Submitted by “Irish Free Software developers Brian Brazil and Paul O’Malley have developed a new distribution, appropriately named gNewSense. Made with the philosophy of Debian and the structure of Ubuntu, it aims to be the freest distribution out there. It’s so ‘free’, that it earned an official endorsement from the Free Software Foundation. Linux Online is grateful to Messrs. Brazil and O’Malley for taking time out of their busy schedules to answer a few questions about their project.”
Awesome, I started using Gnewsense almost as soon as version 1.0 came out, it’s a great distro as long as your hardware works, I had to get some new hardware for some things, but really, binary only firmware shouldn’t be in the Linux kernel source in the first place.
I hadn’t seen this interview before so I thought I would submit it.
It is short and to the point and explains in a nutshell the ‘why’ and even a bit of the ‘how’.
Good one. Really is where we need to go. Now if only they will adopt portage…
Try Ututo: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ututo
Questions for the Ututo guy…
Last release in march? When is a new release due?
I honestly have never tried it, the website has always scared me off.
No english forums?
Personally I am more of a debian fan than a gentoo fan so gNewSense fits me just right.
I will have to check it out though, if I can figure out which download I need.
Does Ututo remove the non-free junk from the kernel, linux-restricted-modules, and so forth?
Edited 2006-12-21 16:36
Got to say that does look pretty sharp.
Edited 2006-12-21 18:31
Could anyone explain the goal of this distro? I understand that it currently is Ubuntu minus the nonfree stuff, but I don’t really understand if it is meant to be a 100% free user-friendly distro, or a 100% free basis to build your own distro. I got confused a bit by the homepage telling me about “Builder” right at the beginning which indicates it is a basis to build your own distro, but then, why not start off Debian?
Anyway it adds to the pool of free software, so why not?
Could anyone explain the goal of this distro?
Ubuntu minus the nonfree stuff
meant to be a 100% free user-friendly distro, or a 100% free basis to build your own distro
The distro is the prior and builder is the latter…
confused a bit by the homepage telling me about
The home page needs a good work over IMO also but it does not seem to happen? Thought about a project that uses gNewSense but is not a distro just a user-centric site for gNewSense. Not sure if that would be appreciated or not?
why not start off Debian?
Because Debian is a distro, builder is a tool to build a distro. Debian is also not as *FSF* *free* but is Debian *free*
Did that make any (gnew) sense?
disclaimer – I am just a zealot and am not in any way affiliated with the good folks at gNewSense.
Edited 2006-12-21 15:26
> The distro is the prior and builder is the latter…
You mean, builder is only a tool to reach the goal of a 100% free, user-friendly distro?
> The home page needs a good work over IMO
If the above is true then I can confirm that. A newbie wouldn’t really feel welcome if the first thing he is told is how to build his own distro…
> Because Debian is a distro, builder is a tool to
> build a distro. Debian is also not as *FSF* *free*
> but is Debian *free*
But Ubuntu is also a distro, and not FSF-free. What I mean is why they build (Ubuntu – nonfree) instead of (Debian – nonfree). My first guess is because Ubuntu is already closer to userfriendliness…
http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/?q=node/26
The first thing they need are some graphic designers. The logos are just horrible.
The second thing they need are more infos on their homepage: For example: when will be the next release? Do they plan to build only upon the LT releases of Ubuntu or will i get from every Ubuntu release a gnewsense? What are the plans for the future and the releases?
I actually like the logo.
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/pub/skins/gnewsense/logo.png
Got a good “earthy” feel to it without garish orange or boring brown. (if you like orange and brown then I apologize for the words garish and boring – that is simply my personal feeling)
Those are very good questions that I have often wondered myself. I am hoping that BBrazil can keep the releases coming since (as I understand it) builder does a lot of the work. I am assuming new releases of Ubuntu will provide the fodder for builder and we will have a new gNewSense.
My crystal ball is in the shop this week.
But as least I can still point out the very obvious.
