Linux.com

Feature: Linux

gNewSense joins list of FSF-approved distros

By Bruce Byfield on November 10, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

If users look beyond the splash screens and other branding, they will find almost nothing in the recently announced GNewSense distribution that is not already available in the Ubuntu Dapper Drake release. In fact, according to Brian Brazil and Paul O'Malley, the Irish free software advocates behind the distribution, users may find that GNewSense detects less of their hardware than Ubuntu does -- particularly their wireless cards. So why would anyone use GNewSense?

The answer is not technical so much as political. Unlike most distributions, the goal of gNewSense is not usability or any other technical issue, but to offer a GNU/Linux distribution that contains only free software. The pursuit of this goal means removing non-free firmware from the Linux kernel, and not linking to non-free package repositories. Brazil and O'Malley are hoping that at least some users will accept the loss of convenience in return for the satisfaction of using a distribution in keeping with their ideals. And, because of the developers' willingness to make this tradeoff, the small distribution is already receiving support from the Free Software Foundation, and has been listed among the half dozen distributions that the FSF promotes as being truly free.

The idea for gNewSense began when O'Malley heard a discussion between Richard Stallman and Mark Shuttleworth about the possibility of a free version of Ubuntu at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November 2005. Inspired by the idea, O'Malley organized IRC and email discussions in which he called the project such names as Gnusiance, gnubuntu, and Ubuntu-libre, but, while many appreciated the idea, no developers came forward. In April 2006, O'Malley mentioned the idea to Brazil, who began work in June, after he finished his final exams at Trinity College in Dublin.

GNewSense desktop
gNewSense Desktop - click to enlarge

gNewSense is not the only distribution to raise concerns about proprietary elements in GNU/Linux, but Brazil and O'Malley decided early on to work independently of their predecessors. Brazil says that he is aware of the prolonged discussions about the issue in Debian that recently ended in a general resolution in which members voted to delay taking action until after the next release. However, as far as he is concerned, that decision means that Debian members "had pretty much decided that they would have non-free software."

The pair also rejected investigating whether they could work as a sub-project within Ubuntu, as Kubuntu and Xubuntu do. "Ubuntu does contain non-free stuff, and they're put a lot of effort into making sure that it works nicely," Brazil says, "so it seems rather unlikely that they would do something like [GNewSense]." At any rate, Brazil explains, linking with the Ubuntu repositories would be contrary to the goals of gNewSense, "because there would still be the non-free stuff available from Ubuntu."

Nor did Brazil and O'Malley consider building on UTUTO-e, the distribution that the FSF has endorsed most strongly in the past, including personal recommendations from Richard Stallman. Despite considerable improvements in the latest release, UTUTO-e continues to suffer from technical problems. "I downloaded UTUTO-e," O'Malley says, "but I kind of got lost in the install process."

The FSF continues to include UTUTO-e on its list of free distributions, "but we don't want to limit ourselves," says executive director Peter Brown. "We're trying to pay attention to all free distributions."

To aid gNewSense, the FSF contributed a build machine loaded with the free LinuxBIOS, as well as server space for the project's mailing lists and publicity. Seemingly wary after the overenthusiasm over UTUTO-e, the FSF stops short of any official endorsement of GNewSense, but Brown is personally pleased with the first release.

"What's good about this distribution," Brown says, "is that pretty near everyone can get up and running with it, and it's usable. UTUTO-e does have English language support, but it is being mostly developed with the Spanish language in mind, so there's an issue there for some people. gNewSense, clearly, from an average user's point of view, is a significant step beyond that."

In addition, Brown describes the new distribution as "a progression from Ubuntu. The developers have moved further towards our ideals. We have a distribution that has added freedoms that weren't there before."

In the news release announcing the distribution, Ted Teah, free software directory maintainer at the FSF, describes gNewSense as having "a commitment to be 100% free." However, how free it is in practice remains uncertain, even to its founders. Although gNewSense publishes a list of proprietary firmware that has been removed, Brazil admits, "I'm not sure exactly how free we are at the moment." The problem, he explains, is not just in identifying non-free elements, but also elements that point to them.

