[HN Gopher] Trisquel GNU/Linux
___________________________________________________________________
Trisquel GNU/Linux
Author : disadvantage
Score : 58 points
Date : 2021-12-24 15:28 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (trisquel.info)
(TXT) w3m dump (trisquel.info)
| velcrovan wrote:
| Another Linx distro catches up to the user experience of Windows
| for Workgroups
| lovelyviking wrote:
| I do understand that it is intended to take on board as many
| former windows users as possible but honestly I can't even look
| at it without pain just because it reminds this ugly windows
| 'style'.
|
| I would really prefer they would put something else as default.
| theamk wrote:
| Those people are super shy about what their system is based on,
| which packages are available, and what is unique to Trisquel.
|
| From what I could find out, it seems to be another Ubuntu-based
| system, but with all non-free parts disabled. Is there anything
| more to it?
| smitty1e wrote:
| Debian/Ubuntu seems the default, but projects could be more
| clear. Package management is my first question.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| That's what almost every project advertising it is free of non-
| free stuff is: some other project with the non-free parts
| removed, nothing more. Trisquel (Ubuntu), linux-libre (linux),
| libreboot (coreboot), etc. When your sole selling point is lack
| of non-free stuff, there is no need to invest time adding
| anything else.
|
| E.g. linux-libre is just a big script that removes the nonfree
| parts and firmware support; they just run it against every
| kernel release with minor tweaks and that's their new release.
| libreboot is similar.
| crazypython wrote:
| What about osboot, the new project by the libreboot author?
| marcan_42 wrote:
| osboot is much more pragmatic, since it doesn't try to be
| 100% free of blobs but rather chooses platform support over
| that. AIUI it is partially a response to just how utterly
| useless libreboot had become (it can't support any recent
| platform).
| elagost wrote:
| Trisquel is based on Ubuntu like other operating systems (Linux
| Mint, Pop!_OS, Zorin OS, etc.) but they do something unique -
| they rebuild the Ubuntu packages from source, instead of just
| including the Ubuntu repos in their software sources.
|
| Trisquel is quite a usable distro for laptops that are 3-4 years
| old if you have an appropriate wireless card - Atheros 9xxx
| series cards tend to work well as the ath9k driver is FOSS.
| That's really the only blocker most people encounter. Why run
| this over Debian Stable (without adding "non-free" sources) I
| couldn't tell you. Debian tends to be more up to date than
| Trisquel since it's usually based on the previous Ubuntu LTS.
| ploxiln wrote:
| > Debian tends to be more up to date than Trisquel since it's
| usually based on the previous Ubuntu LTS.
|
| Agreed with most of what you wrote, except this last bit ...
| it's a funny way to put it :)
|
| Ubuntu is based on Debian, it "forks" from Debian "unstable"
| aka "sid" every 6 months (with a fair amount of additions and
| modifications). Debian stable is released roughly every 18 to
| 22 months, so it has similar age, on average, of Ubuntu LTS
| (uniformly every 24 months). But sometimes it's a year newer,
| sometimes a year older, etc.
| brnt wrote:
| I think they meant that Trisquels current release tends to be
| based on the previous Ubuntu LTS.
| ploxiln wrote:
| Ahhh that makes sense
| [deleted]
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| sdfjkl wrote:
| Why Trisquel?
|
| > entirely free software
|
| > teach users to value and protect their freedom
|
| > no binary-only firmware for wireless cards or proprietary
| drivers for AMD/ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards are included
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Trisquel is an FSF project so there is absolutely nothing
| proprietary in it (including the kernel which is stripped of
| proprietary drivers).
