Talk:Linux-libre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Unnamed section

I'd like to try and improve the article, but I'm not sure if I'll have enough time to do so before the month ends. Can I request some extra time? Leorockway (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not up for deletion or similar, so there is no rush! - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the French, Spanish and Italian are way more complete. This is topic IS RELEVANT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.52.191 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then contribute to it expansion! :) Cheers. --Gonchibolso12 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things to fix?

Arch has the two usual problems: there's no clear policy about what software can be included, and nonfree blobs are shipped with their kernel, Linux. Arch also has no policy about not distributing nonfree software through their normal channels.

— http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html

> Is the 3.0.1-libredyne kernel a real-time kernel?

no! one of the reasons why we call it beta still.

at the time of dyne:II I was more up to date with this kernel development and out of knowing the options around I've adopted the great patches that Con Kolivas was doing. Unfortunately he left the scene now and I don't know anymore which are the best realtime patches now.

anyone has ideas? should we ask the folks at pure:dyne or linux-audio-dev http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.distributions.dynebolic.user/2226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riveravaldez (talk • contribs)

Initial Release

The initial release date should be February 20th, 2008. It is currently listed as May 19, 2008. Here's some supporting links (at least moving it back to March): http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-March/msg02726.html http://forums.blagblagblag.org/viewtopic.php?t=4665 I don't feel comfortable editing this as I was directly involved, but wanted to note it in case someone feels compelled to correct it. Thanks. :) Jebba (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those two refs you mention (aside from both being
WP:SPS) really nail down a release date. The Redhat one doesn't mention a date at all, other than the posting date of 29 Mar 2008, and the blag one just says "this post was made in other places on February 20th, 2008, I'm just putting it here for completeness...)". Neither are very compelling even aside from the SPS issue. The one cited in the article right now seems to be a bit more definitive in that at least it shows a release on a particular date, although it doesn't prove that there weren't others earlier. Do we have anything more definitive available? - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's one from March 25, 2008 from LWN: http://lwn.net/Articles/274918/ The original mailing list announcement from February 20, 2008 is archived here: http://lists.autistici.org/message/20080221.002845.467ba592.en.html Jebba (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims

"Advantages include the removal of device firmware which cannot be audited for bugs and/or security problems, or fixed by the Linux kernel maintainers themselves even if they know of them. It is possible for the entire system to be compromised by a malicious firmware, and without the ability to perform a security audit on manufacturer-provided firmware, even an innocent bug could undermine the safety of the running system.[10]"

The problem with this statement is in many cases removing the firmware from the linux kernel will not get rid of it. It will merely cause the device to use the version of the firmware in it's on-device rom. This means the user has no more freedom than they had before and will be running an older (and most likely buggier) version of the firmware. Plugwash (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that is great  Done - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. The statement "this means the user has no more freedom than they had before" is false because they will have gained software freedom by not using the proprietary microcode software, and reverting back to the microcode embedded in hardware, which is not software.185.217.158.63 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debian

Debian no longer has non-free linux as a default core [1,2]. The text is not correct. [1] http://trisquel.info/en/forum/kernels [2] https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html 94.219.254.167 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Vladimir[reply]

[1]https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html [2]https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171742/https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html [3]https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html [4]https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171923/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html [5]https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 [6]https://web.archive.org/web/20231104202242/https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003

Debian does install non-free software by default, though is that in the Linux kernel part, or in the installer?

Thank you, Vladimir, for the links.

Other Cody (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linux-libre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debian kernel not the same as linux-libre kernel

The article claims that Debian uses the linux libre kernel by default. This is not exactly true. As far as I know, Debian uses its own deblobbed kernel which is almost identical. However the topic of this article is specifically the linux-libre kernel maintained by the FSF. The citation for Debian does not mention the linux libre kernel or the FSF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Freedo (producer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Git

There seems a misunderstanding. The git repository at https://jxself.org/git/linux-libre-firmware.git has never been the git repository for Linux-libre. (I am writing this as jxself - the person that started that git repository so I know.) It is *a* git repository that I started on my own but it should not be presented as being "the" Linux-libre git repository. In fact I don't think it should even be mentioned at all. It's just me starting up something on my own totally unofficial with no connection to the actual Linux-libre project at all that someone picked up on and somehow thought was "the place." But I don't seem to be able to remove it from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q665683#P1324 I'd appreciate it if someone could, as it should never have been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.66.250.146 (talk)

Thanks -  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem to be. It still says "Repository - jxself.org/git/linux-libre.git" on the Wikipedia page for Linux-libre and Wikidata still mentions its existence. The correct one is git://linux-libre.fsfla.org/releases.git
This is a good illustration of why I don't like WikiData, it is so hard to monitor and stop people messing it up. I have fixed it again there, let's see if it stays fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Disadvantages" should be "Side-Effects"