However, the development team promises to make good faith efforts to remove proprietary elements as they are reported. "If someone comes along and finds something, we will endeavor to remove that," O'Malley says. An issue currently being discussed on the mailing list, for example, is whether Firefox should be replaced with a rebranded version or an alternative browser, given the Mozilla Foundation's insistence of control of how its trademarks are used.

In addition to maintaining a free distribution, the gNewSense team also plans to improve the artwork for the distribution, as well as its security handling -- which is currently dependent on Ubuntu's -- and automation. Team members also hope to include some unspecified GNewSense software.

For now, a particular concern seems to be documentation. In a slide show on the CD, O'Malley describes building a distribution as a "black art." As a result of their own frustration with the lack of guidelines, the pair has included on their Web site a page outlining their efforts in what Brazil calls "haiku-format." Eventually, Brazil's goal is to ensure that "everything we've done is fully scripted and documented, so it is possible for someone else to come along and do another distribution based on our work." Other priorities, the team makes clear, depend on the volunteers that the project attracts.

"There have been many reactions to what we're doing," O'Malley says, "from approval, to understanding but lack of approval to 'Oh my gosh, they're going to ruin everything,' to pure tinfoil-hat stuff and back." For the most part, though, reaction seems to be positive. A small but active community seems to be forming on the distribution's mailing list, and the FSF reports nearly 5,000 downloads of the CD image in the first four days after the distribution was announced.

For the FSF, the release of a distribution that it can recommend without reservations is an end in itself. However, gNewSense is also an important step toward its long-range goal of persuading manufacturers to produce computers that run completely free software, from the operating system and drivers down to the BIOS. Buoyed by both the release of gNewSense and the plans to use the LinuxBIOS in the One Laptop Per Child project, Brown says, "We believe we're getting there slowly but surely. We're getting to the point where maybe in 12 months we're going to have those computers."

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on gNewSense joins list of FSF-approved distros

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

blah blah blah

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 10, 2006 11:40 PM
So why did the FSF use someone elses kernel. I would think they would want you to use the HURD kernel...

They are so busy with the politics they dont seem to be coding anymore. Or they get other people to do it and try to get them to sign over the copyright to the FSF....

#

Re:blah blah blah

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 03:45 AM
The FSF is not about coding.

The GNU Project is about coding.

#

They use Linux because it's free software

Posted by: Administrator on November 11, 2006 12:42 AM
Linux is a free software kernel, and it's good too.

The goal is not to develop their own copy of everything. The goal is to make sure a free software operating system exists.

For that goal, finishing the HURD is not necessary, so it's not a priority. The HURD might be nice, it might have some technical advantages if it is ever finished, but there are more important things to work on right now such as drivers, java, flash, etc.

#

Re:They use Linux because it's free software

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 12:46 AM
I agree that Linux is a good kernel... Im just saying this because it wont be moving to GPL V3.

#

No problem

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 02:50 AM
It don't need to move to GPLv3. It's still free software. GPLv3 is a good license, GPLv2 is a good license too. If Linux sticks with GPLv2 then so be it, no problem.

#

Re:No problem

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 10:02 AM
Quite true. The FSF, to include RMS, have said as much, as has their attorney, Eben Moglen.

#

Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 03:06 AM
Its gNewSense not GNewSense. Yeah, CamelCase is confusing. =/

Wikipedia has an article about gNewSense;
* <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNewSense" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNewSense</a wikipedia.org>

I don't understand what you mean about firmware. Firmware is not in the kernel, it's in the hardware.
Also, as far as I know, the kernel is under the GPL, so whats the problem?

Also, I think that it would be a good idea for ALL distributions to have a list on their website of ALL packages included in the distro along with the license, so that people can know all software the distro comes with and under what license they are under.

