>trisquel is updated less frequently than debian is libre gnu dead?

>>60690821
Does anyone actually use Trisquel?

File: 1457295661573-2.gif (1MB, 219x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 219x169px

>>60690821
I expected old packages, not this shit.

File: Screenshot_at_20170531_194502.png (778KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1280x800px

>>60690821
no. Latest alpha came one month ago
http://jenkins.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/
>>60691016
yes.

>>60691242
>alpha
This is basically it.
The GNU approved distros are under-resourced, and can never really get to the point where they are released.
That being said, because the distros are simply repackaged versions of other distros, the alpha/beta versions are still reasonably functional.

Same applies to GNUsense and Parabola.

What's the point of it? Distributions like Debian and Fedora are already fully libre out of the box and can be easily kept that way unless your hardware requires otherwise(which means you won't be able to run Trisquel either). They are only not FSF approved because they have non free repos.

>>60691312
I agree. Even Gentoo allows for setting license flags to not install nonfree software. GNU doesn't approve anything that gives users an option to install nonfree software.

Look at all that freedom bois

>>60691312
Fedora uses a nonfree kernel.

Debian is completely free software though.

>>60691312
Linux kernel on those distributions are not "Linux-libre" therefore not free. The repo thing is there because user can accidentally install closed source application. Tridquel is for people who wants to use Ubuntu, but doesn't want to check every software's licences and install a new kernel. If Fedora and Debian wants FSF's approve they can make a little fork I guess, but making a new distro and giving it name is pointless (gnewsense)
FSF doesn't approve *stock* Debian/Fedora because they promote closed source software even though it's minimal. You can modify them to suit FSF movement, they just don't approve stock one. You can install libre kernel and use trisquel repos on stock ubuntu, does that make it non-approved? No.

>>60691527
Debian doesn't use a nonfree kernel.
They run their own libre kernel stripped of nonfree packages.
It is defacto libre.

>>60691582
You're right, but my point stands, gnewsense is pointless.
There are so many minor differences between distros it's hilarious. Lxle and Lubuntu has only different packages and different theme. So if you install an OS and install new packages you can call it as "fork" rather than stock. *stock* Debian is almost free, but if you choose to use only free repos, your own "fork" of Debian is FSF approved, even though they don't have to state that.

>>60691622
I'm agreeing with you.
Debian is a lot more convenient to use than a distro like gnewsense.
If anything, the fact that a debian install by default doesn't install any nonfree software is a further point to that extent.

At the end of the day though, the FSF certification doesn't mean much. Especially if you do understand the difference between free and nonfree packages.

File: 1397248736824.gif (2MB, 282x257px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 282x257px

>>60691016
I run it on my server for stability reasons. And to avoid systemd.
It's shit for a desktop OS though.

>>60691698
Trisquel uses systemd

>>60690821
Vanilla Debian is fully free and libre.

>>60694009
That's what I use now.
Debian is better if not for being completely offline.

If you download the disc set (14 dvds) you can install every package offline, and it only includes free ones.
Technically disc debian would probably be fine by stallman.

>>60691462
>GNU doesn't approve anything that gives users an option to install nonfree software.
So much for that coveted "freedom"

>>60694294
because non-free software takes your freedom, and these distros doesn't recommend those software by not including it in repos, you can add non-free repos to approved distros, if you wish. You have freedom to use anything you want, non-free is just discouraged

>>60694294
Nonfreetards are the dumbest people out.
Approve and allow are two different things.

Stallman isn't obliged to recommend nonfree software.
You aren't obliged to agree with his recommendations.
He forces you to do nothing. He doesn't even try to stop you from using nonfree software, because that wouldn't respect your freedoms.

Nonfree software, on the other hand routinely forces you to surrender your freedoms. Without much choice too.

How is "stallman not 100% agreeing with you giving up freedom" damage your freedom?

>>60694128
Why the literal sack of fucking piss would you do that...

>>60694732
I don't have reliable access to the internet.
I could get it fixed, but I don't use it enough to justify the expense.

>>60694128
Wanna know a secret?
debian freedom is even better when you purge systemd from it.

File: Theodore_Kaczynski.jpg (139KB, 555x414px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 555x414px

>>60694732
You literally have everything the vendor offers on a physical storage that costs you less than a meal.
You go to a internet cafe, download all 14 DVDs, burn them, go back into your cabin innawoods and continue Tedding as a recluse with your 100kbps pirate satelite connection.

Praise Tengri