Things like not telling people to use proprietary microcode is seen as a benefit by the Linux-libre project and it's part of the whole point for it existing in the first place. So as to remain neutral and not make a value judgement about these issues on Wikipedia, why not just list the effects in a list that says "Effects"? 185.217.158.63 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current text says that some hardware will see loss of functionality. I don't think you can term that a "side-effect". It is a really a distinct "disadvantage" for anyone who owns that hardware. It is probably worth keeping in mind that the reason that the Linux-libre is not more widely used is because it does not support more than a narrow range of hardware. Calling "not running your hardware" a "side-effect" is really a bit of a whitewash. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you believe some misconceptions. Linux-libre does not support "a narrow range of hardware", it supports everything Linux does minus the hardware which absolutely requires blobs to work, which is pretty much all modern hardware minus recent Intel Wi-Fi cards, and nVidia GPUs.
The main issuse in the article is not the labelleing of "not being able to run hardware" as a side-effect, it is the labelling of "not recommending proprietary microcode software" as a disadvantage.
This is a distinct advantage of the Linux-libre project for supporters of free software and those who care about their own freedom.
Wikipedia should not be making the value judgement that this is a "disadvantage", it should plainly and naturally state this occurs, and list the opinions of the Linux-libre project, people who care about freedom, and those who don't, respectively.185.217.158.63 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could, of course, split the microcode and the lack of hardware support into different headings. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to promote free software, "freedom" or anything else. I think it is is too close to
WP:PROMOTIONAL to be labeling "bugs" as "features", but let's see what other editors think, such as @Nythar: who also reverted you once. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
We are not making a "value judgement" when mentioning something's disadvantages in an encyclopedia. When referring to software, the term disadvantage is more widely used than the term side-effects.
If "Removing proprietary firmware from the kernel will cause loss of functionality of certain hardware", this may be considered a disadvantage. Nythar (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted you (Ahunt) in the past for making biased claims, and I'm here on the talk page advocating we not make value judgements, which includes not promoting freedom (which I never suggested), and not promoting views which don't care about freedom (as we are doing now) which you are in favour of and reverted back to. It is laughable to imply I am biased when you are the one reverting back to biased claims.
You, and by extension Wikipedia, are making the value judgement of labelling what some people view as a feature as a bug, which is biased.
We shouldn't be making that value judgement.
As for Nythar, I agree, but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about the recommendation of proprietary software, which Wikipedia is currently making the value judgement of labelling as a "disadvantage".
185.217.158.63 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we didn't label the product as a disadvantage. We merely mentioned the product's disadvantages. Labeling a section as disadvantages isn't the same as calling the product useless or evil. Nythar (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted you (Ahunt) in the past for making biased claims - no clue what you are referring to there.
I comeback to my suggestion above, perhaps we need to split the microcode and hardware support under different headings. - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Linux-libre is not always a product because it is not always sold. 2. You are making a value judgement by considering the removal of the recommendations of proprietary software a "disadvantage". Obviously some people consider this an advantage because they made Linux-libre in the first place, and some people choose to use Linux-libre.
Ahunt, I'm talking about when you kept reverting my contributions to other pages and then went running to an admin to lock them instead of conversing on the talk pages.
185.217.158.63 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I recall that. Your edits were reverted and the page protected by an admin who assessed them as vandalism.
Regardless, perhaps we can find a solution here. So far the consensus is to label both as "disadvantages", but you haven't addressed my idea of dealing with the microcode and the hardware support separately. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "consensus", which amounts to two people, both of which have already demonstrated they have misconceptions about Linux-libre that I have corrected in messages on this thread, is still making a value judgement, which is inherently biased. Yes, we should consider each point separately and not label them "advantages" or "disadvantages" and instead point out the ramifications of each point, who considers them "advantages" or "disadvantages", and why. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me who you are. I was treating you as just another random editor.
WP:THETRUTH and give those some thought. The latter was something I suggested you read last time, before you got excluded for "persistent vandalism". You need to put up rational arguments here, discuss in good faith, not insult people and try to force your point of view. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I am doing nothing of the sort. I don't have a "point of view" about this page other than that it should be neutral and stop making value judgements. I am not the one threatening to run to admins and get the page locked when I can't be bothered to discuss the issue on the talk page. I have already made my points and if I contribute to the page you're just going to revert it and find a way to lock the page or ban me anyway, so what else can I add to this discussion other than to say "do what you want"? I am willing to contribute if you are willing not to enforce your bias and prevent other contributors from contributing. After all this time, the admin in question never even talked to me, when I was acting in good faith. I have been editing Wikipedia for years on different IPs and in all this time I have never encountered anyone willing to get the page locked instead of discussing the issue. You really see the abuse of power from long-time editors with accounts who trust other long-time editors with accounts, instead of taking the time to listen to IP users. If you are willing to work constructively then why not implement separating the points as you described or allow me to?185.217.158.63 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing here, but you are persisting with your accusations and bad faith personal attacks. You have made your point, whatever it may be, Let's see if any other editors agree with you. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who agrees with me. What matters is Wikipedia policy, which as I have been saying, dictates we remain neutral and do not make value judgements. Something can only be considered an advantage or disadvantage on an unbiased encyclopedia if we can cite reliable sources which make these claims. Merely stating something exists or happens, even if we have a citation as evidence, does not allow us to make a value judgement about it and categorise it as an advantage or disadvantage. If you disagree with this message, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with Wikipedia policy.185.217.158.63 (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can note we usually let these discussions run a week and then see where the consensus is, to give other editors a chance to participate. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, calling this category "Other effects" is itself
WP:POV
.
The quality of the page's references is telling. Almost every reference is a primary source (Linux-libre or FSF/FSFLA/FSF distribution sites). Regardless of authorship, almost every reference is self-published. Of the sources that are independent of Linux-libre, some don't even mention Linux-libre and are only used to substantiate
WP:OR
(e.g. the Broadcom reverse-engineering talk).
Of the current list of references, the only one that clearly meets
WP:RS is the Linux.com
article from 2008 (now a deadlink). That one tells a much bleaker story: "disillusioned almost immediately... the reception has been chilly... especially disappointing...". Note the journalist appears to support Linux-libre despite the poor reception; this doesn't look like a hit piece.
Edit as you will, but if the bar is Wikipedia policy...
(COI: Kernel developer. Used to run Linux-libre with Trisquel.) Arzg (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. out of curiosity went looking for potential references, just this week was https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/25/debian_firmware_debate/ which directly addresses the tension here with its subtitle, "Convenience or purity? You can only choose one". Arzg (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that that link you provide from The Register only mentioned Linux-Libre "in passing". Based on your analysis of the refs in this article it is pretty much an argument that the topic as a whole fails
WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think so. Linux-libre is a very important project which many FSF-endorsed GNU+Linux-libre distributions such as
Trisquel use. The reception from the tabloid press is irrelevant. The primary sources of the article are the authorities of the topic, after all they are the authors.185.217.158.63 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:N. As per User:Arzg's note above, if better refs cannot be found that show the topic is notable, then the best solution may be a section describing it at Linux kernel, using what third party refs we have available and just redirect this article there. As a "side-effect" that would also solve the original topic of this discussion, too, or at least render it "moot".- Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I wouldn't consider that. Regardless of how many third-party sources discuss Linux-libre, it's orders of magnitude more important than a dozen other programs I can think of that have articles.185.217.158.63 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk is cheap and notability of not a matter of whether anyone subjectively thinks a topic is important or not. The proof is in the refs cited and User:Arzg is quite right, as it stands the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. That doesn't mean it couldn't do so, but it will need at least a couple more third party, independent refs that provide some level of in-depth coverage, like a magazine review, academic paper or book with non- trivial coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.maketecheasier.com/best-linux-libre-distributions/
https://9to5linux.com/gnu-linux-libre-5-14-kernel-arrives-for-those-seeking-100-freedom-for-their-pcs
https://9to5linux.com/gnu-linux-libre-5-10-kernel-released-for-those-who-seek-100-freedom-for-their-pcs
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxlibre/
https://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/5-best-linux-libre-distributions-for-better-security/
https://itsfoss.com/hyperbola-linux-review/
https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Linux-libre
https://hyperleap.com/topic/Linux-libre
from a simple web search. Its notability is evident; add whichever references you think work best.
185.217.158.63 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so let's have a quick look at what you found there:

So of what you have found there, only really one is a useful ref that could be added to the article. As you can see you can't just do a search and throw the results in, as many results are not

WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I know. I left the job of going through them to you; Wikipedia is a collaborative project.185.217.158.63 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which I did. So we have one good ref that can be added, so thanks for finding that. I will add it in. It would be helpful to find one more of a similar value. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, plus I used my own proposal from the "disadvantages" discussion above and broke it into two sections with neutral titles. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is misleading and incorrect; Linux-libre is 100% free software. Free software != open-source. It's also worth noting that source supports what I claimed earlier: that hardware support is only really an issue for recent Intel Wi-Fi cards and nVidia GPUs. This should probably be added to the article.185.217.158.63 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I put in the full quote -  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linux-Magazine source

Bruce Byfield wrote the article "The Linux-libre [1] Project" in the Features section of Linux Magazine. Has this article been discussed yet? 152.208.5.190 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Just wanted to add that the article seems to have been written in November 2013. https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/(offset)/580 152.208.5.190 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No obfuscated code?

The article begins with "Linux-libre... contains no obfuscated code," this to me is odd as it implies that regular Linux contains obfuscated code. Could anyone point me to that obfuscated code? Otherwise I think this should be removed as it's deceptive.. RisingTzar (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical" Distributions are still current

Hyperbola GNU/Linux-Libre is listed as "Historical" when according to Hyperbola's website and the Wikipedia page here, it is still in a current working state and still has regular releases rolling out. Can someone point out if I am wrong, or if this is misinformation? And is this information accurate for the other distributions listed too? 2601:981:4401:3170:B787:BC0F:92AC:BFB8 (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that issue out. It seems to just have been a simple misfiling error, so I have fixed it by moving it to the "current" list. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux-libre&oldid=1200738811"