|
| Which of course is ideologically great but makes real-world
| hardware support nightmarish.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Do they have version that doesn't mimic windows? I do
| understand that it is intended to take on board as many former
| windows users as possible but honestly some people including me
| are getting sick just by looking at something that even
| slightly reminds it ... I wish the project the best, please
| understand.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| How are they mimicking Windows? They've got a task bar
| (loosely), a start button (ish), and the traditional floating
| windows with a title bar that has buttons on it, but beyond
| that I'm not seeing any real similarities? Even then: The
| application menu is an actual menu unlike what Windows has
| had since... XP? The panel has launchers and open windows,
| but they're separate sections unlike Windows. I guess I'm
| just not sure what you're seeing that so reminds you of
| Windows.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| For unreasonable downvoters let me explain that windows
| interface is not only aesthetically disgusting it is
| absolutely uncomfortable and not logically consistent
| therefore should be avoided as much as possible in my
| opinion. Familiarity is not everything.
|
| When you deal with software you kind of communicating with
| the imaginary one who build it. So when I am forced to use
| windows even for a moment I have the constant annoying
| impression that I am dealing with some one crazy who can
| through things in random places without logic or with logic
| that is changing from one part to another randomly. I simply
| can't stand it and I know there are other people who can't
| stand it too.
|
| And please do not think I am saying it without knowing how
| perfectly and logically windows is organized. I worked with
| it and programmed it for 10 years. It was a perfect school
| called "How not to do things".
| einpoklum wrote:
| Trisquel's FAQ says:
|
| > _Why should I use Trisquel instead of one of the better-known
| distributions?_
|
| > There are literally hundreds of GNU/Linux distributions
| designed to fill every conceivable niche. Only a handful of them
| are entirely free software; Trisquel is one such distribution.
|
| ... but I disagree. Trisquel is based on ubuntu, and uses
| systemd. Not just as some optional init system you can remove -
| it's deeply dependent on systemd. And while systemd's license is
| free, may find it tends to suppress aspects of free software
| development by taking over and enclosing more and more system
| functionality.
|
| If Trisquel were to dump systemd, I would seriously consider
| using it. My personal choice these days is Devuan
| (https://devuan.org/), the systemd-free variant of Debian., and I
| suggest you consider using it without the non-free components,
| instead of Trisquel.
| srvmshr wrote:
| Since it runs on Linux-libre, there is a good chance several
| devices/peripherals will fail to perform as intended. If the idea
| is to have a toy distro (working as a VM) to explore around, it's
| looking great. But I don't see why it will gain traction for real
| use case.
| disadvantage wrote:
| > there is a good chance several devices/peripherals will fail
| to perform as intended
|
| For the record, I use Trisquel and it didn't recognize my wifi
| adapter. I went to the forums and someone said you need special
| libre wifi adapters that work with Linux. However, my internal
| network adapter worked fine. It plays well with most ethernet
| adapters thankfully.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| The vast majority of WiFi adapters work fine with Linux and
| linux-firmware. You only need special "libre"
| ("firmwareless"*) WiFi adapters if you want them to work with
| linux-libre and distros that use it like this one, since it
| cripples support for anything that requires firmware.
|
| * Most "firmwareless" devices have firmware ROMs anyway. The
| FSF only believe it counts as nonfree if the users can see
| the firmware in /lib/firmware; they are happy to endorse
| products with hundreds of kilobytes of nonfree firmware ROM
| as "respects your freedom", since users can't see the blobs.
| not2b wrote:
| Yes, the FSF thinks a device becomes more free if you
| destroy the ability to update the software that runs on it.
|
| WiFi presents a particular problem for free software
| because to sell a product that emits radio waves, it has to
| be certified (by the FCC or other national authorities),
| and they won't certify something that could be trivially
| reprogrammed to exceed legal power limitations or broadcast
| outside licensed frequencies. It's easiest for them if the
| user can't change those details at all.
| _jal wrote:
| Think of it as a reference implementation that, in a perfect
| world, hardware vendors would proudly target.
| srvmshr wrote:
| Hardware manufacturers can ideologically target the libre
| flavor, but in practice it is next to impossible to deliver.
| Drivers are built to address specific hardware features. As
| features grow, so do system complexities and software calls.
