[FSFLA] Hiperbola: A fully free, stable, secure, simple, lightweight and long-term distribution

[Eder L. Marques]

On 26/05/2017 12:40 PM, Quiliro wrote:
> Dear Eder:
>
> Thank you for speaking up. Your points of view are very interesting. Please accept reading my counterpoints and provide your takes.

Hi Quirilo,

Thanks for the message.
I think my focus was more general than the parabola/hyperbola distros, I 
will try to clarify.

>>>> Why do we need yet another gnu-linux[-libre] distribution?
>>>
>>> Because the developer decided it was necesary.
>>
>> I would say he decided he wants to. Necessary can lead to the following
>> questions: "necessary for who?", "necessary for what?",
>
> It does not matter. It is his criteria. If it is for their own benefit, I do not oppose it. I cheer it because it provides the possibility for a group of non-free software users to come in contact with free software (even taking into account that it takes away users from some other free software). It also provides the possibility for the developer to continue collaborating instead of changing sides or stepping aside.
>
>> which will lead
>> to the same kind of answer you already gave, so nevermind.
>
> What answer did I already give?

A centric-based decision, which you pointed out again.

 From a parabola/hyperbola perspective, if they think (even for personal 
reasons) they need to fork, it is fine, it's their decision.

I was pointing out more from a distribution perspective, that IMHO we 
don't need another one. Some reasons why:
- creates confusion about who wants to start using (what should I 
select? What is the difference?)
- it will be very challenging to maintain the security, which will lead 
to flaws being exploitable, resulting in a danger environment, bad 
publicity to the overall community, etc.

It doesn't apply to all kind of forks. Build O.S is a huge effort, and 
humans don't want to use O.S per se, they want to use the applications 
on the top of it.

Bottom line: if a fork is going to be made between parabola/hyperbola, 
so be it. From FSFLA perspective (as organization) we can think more 
strategically than fomenting/incentivizing create new distros.

For the sake of this thread, yes, FSFLA need to work with both actors:
a) the hundreds of distros (than eventually either die or become 
outdated) to point out how to make them fully free software.

b) the meta-distributions to identify the points where is space to 
improve and work with them (instead of segregate from them).


>>>> Every time we create a new distro we make the lives of users harder.
>>>
>>> Why? I feel that sounds the same as saying that every time a person submits their opinion, it makes listeners get confused. Diversity makes a nice environment, even if it is a waste of time. But I cannot pay everyone (or want to hire anyone). So I cannot administer their time.
>>
>> Not really. Having more options is not necessarily better, and your
>> analogy to me is far from a comparison with creating new distros and the
>> colateral damage it can bring.
>>
>> I don't want either to control anyone's time, just to be clear, which is
>> not the same to point out that some actions can have unintended
>> consequences.
>
> You have said forking is bad for projects. But you have not considered how bad not forking is (especially thinking of people's feelings).

I was pointing specifically for distro forks, not fork in general.
You mentioned now the focus of how people do distro forks in most of 
time: people feelings. Willi also mentioned a good one: ego.

I was pointing more from a technical, strategic and society perspective 
that we don't need more distros (O.S.). We need more free software 
(application). :)

>>>> If Debian can have the linux-libre kernel from FSFLA (or even the use
>>>> of the standard Debian kernel without the blobs), and if we can advise
>>>> the users to use only the main repo as much as they can, what is the
>>>> big issue?
>>>>
>>>> Because if the answer is that Debian does not respect the 4 freedoms
>>>> that is very inaccurate.
>>>> If is because Debian has (even though is not part of the project) a
>>>> non-free repo, why we don't advise the users about alternatives?
>>>
>>> Because people that promote this way do not want to promote the opposite. Debian is not interested in taking sides. Debian collaborates a lot with free software. But we believe we should collaborate more with those that collaborate more by using the most free software. It is not a question of quality but of rights. We understand that others do not think this way. But others must understand the way we think is our right.
>>
>> Due to my limitations it was hard to understand what you are trying to
>> say. Debian definitely has a side (even if you tell that is its own)
>> that is guided by its DFSG.
>>
>> I never talked about rights. FSFLA, you or any one has the right to act
>> the way you are now. It is to segregate instead of collaborate, to split
>> instead of unite. And to introduce more distros as you wish.
>>
>> I don't speak for the Debian project, but I know that it respects your
>> rights, and doesn't want to force you to collaborate with them, etc.
>> One cannot tell with confidence that the opposite is true.
>
> That is semantic. Any position is morally acceptable from the proposer's point of view. We are not considering to support Debian's values but FSF's. The point to consider is: "this fork will benefit or not user's freedom".
>
> Segregation is not about having a personal point of view but about excluding the validity of other's points of view for their own sake. From this definition's point of view, ¿what or who do you think is segregational?