GNUSense will be about as successful as The Hurd. And for the same reasons.
Software projects that make technical decisions for political reasons will never be able to compete with software projects which base technical decisions upon technical rationale.
The success that OSS has seen has not been due to political appeal, but due to real and practical advantages in the areas in which it has seen that success.
RMS and the FSF seem totally oblivious to this fact, and they seem unable to learn from their *own* history, repeating the same mistakes over again,and then having the audacity to claim credit for what others, with a better sense of reality, have accomplished.
Please forgive me for despising RMS and the FSF, and for laughing at their continued antics.
Edited 2006-12-21 18:23
Your objectivity and lack of bias must be in the shop too or you would have seen that it is the politics of free software that has gotten it this far.
“””or you would have seen that it is the politics of free software that has gotten it this far.”””
No. It was a lot of hard work, good technical judgement, and an array of good licenses, the GPLv2 being one of those. A particularly important one, in fact, and I give RMS credit for that much.
But that contribution is from a very long time ago. In recent times, Richard has done more harm than good to his cause. Fortunately, these days, his influence has lessened.
Edited 2006-12-21 18:51
The cause is and always was about software freedoms. If you consider that politics then it was and always has been about it. If you do not consider that politics then it still is not.
be well
“””
If you consider that politics then it was and always has been about it.
“””
That’s nice and all. But what I am saying is totally orthogonal to the question of whether our (yes, our) goal is political or not.
The fact of the matter is that software projects… technical projects… require that decisions be made for *technical* reasons. It doesn’t matter if you are trying to sustain your monopoly, making the world safe for democracy, or fighting for printer driver freedoms. If the task at hand is technical, you need a top notch technical guy at the helm calling the shots based upon his technical expertise. Not the Ayatollah Khomeini proclaiming what must be done to his followers.
Do you believe for one moment that if Richard thought he could bring The Hurd up to speed and eclipse the Linux kernel that he wouldn’t put all the FSF’s resources behind it to accomplish that? For all I know, he has. But where is The Hurd? It predates Linux by a year. Richard’s kernel efforts actually predate Linux by quite a few years. Most people probably don’t remember his earlier, abortive attempts. Where is their kernel? They keep harping upon the “fact” that it is just “one piece” of GNU OS. Where is their entry for that position in GNU OS?
We will never make a real difference in the world with the sort of frontal attack that Richard seems to think will work. There just aren’t enough fanatics to accomplish that.
We need to offer people real value, that they can understand, that just happens to be in the form of Open Source Software. The fact of its openness can be an advantage to us in creating it… and also an advantage to them in using it. But it is the whole package that matters. The Freedom by itself is worth shit as a tool to get the message across.
We are producing a package and that package needs to have *value* that the average guy can appreciate or we are going nowhere.
Edited 2006-12-21 22:03
The fact of the matter is that software projects… technical projects… require that decisions be made for *technical* reasons.
Technical decisions are made for technical reasons, within the ideals of free software.
Do you believe for one moment that if Richard thought he could bring The Hurd up to speed and eclipse the Linux kernel that he wouldn’t put all the FSF’s resources behind it to accomplish that? For all I know, he has. But where is The Hurd? It predates Linux by a year. Richard’s kernel efforts actually predate Linux by quite a few years. Most people probably don’t remember his earlier, abortive attempts. Where is their kernel? They keep harping upon the “fact” that it is just “one piece” of GNU OS. Where is their entry for that position in GNU OS?
No RMS uses linux and he is glad to have a free kernel and when speaking of the hurd he *wishes* it was further along but recommends people use linux.
RMS is not that involved with the HURD AFAIK. In fact I have never known him to be overly involved with it. So keep claiming it as Richards kernel but that is not the case at all.
We will never make a real difference in the world with the sort of frontal attack that Richard seems to think will work. There just aren’t enough fanatics to accomplish that.
So you don’t think free software has made a difference thus far?
