I want to try experimenting with a completely free distro (one that stallman would approve). You can see them over at the FSF website, and i've never heard of them. Can anyone recommend one to try?
I would need to be able to install nginx, mysql and php7 on it.
trisquel or gnusense
Is anyone even working on them? The updates to them go back to 2015 and 2014 respectively.
>Unironically giving a shit about what Stallman thinks.
Technically, Debian and Fedora are already free. It's just the politics of the FSF that prevents those distros from becoming FSF approved
Think I'll settle on trisquel as its basically based off ubuntu but with all the non-free stuff stripped. I am currently on ubuntu.
try GuixSD or Trisquel
I don't know shit about the first one desu but Trisquel is surprisingly good
Parabola, do it fagget!
OpenSUSE
Fedora
Debian
The ONLY reason they're not """approved""" is because they don't actively try to prevent you from installing closed source software.
Parabola.
It's what Arch GNU/Linux was supposed to be.
>Debian and Fedora are already free
>distros that host nonfree software on their repositories are free
kek
>Limiting your freedom by offering only free software
kek
>Limiting your freedom by offering only software that respects your freedom
>Limiting your freedom by offering only houses that don't contain surveillance cameras
>Limiting your freedom by offering only food that doesn't poison you
u r a retard
This. All the Free Software Foundation approved distributions are either extremely slow and outdated or outright dead. Most distributions offer completely free experience but want to keep their userbase in the increasingly proprietary world, so they offer proprietary software if you enable the non-free repositories.
Insisting on FSF-approved distro is like being a vegan and only going to stores that sell absolutely no meat, egg or milk-based products or any other products that come from animals.
Limiting my use of software is restricting my freedom. You are the retard here. And a dumb hipster if you insist on using an irrelevant "free distribution" just because you don't want other users to have the ability of enabling non-free repositories.
>openSUSE
>usable
choose one and only one
assuming I'd just be using it as a basic desktop OS, what do you recommend for OpenSUSE between Tumbleweed or Leap?
Exactly? If I want to do drugs I should be able to even if they're harmful. Not allowing me that is limiting my freedom.
Gecko Linux desu. If you want actual SUSE then use tumbleweed.
Just install Arch Linux with the linux-libre kernel from the AUR. That kernel is free of binary blobs. As far as I know, everything in the base and base-devel package groups is fully FOSS. Then it's up to you to install the open source video drivers and whatever other FOSS applications you want.
>(one that stallman would approve)
A mate of mine met Stallman at a LUG in London back in '04 so this might not be valid anymore but...
My m8 was stood outside the pub and Stallman came out. He asked him which Linux distro to use and Stallman said Debian. Then, according to my m8, Stallman did a little dance 'like some kind of Linux elf' and laughed.
I swear blind this is exactly what happened. Unless my m8 is a lying cunt of course. I heard this story like back in '06.
I think Parabola just didn't exist at that moment.
>If I want to do drugs I should be able to even if they're harmful
You are able to do drugs, but don't bullshit me that they are good for you.
You are able to use non-free distos, but don't bullshit me that they are free.
>Limiting my use of software is restricting my freedom.
Yeah, the same way government limits your freedom to destroy your body by making heroin illegal.
You can still get heroin, but don't blame the government if you end up homeless or dead.
>You can still get heroin, but don't blame the government if you end up homeless or dead.
I can blame the government that they are making criminals rich as the direct result of their drug prohibition.
Whats wrong with OpenSuse?
I'm not sure if Debian was still recommended by Free Software Foundation in 2004? Debian Free Software Guidelines and Open Source Initiative were created sometime ~1998 and I'm not quite sure how soon after that Free Software Foundation decided it was necessary to create and promote "completely free" distirbutions.
Serious question. Answer me honestly, I want to know how deluded you are. Don't you think Free Software Foundation and their free distributions are hurting Open Source Movement? Let's be honest here. Currently there are good, freedom-respecting distributions like Fedora and Debian available, yet according to FSF these distributions are essentially tossed in the same mix with absolutely proprietary bullshit like Mint and Manjaro and some of the FSF donations go to distributions that are basically on life-support. Wouldn't it be more beneficial if FSF approved distributions that are completely free by default, requiring extra steps for using proprietary software? Completely free distributions will never be popular and are essentially on life support already. FSF is an irrelevant and extremist foundation that will not last long after Stallman.
>Don't you think Free Software Foundation and their free distributions are hurting Open Source Movement?
Yes.
>implying Open Source Movement is anything else than corporate shill designed to kill FSF
God, you and other extremist Free Software supporters are actually this delusional? Enjoy crippling yourself by using a objectively worse distribution just because other users have the ability to download non-free software (which does not affect you in a single way).
>Enjoy crippling yourself by using a objectively worse distribution just because other users have the ability to download non-free software (which does not affect you in a single way).
Freedom is not about convenience. You should not use free (as in freedom) software just because it's technically better, you should use free (as in freedom) software because it respects your freedom.
It is easy to lose the point of free (as in freedom) software when you are shilled by the open-sores community with arguments about how open-sores is "better", "more secure" and so - especially when one of the biggest names in the free software community is Linus Torvalds, who himself doesn't care about freedom per se, but only cares about technical aspects of free software.