Free software operating system is interesting. I would love to run an free software operating system, though sometimes its confusing because there are thousand of packages, and you don't always know what license everything is.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 04:23 AM
I think they meant binaries or "firmware" coding that can not be provided with the license. I'm not completely sure either though so I could be completely wrong.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 04:28 AM
But those are binary device driver blobs I think or something, and they don't come with the Linux kernel, those you have to download yourself from the device manufacturers website or something.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 09:54 AM
No, they're not device driver blobs. They're firmwares for the devices' own CPUs and DRAMs. Totally different ball of wax. Now, something like nVidious's or ATCry's binary video drivers, *those* are binary device driver blobs, because those actually run as part of the OS kernel (e. g. Linux) itself, on the system's main CPU. Same with Intel's 3945 "Centrino" binary driver for Linux.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2006 09:50 AM
I think that Theo de Raadt (yes, "Mr. Abrasive", I know) has the right idea here. His take on device firmware is as follows.

You have, say, a wireless network card. That wireless network card has its own CPU (e. g. an ARM processor) and DRAM that exists and runs totally outside the context of the computer's main CPU (e. g. an AMD Opteron or PowerPC G4). That wireless NIC's own CPU has its own OS, called a "firmware." That firmware runs on the wireless NIC's CPU, *not* the system's main CPU, and thus not in the OS's kernel.

Traditionally, that firmware has been stored in a flash device. Due to cost-cutting measures, manufacturers went to cheaper DRAM to replace the flash, and the OS's device driver loads that firmware into the device's own DRAM (*NOT* the system's main DRAM). It's the same as before, from the OS's perspective; it's just like using traditional flash memory, but with a less-expensive manufacturing cost.

Therefore, we don't really need the source code for that firmware image. We are not--generally speaking--ARM assembly-language programmers; we are C programmers who hack on the OS kernel (e. g. Linux, or the OpenBSD kernel). What we *do* need is the unrestricted ability to *distribute* that firmware image with our Free Software OS. That's all. Now, that said, if the wireless NIC's manufacturer *does* wish to release the source code for that binary firmware image, we certainly wouldn't object.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) However, it is not by any means needed for our purposes.

The other thing that we need are the programming specs for said wireless networking card. Again, no firmware source code is needed. Just give us a specs document telling us how to write operating system drivers for it.

Those two things are all we need. As Edgar Allan Poe said, "only this and nothing more."

That is Theo's position. I think that it is a technically correct, as well as practical, one. Manufacturers that allow these two things do indeed have their binary firmware images distributed on the OpenBSD CD-ROM, for that reason. I therefore see no problem with them being distributed with gNewSense, either.

#

New problem?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 12, 2006 12:30 AM
Is this a new problem with firmwares?
How has it been in the past?

#

Re:New problem?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 13, 2006 04:08 PM
Sadly, no, it's not a new problem. Check out <a href="http://www.vendorwatch.org/" title="vendorwatch.org">http://www.vendorwatch.org/</a vendorwatch.org> for some prominent examples.

Here's one. Level One, Inc., with their NetCelerator LXT1001 Gigabit Ethernet chipset, was problematic this way since at least the year 2000. That's why it wasn't supported in stock FOSS kernels until this year (2006) with OpenBSD 3.9. There was a GPL'd Linux driver for kernel 2.4.2, but it wasn't in the official Linus kernel. Without specs, that driver became too difficult to maintain and effectively died, since Level One, Inc. had no interest in maintaining it. It took several years, and an Intel buyout, for those specs to finally become available.

Adaptec is also problematic with their RAID cards, as are Highpoint and Promise. LSI RAID chipsets, on the other hand, have always been very well supported and are strongly recommended for this reason.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Administrator on November 14, 2006 10:28 AM
Firmware refers to binary ocde that is transferred into ram inside a hardware device at the time the hardware is initialised (usually at boot up or when a hot plug device is first connected). Originally and ideally the term firmware refers to ROM memory (flash, eprom or masked rom) which is loaded with software at time of manufacture, but these days it is apparently cheaper to buy generic controllers that have on board ram and load the ram with the soft(firm)ware at switch on.

As with most money saving ideas, it advantages the manufacturer but is a disadvantage to almost everyone else, customer, operating system builder, driver writers, etc.

Perhaps a new name should be chosen for this kind of software, perhaps softish-ware or firmish-ware?