| Every OEM addresses a feature in a specific problem-solving
| paradigm. Trying to unify most hardware under a standard set
| of function & procedure calls cannot be fathomed.
|
| A real world analogy is to make shoes of a single size and
| color & expect every person in the world can use it
| comfortably irrespective of their size or body type.
| SahAssar wrote:
| This distro still has drivers, it just requires those to be
| libre too. Every linux driver written (and also
| firmware/microcode) could be included, but that would
| require those to also be licensed as libre. It does not
| have any more technical restrictions, only legal and
| licensing ones.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I don't follow; linux-libre still has drivers; nobody's
| saying you can't write per-device drivers, just that the
| whole of the code to run it should be FOSS.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| Reminder that linux-libre also removes _warnings_ in the kernel
| that you 're running outdated CPU microcode, because the FSF
| doesn't believe users should be informed about updates (some of
| which are security critical) to proprietary software they are
| already running anyway.
|
| Make of that what you will.
| sporedro wrote:
| I get where they're coming from, but this just sounds insane.
| If there were FOSS CPU microcode that could replace it or
| something and they only wanted to support that than fine, but
| if there's no FOSS option why create security risks for
| users?
|
| I love the FOSS community, but sometimes their rationale is a
| bit too extreme for the average person to get behind.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| "is a bit too extreme"
|
| Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to make
| some money on the side and keeps her software proprietary
| because monetizing open-source is a rare exception than the
| rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics! And don't touch her
| software, or her, with a 10 foot pole, let alone pay for
| it!
|
| Oh, there's a proprietary firmware blob that this device
| requires, but it runs off onboard flash so the OS doesn't
| see it? Perfectly fine! If the OS doesn't see it, see no
| evil, speak no evil, there is no evil.
|
| The FSF are the Puritans of the 21st century. Both in
| extremity and hypocrisy.
| Mc91 wrote:
| > Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity
|
| For work I run MacOS, because they assigned me a Macbook
| and pay me to do so. Currently I program Android, which
| has a free software system somewhere under there,
| although there are unfree layers on top, which have been
| discussed to death.
|
| I also personally use Ubuntu for my desktop and laptop.
| Years ago I put Gnewsense as a boot-up option for a
| machine.
|
| For different tasks I use different levels of proprietary
| or free software. I don't see my installing of Gnewsense
| as puritanical or extreme (me wanting full control of my
| OS is puritanical and extreme?), just as I don't see me
| using the proprietary MacOS as puritanical and extreme.
| If me being able to control my own operating system is
| puritanical and extreme, then what do you call having
| someone else being able to control my operating system?
|
| There may be free extremists but that means there are
| proprietary extremists as well.
| quadrangle wrote:
| What a reactive, defensive attitude.
|
| Just try applying everything you wrote to the topic of
| being vegetarian. Vegetarians are _indeed_ arguing
| against meat-eating, and you could talk about how you are
| just some pig farmer selling meat on the side, and the
| vegetarians are saying "F You!"
|
| And then there's the practical problems with whether
| animal products are identified in various food
| products...
|
| And people get super defensive about that stuff too. But
| this desire to reject the FSF or the vegetarians and call
| them extremists and hypocrites amounts to an emotional
| refusal to engage fairly with any of the actual issues or
| even what the people are actually saying or doing.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Nothing I said was not true.
|
| The FSF encourages all members to shun proprietary
| software of any kind - which is why we have Linux-Libre
| and Trisquel.
|
| Even though, to put it simply, monetizing open source is
| very rare and the FSF looks down on people (including
| solo programmers) with the gall to keep their software
| proprietary.
|
| The FSF is also a complete hypocrite when it comes to
| firmware. Proprietary firmware which the OS can't see
| (because it is loaded from onboard flash) is compliant
| with their "Respects Your Freedom" hardware
| certification, which is asinine and actively reduces my
| freedom to reverse-engineer that firmware or replace it
| with an open driver.