We need to offer people real value, that they can understand, that just happens to be in the form of Open Source Software. The fact of its openness can be an advantage to us in creating it… and also an advantage to them in using it. But it is the whole package that matters. The Freedom by itself is worth shit as a tool to get the message across.
Open soruce is a advantage to business. Free software takes everything that is good about oopen source and then adds protective measures to that as well as required sharing. All very good stuff IMO. As far as freedom, are you arguing that you prefer what exactly? TO be controlled and dictated to. Good for you. Not good for me.
We are producing a package and that package needs to have *value* that the average guy can appreciate or we are going nowhere.
Where was it we were going in the first place?
Well it was fun, but I won’t respond to your attacks again since it is nothing but negative argumentative off topic bull. Thanks for playing.
“””
but I won’t respond to your attacks again…
“””
Dean,
Please don’t view it as an attack. Strongly worded, yes. But not an attack.
I am familiar with your general posting history, and consider us to be on the same side. You might disagree. But, from my perspective, we are on the same side, you being a little more, well, “extreme” than I am. That might not have been the best word to use and, if not, I apologize.
-Steve
Edited 2006-12-21 23:00
Oops. Wrong subthread. Deleted. Sorry.
Edited 2006-12-21 21:48
Your objectivity and lack of bias must be in the shop too or you would have seen that it is the politics of free software that has gotten it this far.
You’re both right, but he is more practical in seeing that just politics, no matter how rightous, is not enough.
People need to be able to use their hardware and the content that the rest of the world uses.
Try to tell a teenager that he can’t play his mp3 music or use doc, powerpoint files that he needs for school work, or chat with friends on MSN because it’s all non-free and proprietory stuff, and you have an instant war at home.
Politics is a good foundation but has to be implemented with good tools.
So software like Openoffice.org and Firefox have been as important contributions to the FSF philosophy as the politics that preceeded.
And that’s why distros like GNUSense will go absolutely nowhere and are a complete and utter waste of resources.
It realy is just a political statement and a very hollow one at that. At least without providing tools to supplement non-free ones.
If you want people to fight for your cause you have to feed them. Starving them will not bring them to your side.
I AM well fed….Thanks for the concern.
I have always been satisfied with free software, how about you?
RMS envy
“””
RMS envy
“””
Funny, but inaccurate.
The word “envy” implies wanting to trade places with someone.
I just can’t picture myself as a fat whiny has-been trying to take credit for other people’s work. 😉
Edited 2006-12-21 20:41
people sure know his name though don’t they….
“””
people sure know his name though don’t they….
“””
Indeed. We can agree on that point! 😉
Edited 2006-12-21 22:35
GNUSense will be about as successful as The Hurd. And for the same reasons.
Software projects that make technical decisions for political reasons will never be able to compete with software projects which base technical decisions upon technical rationale.
The problem with the Hurd is that they based their technical decisions on a technical rationale – they just had the wrong technical rationale.
Spot on.
Removing all the non-free parts of a Linux kernel and distro is a respectable piece of work, but it is relatively easy; the difficult bit is replacing the lost functionality, especially in device drivers. Does gNewSense have any plans to do this?
Removing all the non-free parts of a Linux kernel and distro is a respectable piece of work, but it is relatively easy; the difficult bit is replacing the lost functionality, especially in device drivers. Does gNewSense have any plans to do this?
No plan that I know of. Is it that easy? I didn’t think it was that simple but it may be.
I am just glad to know that my “free” operating system is REALLY “free” and not just telling me that while loading a bunch of non-free junk.
Did anyone else read gNewSense as “Nuisance”?
Seriously, how does one pronounce that?
gah-new-sense
gee-new-sense
new-sense
nuisance
GNU people really need to take a course in picking good, logical, nice, easy-to-pronounce, memorable names.
New Sense is the general name IMO and the play on words comes in with the gNew….
New sense is a VERY appropriate name for a distro that is truly interested in free software.
Unfortunately it’s not recursive
What does “New Sense” have to do with free software? The name does not make any sense, in any sense of the word.