#

So foolish...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 13, 2006 02:09 AM
Unfortunately, I think that FSF will find blind adherence to "principle" will alienate potential users and companies just as much as MS's blind adherence to their activation schemes or the RIAA's stupid DRM schemes have. Being unwilling to compromise, especially when it means a weaker product and more restrictions is ALWAYS a bad thing from the point of the average Joe and this thinking does not advance the goal of promoting a Linux desktop.

#

Re:So foolish...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 13, 2006 03:00 AM
There are many distributions that do not aim of the free goal that the average Joe who you refer to can use.

Not everybody want a strictly free software distribution, but I am sure there are those who do.

#

I disagree

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 13, 2006 04:24 PM
"Blind" adherence to principle isn't what the FSF is about. It's exactly the opposite. Its *strong* adherence to principle is opening our eyes and *stopping* the blindness. It sure opened mine (I'm a former MS Windows user) Freedom is not a negotiable "asset". It's an inalienable right and uncompromisable. I thank the FSF every day that I user a computer.

Having watched the FSF and the GNU project since the early 1990's, back in my OS/2 days, it seems to me that we have GNU/Linux at all *because* of the strong adherence to principle. If not for that, we wouldn't have Free Software. There wouldn't be a www.linux.com.

Do we need another distro? No, I don't believe so; Slackware and Ubuntu serve me really well. But I respect the FSF for its consistency over the years, up to and including today.

#

Ignore it

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 13, 2006 07:59 PM
Well, you can always ignore it.
If it's any good and worth your time, you will probably hear some hype about it, if not you can just ignore it.

#

Re:Ignore it

Posted by: Administrator on November 14, 2006 08:46 AM
for heaven sake, why can't they just get together and pick a good distro and work on it like their life depends on it, and then kick M$ in the groin. forking each other's work i think was a good thing some time back, but not it's way too much distro out there so it's about time to pick the champion, get the majority to support and enhance it.

#

Re:Ignore it

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 18, 2006 11:46 AM
The chief problem right now is that some folks, like Linspire, Novell/SuSE, and Mandriva, want to include binary blobs in their base distros. Debian, which is the basis for Linspire, Ubuntu, and many others, says NO WAY.

If we had to pick one, I would like it to be Debian, and I speak as primarily a Slackware user. The reasons for that are as follows:

1.) Debian's excellent package management system, 2.) Debian's wide popularity, long existence, and reputation for stability, and
3.) Debian's insistence on keeping the core distro Free. You have the option of installing non-Free parts, if you wish, but it's not in the core distro.

If not Debian, then perhaps CentOS. Being a true clone of RHEL, it, too, is very solid and well supported. They tend to keep non-Free software out of the base distro as well, while, like Debian, giving you, the user, the option to install non-Free parts afterwards if you want.

What do you think?

#

Re:Ignore it

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 19, 2006 05:42 PM
I don't think too many distros is a problem. If we had to narrow it down to one what would happen to innovative stuff like Gentoo, ArchLinux, Damn Small Linux to name just a few?

Even if someone could force developers to be constrained by one code base, packager/package manager, etc. which one is best? That depends on your goal. Innovation comes from not just the freedom to develop the software in any direction but actually doing it.

Yes we've got a lot of "me too" distros that bring little or nothing new but they will remain on the fringes and the developers will probably use what they learn to build on to more mainstream distros eventually. The skills learned maintaining a distro can be useful. Lead maintainers don't just hatch from eggs, they have to learn their skills.

#

I'm not saying it's all bad

Posted by: Administrator on November 20, 2006 09:10 AM
I'm not saying that having many distros is bad, in fact IMHO it was necessary in the early stage of the development of Linux. Buy today, we have quite a few rock-solid distros out there, those who just want to change a few image files for flashy splash and a cool name need to stop it. If they can come out with something new, I'm 100% all for that, but I have to say that this good thing may be the bad thing that turn off many people who plan to switch to Linux: too many to choose from!

#

OMFG, Not Another Distro

Posted by: Administrator on November 13, 2006 10:55 AM
I had it enough with the Linux distros. Apparently too much choice is not a good thing for me. Is this really necessary?

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya