Free Software Foundation and Linux Mint

[Ragz]

Are there philosophical differences between Linux Mint and the List of GNU/Linux distributions which GNU.ORG proposes. These distro's include the following;
Dragora
Guix
PureOS
Trisquel
Utotu S
and others.
Does the gnu.org take a different approach?

[JoeFootball]

Does the gnu.org take a different approach?

Mostly that those distros have exclusively 100% free software. For example, they'd not have any drivers from manufacturers for video cards, wireless networking, etc., or multimedia codecs, DRM content support, etc., unless they were released as free software.

[Ragz]

Does the gnu.org take a different approach?

Mostly that those distros have exclusively 100% free software. For example, they'd not have any drivers from manufacturers for video cards, wireless networking, etc., or multimedia codecs, DRM content support, etc., unless they were released as free software.

That sounds like a very frustrating endeavor Joe Football!

[JoeFootball]

That sounds like a very frustrating endeavor Joe Football!

I'm sure it can be. I suppose it depends on each person's own preferences. i.e., how passionate does one want to be for the sake of having a 100% free OS that may require tweaking (at best).

Speaking for myself, I'd like to have an 100% free OS, but I have things get done. That said, I did try Trisquel a number of years ago. It certainly wasn't bad, but not as polished as Linux Mint, in my personal opinion.

[Portreve]

Well, the OS itself can be 100% libre, open source software, but that doesn't mean the other components a user decides to install will be.

I agree with Richard Stallman that all the software one installs — the OS, user software, drivers, codecs, etc., should be libre. That said, it is possible to influence companies to relicense their software while at the same time remaining a functional individual by installing non-libre software.

However, even if Mr. Stallman himself is informed and intelligent enough to know this, the fact is many people out there don't seem to fully get it that there's going to be other, ancillary things which are proprietary which may not exactly fall under the heading of libre, even if they kind of are software components. For example, Adobe has done a lot of work (as have others) with publishing-related things such as color calibration, color management, and so on. Then, there's systems like PMS. In both of these examples, it's not just code; there's specific "works of art" and other standards for that given industry, so good luck trying to just bypass all of that.

[Hoser Rob]

While I've been using Linux exclusively for a few years now I've never been much of a FOSS fanatic. And when I found out that the HTML5 Web standard would incorporate DRM 'compatibility' I became even less of one. Basically you can't have a truly FOSS browser that would be useable for most users.

Actually, I think that Stallman is a bit of an idiot. If he ran the Linux project instead of Torvalds we'd all still be using Windows.

[Ragz]

While I've been using Linux exclusively for a few years now I've never been much of a FOSS fanatic. And when I found out that the HTML5 Web standard would incorporate DRM 'compatibility' I became even less of one. Basically you can't have a truly FOSS browser that would be useable for most users.

Actually, I think that Stallman is a bit of an idiot. If he ran the Linux project instead of Torvalds we'd all still be using Windows.

Please elaborate on the HTML5 Web standard which would incorporate DRM "compatibility" and how that relates to FOSS. I realize this is the latest and last standardization for website protocol but not sure the implications of DRM "compatibility" you refer to.

Thanks

[Portreve]

Well, hopefully there will eventually be an HTML 6, and then one day an HTML 7, and so on. No matter how nice the present standard, it would be unconscionable for the Web to stagnate with that standard.

Between all the backend server stuff and the capabilities HTML 5 has, along with the latest versions of CSS, I find it incredible how rich a web site can truly be.

[Ragz]

Well, the OS itself can be 100% libre, open source software, but that doesn't mean the other components a user decides to install will be.

I agree with Richard Stallman that all the software one installs — the OS, user software, drivers, codecs, etc., should be libre. That said, it is possible to influence companies to relicense their software while at the same time remaining a functional individual by installing non-libre software.

However, even if Mr. Stallman himself is informed and intelligent enough to know this, the fact is many people out there don't seem to fully get it that there's going to be other, ancillary things which are proprietary which may not exactly fall under the heading of libre, even if they kind of are software components. For example, Adobe has done a lot of work (as have others) with publishing-related things such as color calibration, color management, and so on. Then, there's systems like PMS. In both of these examples, it's not just code; there's specific "works of art" and other standards for that given industry, so good luck trying to just bypass all of that.

Informative Portreve. Thanks

[Ragz]

That sounds like a very frustrating endeavor Joe Football!

I'm sure it can be. I suppose it depends on each person's own preferences. i.e., how passionate does one want to be for the sake of having a 100% free OS that may require tweaking (at best).

Speaking for myself, I'd like to have an 100% free OS, but I have things get done. That said, I did try Trisquel a number of years ago. It certainly wasn't bad, but not as polished as Linux Mint, in my personal opinion.

My Lenovo ThinkPad would require various hardware changes INSIDE the laptop and replaced with compliant hardware for Trisquel to run. I like the idea of the FSF fully but the time and patience required to implement such an endeavor is a no go. Portreve's earlier reply was certainly helpful in revising my thinking.