 AM
"Pierluca Masala"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> The "current and future" thread on this list has got me thinking. Perhaps
> we really are on the wrong track, that the only way to meet the needs of the
> gNewSense folks is to have completely different source packages to Ubuntu.
> If that is the case, then I think it would be better to channel the energy
> from Gobuntu into gNewSense.


If Gobuntu was born with only gNewSense in mind, then it could
probably be considered as a failure. But I read:

"Gobuntu is a GNU/Linux operating system, derived from Ubuntu, that
endeavors to adhere to the Free Software Foundation's four freedoms
and intends to provide a base for other free software platforms to
build upon with minimal modification required." [1]

No explicit reference to gNewSense, and I think other people and other
projects could benefit from Gobuntu, even if gNewSense refuses to do
so.

I think there are more folks interested in Gobuntu, than only those
actually working on gNewSense (with all respect).
Users who want a free operating system (released every six months and
with the best and latest-version free software available) to use and
customize according to their need.
People who don't get scared by the possibility that, "just clicking a
button", some non-free software could come into their pc and infest it
like a virus. Because they know they won't click that button.
I don't get scared. Freedom is about choice and responsibility. Users
should choose freedom and be responsible.
There is no GNU/Linux distribution which prevents the user from
installing non-free software. I can run gNewSense on my pc and then
install non-free plugins and other non-free software on it manually.
Is gNewSense less free because of this?
Do people really evaluate the freedom of an OS according to how easy
it is to install non-free software on it? Is Gobuntu less free than
gNewSense because it is easier to install non-free software on it than
it is on gNewSense?
This seems to have no sense to me.

The actual lack of interest in Gobuntu is due (in my opinion) also to
the fact that there is no information (maybe I'm not able to found it)
about what is currently being made, about what we should expect from
next release. There is still no dedicated website, so I think many
people are only waiting to see how Gobuntu Hardy will be different
from Ubuntu Hardy (in terms of non-free software removed etc.).
Not everybody has the chance to download daily builds to check it day after day.

Isn't there enough people working on Gobuntu? Maybe there is a lot of
people who would like to do it, but don't know where to start. Is
there a mentoring program to introduce people to help working on
Gobuntu?


[1] http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/gobuntu

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 
Old 04-16-2008, 12:00 PM
"Dave Crossland"
 
Default Rethinking Gobuntu

On 16/04/2008, Pierluca Masala <pierluca.masala@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> People who don't get scared by the possibility that, "just clicking a
> button", some non-free software could come into their pc and infest it
> like a virus. Because they know they won't click that button.
> I don't get scared. Freedom is about choice and responsibility. Users
> should choose freedom and be responsible.
> There is no GNU/Linux distribution which prevents the user from
> installing non-free software. I can run gNewSense on my pc and then
> install non-free plugins and other non-free software on it manually.
> Is gNewSense less free because of this?
> Do people really evaluate the freedom of an OS according to how easy
> it is to install non-free software on it? Is Gobuntu less free than
> gNewSense because it is easier to install non-free software on it than
> it is on gNewSense?
> This seems to have no sense to me.

Please consider the difference between preventing a user from doing
something, inviting them to do something, acting as if it is
acceptable to do it, and doing it for them.

Preventing people is impossible; if you invite someone to do
something, you imply that it is acceptable and an okay thing to do;
acting that way implies it too.

GNU/Linux exists because using proprietary software is not acceptable.
If a distribution contains proprietary software, as binary package or
as source code, then it will not be recommended by the FSF because
that would be directly recommending proprietary software.

Gobuntu contains proprietary software in its source code.

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

> > in Ubuntu we just produce multiple binary packages and keep
> > the problematic ones out of the "main" component.

That means Ubuntu's package hosting system has a single source code
package that contains proprietary software, and creates 2 binary
packages that include or exclude that proprietary software.

I hope that by Gobuntu 8.10 or 9.04, the Ubuntu package hosting system
will create 3 packages from their mixed free/proprietary sources: 2
binary packages as now, and a 3rd source package without the
proprietary software.

Gobuntu can then provide access to only the source and binary packages
that contain only free software, and gNewSense can just mirror them.

There is something else for distributions to do, other than just
providing only free software packages in source or binary form.
Consider the bsdtalk podcast/OpenBSD mailing list discussion involving
RMS about why he does not recommend OpenBSD.

If a distribution of free software invites users to install
proprietary software (such as Ubuntu's "Commercial Software" option in
the "Add/Remove Programs" tool, or Firefox's default "proprietary
plugin installer" feature) that indirectly recommends proprietary
software which is also not an okay thing to do.

If a distribution of free software includes references to proprietary
software, such as in its manual (as many "community edition" GPL
programs do) or such as OpenBSD's ports recipies for downloading say
the Opera browser, that also assumes proprietary software is
acceptable to use.

Hopefully future Gobuntu "Add/Remove Programs" tools will not include
parts of the UI that recommend proprietary software but fail to do
anything. That Gobuntu's invitation to use proprietary doesn't work
does not obviate the problem of the invitation.

(That the UI calls proprietary software "commercial software" is not
good because free software typically has a commercial basis; the UI
also calls free software "open source" but I expect we know how that
works to imply giving up software freedom is acceptable)

--
Regards,
Dave
Personal opinion only.

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org