|
| According to FSF logic, a solo programmer making
| proprietary software for money is to be shunned. A device
| with an embedded proprietary blob could be certified as
| freedom-respecting and tolerable. That's retarded.
| quadrangle wrote:
| There are vegans who encourage shunning animal products.
| And yes, there are critiques of people with the "gall" to
| eat meat. Those facts don't mean they are wrong. That's a
| matter of engaging with the actual arguments.
|
| To say the RYF certifcation is hypocritical is a
| misunderstanding. They drew a line for certification that
| _isn 't_ 100% puritanical. They aren't absolutely
| impractical. They don't say that your points about
| firmware don't matter, they just wanted a line that could
| be practical for the certification.
|
| I recognize your point, but your language and judgments
| are out of line. The FSF argues that embedded blobs that
| are completely unchangeable by anyone are similar to
| hardware. Now, I happen to agree with you that the lack
| of freedom is still a problem. But the distinction they
| make isn't totally illogical.
|
| Vegan movements can be extreme too, and you can criticize
| them. But the level of animosity and defensiveness people
| get into shows that people are really sensitive about
| these things. It's as though they recognize that there
| might really be some fundamental issues with proprietary
| software or with meat, and the existence of the anti-
| proprietary or anti-meat views cuts people to the core. I
| mean, it's one thing to simply disagree, but it says a
| lot more when people are SO emotional about it.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| the same thing applies to vegetarians. Smart and
| effective vegetarians who want to promote vegetarianism
| don't fill a balloon with red paint and throw it at
| someone while screaming 'meat is murder!', they convince
| people to cut down their consumption, promote
| alternatives that ordinary people can deal with, and as a
| result get 50% of what they want to a hundred times as
| many people, which is more than 100% of nothing.
|
| That's the difference between ideologues and people who
| actually care about the values they promote rather than
| people who aggrandize themselves.
| quadrangle wrote:
| The analogy works because 99.9% of vegetarians don't even
| use words to directly tell others that they are
| unethical, they just assert their OWN vegetarianism as an
| ethical decision, and others go bonkers as though this is
| the most grotesque personal attack. This all happens
| without any red-paint-balloons or other extremist stuff.
|
| In other words, when someone comes along and says what
| amounts to "for ethical reasons, I behave differently
| than you", people interpret it (understandably but
| unreasonably) as saying "you are an unethical person"
| (whereas the responsible reaction is, "hmm, maybe there's
| an ethical issue here that I should consider that I
| haven't yet"). Then, people focus all their attention on
| rationalizations to reject the other person, such as
| calling them "ideologues".
|
| The Trisquel website doesn't say, "if you use or make
| proprietary software, you are evil". People react to the
| subtle implications as if that's what it said though.
| Maybe that's because people don't want to admit that they
| actually _do_ act in ways that are ethical compromises?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Smart and effective vegetarians who want to promote
| vegetarianism don't fill a balloon with red paint and
| throw it at someone while screaming 'meat is murder!'
|
| Are the GNU/FSF folks doing that? The most I'm aware of
| is strongly-worded blog posts, which is rather short of
| physical ... outbursts.
| mustache_kimono wrote:
| This shouldn't be downvoted. It's an opinion that is
| unpopular here, but which needs to be stated
| occasionally. The FSF _is_ extreme, and, right now, not
| 10-20 years ago, but right now, the FSF and Stallman are
| negative assets for FOSS.
| bogwog wrote:
| How is it "extreme"? The point of the FSF is to foster
| and support free software. Supporting non-free software
| is literally the opposite of their mission.
|
| The guy you replied to is being childish and
| exaggerating. The FSF isn't some extremist organization
| out to destroy people who dare to write or use closed
| source software.
|
| Do they refuse to include proprietary software in their
| distributions/projects? Obviously.
|
| Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because
| you refuse to release the source code to your app?
| Probably not (I guess if you're an asshole about it,
| someone might)
|
| > the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS
|
| The FSF and Stallman are the _only_ assets for FOSS. Who
| else is supporting free software?
