U_14.02LTS next year ?

[nss000]

Gents:

Makes me suspicious...

So I read in Ars Technica ... that Canonical expects to release U_14.02LTS **next year**! Seems strange to me, given that U_12.04LTS was just released on a "5-year" support schedule. Why not just roll any significant improvements into an update/backport/whatevr in U_12.04 ?? Is the 5-year support being ditched, or will older xxx.LTS desktop versions be allowed to bitrot while Canonical forges into the **squintsville** phone/tablet arena?

As an aside ... what do (other) U_10.04LTS Luddites intend doing where their Ubuntu support runs out this April?

 

[nss000]

SpL:

I have read the WIKI article you reference. It does **NOT** say that Debian subscribes, redacts, enforces and/or gerrymanders(?) its own released kernel to comply with the NOSEEUM quasi-religious requirement. Does Debian in-fact march down that fanatics code-path? I guess you give a personal example of how their (sic)moral purity infringes on your computers function. Could be an "accident" of-course, but if not then Debian-Libre kinda sounds like a coders Taliban ... do they get seventy-virgin-coders ever time they immolate a (private) binary-blob driven system function?

Dodging Shuttleworths "child molesting" codr-paws would appear the lesser of two evils compared to consorting directly with the Stalinist ... er Stalminist JiHadrz. Of-course again the Canonical archives just rephrase the Debian archives. If I claim to dodge Stallmans MuJad by sheltering under Canonicals gropy wing then have I not still signed-in-blood a pact with the devil?

Haha yeah they have done it wrong 🙂 Take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre

It's the full kernel with any proprietary blobs removed so every last line of code is accessible. People like rms would have you believe that this is better, but they have a hard time giving any solid, tangible reason how/why it's better. Comes back to philosophy and freedom. If you don't have the technical know-how to go editing and compiling your own kernel, I really can't see the benefit.

Just means that hardware selection is much more limited. Debian's page on Wi-Fi dongles actually recommends finding an FSF-certified stick that has open-source drivers (for use with linux-libre based distros). Relying on open-source GPU drivers is fine if you're not gaming, but obviously you need that proprietary Wi-Fi support to get online! If I need a second system/OS to get those drivers, I may aswell stick with the OS that actually gives me internet connectivity as standard (unless Debian offered something unique and amazing... which it doesn't). And like I say, I did run into more bugs with Debian than Ubuntu/etc (though Debian better than anything else in that regard).

 

[sam_p_lay]

SpL:

I have read the WIKI article you reference. It does **NOT** say that Debian subscribes, redacts, enforces and/or gerrymanders(?) its own released kernel to comply with the NOSEEUM quasi-religious requirement. Does Debian in-fact march down that fanatics code-path? I guess you give a personal example of how their (sic)moral purity infringes on your computers function. Could be an "accident" of-course, but if not then Debian-Libre kinda sounds like a coders Taliban ... do they get seventy-virgin-coders ever time they immolate a (private) binary-blob driven system function?

Dodging Shuttleworths "child molesting" codr-paws would appear the lesser of two evils compared to consorting directly with the Stalinist ... er Stalminist JiHadrz. Of-course again the Canonical archives just rephrase the Debian archives. If I claim to dodge Stallmans MuJad by sheltering under Canonicals gropy wing then have I not still signed-in-blood a pact with the devil?

Haha yeah they have done it wrong 🙂 Take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre

It's the full kernel with any proprietary blobs removed so every last line of code is accessible. People like rms would have you believe that this is better, but they have a hard time giving any solid, tangible reason how/why it's better. Comes back to philosophy and freedom. If you don't have the technical know-how to go editing and compiling your own kernel, I really can't see the benefit.

Just means that hardware selection is much more limited. Debian's page on Wi-Fi dongles actually recommends finding an FSF-certified stick that has open-source drivers (for use with linux-libre based distros). Relying on open-source GPU drivers is fine if you're not gaming, but obviously you need that proprietary Wi-Fi support to get online! If I need a second system/OS to get those drivers, I may aswell stick with the OS that actually gives me internet connectivity as standard (unless Debian offered something unique and amazing... which it doesn't). And like I say, I did run into more bugs with Debian than Ubuntu/etc (though Debian better than anything else in that regard).

Sounds like you're worrying too much about philosophy and good vs evil ;-) If that's your primary concern then you'll have to draw your own conclusions! You're right that this linux-libre business does seem to be bordering on religious belief.

I think I was wrong about Debian 6 switching to linux-libre - I read that they modified the kernel to remove proprietary drivers/firmware and assumed that meant they were using linux-libre. Turns out it literally meant what it said - the Debian community made the modifications themselves so it's a kind of home-made linux-libre kernel by the Debian community. Why they didn't just use linux-libre for the same result I'm not sure.

There are some threads in the Debian forums about differences vs actual linux-libre, but doesn't look like anyone knows for sure. They're probably very similar (same goals). This is the page that details the Wi-Fi adapters/proprietary vs libre situation:

http://wiki.debian.org/WiFi

Debian's Social Contract mandates the freeing of the distribution. In practice this means manufacturers are required to cooperate by releasing specifications and free drivers that can be worked on by the community. Newer versions of Debian (6+) do not include non-free drivers or firmware.

Wifi has always been a problem for free software users. USB Wifi cards are becoming less free. With the older 802.11G standard many USB wifi cards had free drivers and did not require non-free firmware. With 802.11N there is only one chipset on the market from Atheros which is completely free.