Why even use open source then, if you don't care about your freedom? There are countless of technically better proprietary counterparts of every single software you use.
Open Source provides choice. I don't get locked into company's ecosystem (walled gardens, if you wish) and I can easily use solutions from multiple developers without ever becoming reliable on one.
Besides, I do care about the freedom of software to some degree. I personally run libre Debian setup. I, however, believe that nobody makes the leap to free software at once, and offering proprietary software to ease the transfer is an absolute necessity if we wish to grow and sustain the community. I also consider using "as much free software as possible" a way better choice than without caring about freedom at all. There are more colours than black and white.
I personally know many people who have made the switch slowly and nowadays use only libre software and donate to libre projects. Without the compromise, they would still be using Windows or MacOS.
The extremism of FSF is slowly dying. The distributions are not actually usable in any real world social or job-related situation and are way worse then the possibly libre distributions like Debian.
>yfw you realize the nonfree software is in a separate repository that you have to enable yourself
kek
The FSF nutjobs actually believe that having the option to use proprietary software is harmful and the system should be locked to only free software. They want to restrict our freedom of using the software we require.
Like every meme, the "communism" theme has its roots in truth. If FSF had the authority and the power, we'd live in a socialist digital world where everyone would have access to everything anyone has ever created and concepts such as "copyright" and "licensing" would not exist (GPL is only required because of copyright and licensing, if those did not exist, GPL would not be required).
Fucking none of them. All of those distros haven't been updated in 2 or 3 years.
Debian is entirely free by default, but they're not "approved" by the FSF ideological autists because they host non-free repositories on their servers.
I bet stallman hasn't even used fidgetspinnerOS or whatever the fuck it is.
>Insisting on FSF-approved distro is like being a vegan and only going to stores that sell absolutely no meat, egg or milk-based products or any other products that come from animals.
THIS.
Although I admire Stallman, this is just controlling the users just like Microsoft or Apple.
"No, you can't do whatever you want with your computer, you must chose a side, and be a prisoner of this side".
It's telling you that there's a lot forbidden things, then bragging about what you can do into that limited parcel that is not forbidden , and calling it "freedom".
Yep. The actual freedom is to choose how much if any proprietary software your system has. If the base is free software then proprietary applications are not a problem. If you stop trusting them you can just remove the program and your system returns to free state. By not even having an option to get your system free is corporation's controlling.
Like if you trust, say, Adobe - you could run only their proprietary software in your otherwise free system. You don't have to trust Adobe AND Microsoft at the same time. If you hear some big reveal that Adobe is bad, you just uninstall it and replace with something else. You don't have to change your whole life upside down just because of one software. That sounds like the ultimate freedom. You trust who you choose to trust, until they betray you.
Ubuntu is a free as in freedom distro.
What Stalman says in not accurate.
Parabola with OpenRC and i3 is /comfy/ as fuck
You are retards. Nobody forces you to use only free software. You can use GPL licenced software on fucking Windows if you want without any consequences. But we sure as hell won't label a distribution "free" if it isn't 100% free (as in freedom).
Stallman created GPL in order to give the advantage to the community. He doesn't want to help huge companies that make proprietary software and take away their users' freedom - he wants to help the community, and if you're a developer, you can only use his code if you join the community, and give away all the derivatives back to the community.
I think that is pretty fair. The only people who would have a problem with that are the people who want to take away your freedom - such as executives of large companies. If they want to use GNU software, they are free to do so. If they want to change it and use it for their own use cases without sharing, that's okay too. But if they change the software a little bit and try to sell the software with a non-free license - that is, decide to take away the freedom of people who would use the derivative (similarly to what grsecurity is doing right now) - that is NOT okay.
If you think that the above elaborated is taking away your freedom, WHILE you use proprietary software that only the license owner controls, you are fucking retards.
I agree to everything you said (maybe not the part in which you called me a retard).
The discussion was not about GPL or stealing free code ande licensing it with a non-free license. It was about distros that '''allow''' non-free software not being free. Are the ones that come with non-free repositories disabled by default and don't push anything non-free on you free, that's the question. I say they are. You and Stallman say they aren't.
I think the distros that make very difficult to me to install non-free software are limiting my freedom. The software is free, in FSF's concept, but a I'm not. The point here is who should decide.
But in the end, most users will use a free with option distro, so this is not that important, we're just exercising opinions here.
Install gentoo
Put this in your make.conf
ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"
>The discussion was not about GPL or stealing free code ande licensing it with a non-free license. It was about distros that '''allow''' non-free software not being free. Are the ones that come with non-free repositories disabled by default and don't push anything non-free on you free, that's the question. I say they are. You and Stallman say they aren't.
I believe that Stallman is a bigger authority over what should be considered a "free distro" and what shouldn't than you, since he - ya know - basically created the whole thing.
He has had the zero tolerance policy towards non-free software ever since he made the GNU Project and it was the only thing that kept it alive over all these decades. One hipster like you doesn't change the fact that GNU would be dead ages ago if they were any more tolerant to proprietary assholes.
Nobody is bullshitting. Learn to read.
Ututo