| kube-system wrote:
| > The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS.
|
| The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS".
|
| They support the idea of libre software. The broader
| "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or
| RMS.
|
| The GPL is the _third_ most popular FOSS license.
| mustache_kimono wrote:
| I think you may have too rosy a view of the FSF. Step
| back and think about what the FSF has done for FOSS in
| the last 10 years. When people say "I don't want to get
| into a licensing debate" who do you think they are
| talking about?
|
| > Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because
| you refuse to release the source code to your app?
| Probably not (I guess if you're an asshole about it,
| someone might)
|
| I can cite an example of where someone from the FSF has
| hassled an FOSS project that refused to modify their
| license to the GPL, and instead chose MIT. I'd prefer not
| link here, because I don't want the maintainers to be
| inundated with further (BS) requests. I'd say that's
| extreme. What's worse is it's off-putting (to me, at the
| very least).
|
| > The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who
| else is supporting free software?
|
| Um, literally all the people writing FOSS? Mozilla,
| IBM/Redhat, Google?
| tomcooks wrote:
| How else other than by being radical do you expect not to
| lose ground?
| mustache_kimono wrote:
| This is just such an exceedingly weird opinion.
| "Permanent revolution" sounds very romantic, but real
| people want to stop and lives their lives, as well.
|
| Once you've convinced the broader industry of the
| benefits of FOSS, I'm not sure everyone has to be a
| radical anymore. I think GPL advocates/FSF/Stallman's
| time might be better spent finding a way to _pay_ FOSS
| developers.
| widespace_ wrote:
| >Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to
| make some money on the side and keeps her software
| proprietary because monetizing open-source is a rare
| exception than the rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics!
| And don't touch her software, or her, with a 10 foot
| pole, let alone pay for it!
|
| Are you asking for the _free_ software foundation to
| support _proprietary_ software?
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| I think that's just the point here: yes, strictly
| speaking they are, but practically speaking the
| alternative is to put the user's cybersecurity at risk.
|
| If you ask just about any user, they will say they
| prioritise their cybersecurity over the purity of their
| Free Software stack. The FSF seemingly disagree. That
| disagreement is an important one.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| I don't know. You can spin a lot of stuff as cyber
| security.
|
| Hosting all stuff in cloud does prevent getting locked by
| some ransom ware.
|
| Plus security isn't an absolute. A determined enough
| actor could always hack you.
| adffadsfdd wrote:
| > Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the
| kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode,
|
| News to me. Maybe you a few links showing this?
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| That's a bit concerning. Has anyone written about this
| somewhere? I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's had their
| interest piqued considering the large FOSS community here
| marcan_42 wrote:
| Last time I tried to go into more depth about this one and
| related policy failings of the FSF and their associated
| projects here, it predictably descended into a long
| flamewar with FSF supporters, so I'll pass on it this time.
| But here's a link:
|
| https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Thank you! I'm a supporter of the FSF and FOSS but I also
| think these ideologies have to be taken in consideration
| with security tradeoffs and current mitigation
| implementations. Free software is wonderful, but we
| should be honest about its capability to respond to some
| security threats like this. I think it would be better to
| include such warnings, even if it included an extra
| 'proprietary blob' warning.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| Agreed. I'm a strong supporter of FOSS, from a pragmatic
| point of view of how it helps users and gives them more
| freedom. I do not believe ideological arguments against
| proprietary software should be used to make technical
| decisions that limit users' options or keep them
| uninformed, because the freedom to choose to use
| proprietary software is also important.
|
| Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely
| inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing
| systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up
| reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how
| they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do
| not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with
| a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM
| and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely
| inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing
| systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up
| reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how
| they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do
| not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with
| a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM
| and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).
|
| I would agree about inconsistency and say that unless
| everything is absolutely transparent including microcode
| and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting
| solution.
|
| On the other hand isn't FSF do compromise as you wanted
| when you say: "I do not believe ideological arguments
| against proprietary software should be used to ... "
| not2b wrote:
| A consistent approach would forbid any use of Intel, AMD,
| or ARM processors (proprietary microcode in all of them)
| as well as any wireless technology (again, proprietary
| firmware). But the FSF has decided that if they can
| pretend that any proprietary code is somehow unchangeable
| hardware, or if not, if they don't tell people how to
| change it or if they even encourage vendors to prevent
| changing it, this somehow supports freedom.
| ece wrote:
| Or they're incentivizing firmware-less or open-firmware
| devices, while drawing a line where people can still
| choose certain devices that meet their purpose.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| But they aren't doing that; their Respects Your Freedom
| program is chock full of devices that run giant firmware
| blobs, which they conveniently ignore as long as they're
| on-device and not loaded from /lib/firmware, because as
| long as nobody notices they can keep believing they're
| living a blob-free life...
|
| Things the FSF has _explicitly_ incentivized:
|
| - Moving firmware blobs from an obvious, inspectable
| place in the OS or bootloder to obscure firmware ROMs or
| Flash chips read by a convoluted process involving
| multiple CPUs, because somehow doing the latter makes it
| freedom-respecting? (Librem 5 story)
|
| - Physically destroying optional hardware that currently
| cannot be used without blobs, so users are not tempted to
| use those blobs, regardless of whether free alternatives
| might appear in the future (spoiler alert: they did)
| (Stallman trying to get bunnie to permanently disable the
| GPU in the Novena free hardware/software laptop to get
| certified).
| ece wrote:
| Yeah, that makes little sense. Ideally you would want to
| point users to documented hardware, running QMK, or other
| (potentially reversed engineered) open-firmware.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| > unless everything is absolutely transparent including
| microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom
| respecting solution.
|
| Where do you draw the line?
|
| Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-
| complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open
| RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a
| netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be
| open? What about the standard cell library from the chip
| foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the
| actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how
| the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials?
| What about the machines used to make the chips?
|
| You can keep going down the rabbit hole as deep as you
| want, but things will never be completely free. And you
| can't try to draw a random line, because the boundary
| between these steps isn't clear and that encourages
| cheating (which is what the FSF do).
|
| Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from
| the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work
| any more as an absolute goal.
|
| The answer is to look beyond freedom and beyond
| meaningless absolutes, and towards what people _get_ out
| of things being open. A device with more open source
| components is better because users have the freedom to
| modify them, and they are easier to audit to find
| security vulnerabilities. A device which sandboxes blobs
| - whether open or not - such that they cannot take over
| the system is better than one which does not. A device
| with proprietary firmware that you can _modify_ and
| _replace_ is better than one with signed firmware that
| you cannot. A device with signed firmware you can at
| least _inspect_ is better than one with encrypted
| firmware you can 't even see. A device with a firmware
| ROM you can't inspect or modify is worse than a device
| with signed and encrypted firmware blobs, because at
| least with the latter you can verify that the version
| you're running is what you expect, while you can't read
| the ROM at all. A device with encrypted firmware that
| only runs on boot and then is demonstrably out of the
| picture after that is better than one with privileged,
| resident blobs that continue running. A device with
| proprietary firmware that is at least redistributable to
| end-users of free OSes is better than one where it isn't.
| A device where it is reasonably easy to have end-users
| fetch said firmware even if it isn't redistributable is
| better than one where that is impractical. A device with
| mandatory _user-controllable_ secure boot is better in
| some ways than a device with no secure boot at all, and
| worse in others.
|
| Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| I got into Trisquel briefly about a decade ago. I first noticed
| that YouTube wouldn't work. You could download some packages
| from the debian repository to get that working, but because
| that isn't free software, nobody would explain how. Instead
| they'd just lecture you on free software. I get it, but at the
| same time it makes your computer unusable for a lot of things.
| It's a hard line to tread.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-24 23:01 UTC)