For the parabola/hyperbola discussion, to create a fork is their own 
decision, if they believe to split will be better for them.

The segregation I was pointing, and sorry again for not being clear, was 
more in general terms.

FSF[E,In,LA] creates a list of 'approved' distros. However, this 
approved list is used by, let's say 5% of the gnu/linux user population 
(which IMHO although can truly free, most of them are very 
insecure/outdated/hard to use). And then, as I saw many times in many 
years, persons affiliated to these entities segregating other major 
distributions that can be considered free, or to work together to 
improve them in order to just point fingers.

So yes, my comments were not focused specifically on the 
parabola/hyperbola, are more focused on the FSF[LA] position about 
general gnu/linux[-libre] distributions.


>>>> A good effort, that will take less hours than maintain a distro, is to
>>>> create a map that for each package is maintained at debian non-free
>>>> repo, what would be the alternatives?
>>>> Then, if the alternatives are not in the main/contrib repo, one can
>>>> package it.
>>>
>>> Most free distro maintainers agree with that. I don't. I cannot collaborate more with someone that collaborates less with me and my route. I do not hinder their efforts. But I will not support a cause a do not agree with.
>>
>> We agree to disagree in this case.
>
> You agree to disagree that "I will not support a cause that I do not agree about"? I do not understand what you have assumed I have agreed about or even what you disagree about. Please clarify.

I was trying to refer that instead of forking a distro I will focus to 
work to make an existent one more free. But this is a very personal 
opinion, that's why I said I agree to disagree. :)


>>>> As there is a lot of messages/threads on the list about how to start
>>>> acting, I believe that it would be a great step. :)
>>>
>>> Thank you for your opinion. I think that someone that has acted does not need guidance but cheers. Hyperbola hackers did not ask for our decision. They just offered their distro. When they ask for our opinion, I will say mine. In the meantime I will cheer them because they are working for free software.
>>>
>>> Don't you agree?
>>
>> I don't fully agree. Hyperbola/Parabola or any other team has they free
>> will to work on anything they want. I am not offering a 'decision'.
>>
>> I am point out that creating new distros has a colateral damage to be
>> considered. If they (or any) want to go on that direction, no one can
>> stop/intervene. However, just because they are producing free software
>> does not make it good per see.
>
> But you have not said why it is bad. You have only said it is bad. You have not suggested alternatives either. I cannot convince Hyperbola hackers to return to Parabola or even think it is the best for them, for Parabola or the community of developers and users of libre software. I tryed to calm down the discussion in Parabola and to make a point about unity as the most important. But when people hurt each other, sometimes it is not possible to continue together. On the other hand, I think this fork will become a merger at some point in the future. At present it needs to be a fork for the sake of keeping the devs active.

I mentioned some items above, and one example of alternative as focusing 
the work on some established distro.

 From the parabola/hyperbola perspective, what your point (the fork) 
seems to be right for them.


>> We can spend hours on this conversation, but my point is not about your
>> individual opinion (which I my not agree with but respect).
>>
>> In this time where FSFLA is looking to be more active, it will be a
>> great start point to stop to segregate people and, at the same time it
>> fights for and sustain its principles, to look for different ways to
>> accomplish this.
>
> FSFLA cannot force people to think or act certain ways. All we can do is motivate them. I do not see how this is segregationist. Perhaps it is firm conviction. I think that we have the firm conviction to open doors to all people as long as they offer users the 4 freedoms and when they do so. Do you suggest we are open to collaborating with values which we do not support? I can agree to support the parts that we value but not those that we don't. What we need is not suggestions about what not to do but about what should be done, the way to do it and how you can help us. Would you be interested in doing that? We would be very thankful. :-)
>

Great point. I don't think FSFLA should change its values, I think it 
should keep supporting and fighting for the 4 freedoms.

A single suggestion related to what I pointed here:
- more joint actions like the h-node initiative;
- reassess what is on [2] and not be simple minded, identifying ways to 
improve the situation
- don't fighting at Flisol etc. those other distros. Rather, pointing 
all the _specific_ issues and _offering_ alternatives to although using 
these distros, how to maintain their freedom. It is far better (IMHO) 
than offer/suggest to use an probable 
obscure/insecure/not-well-maintained distro.
- work with the EFF in privacy related initiatives that can be leveraged 
with Free Software.

I will try to become more active and come out with real/tangible 
suggestions in a near future.

1- 
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-users-find-the-hardware-they-need 

2- https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

Cheers,

Eder 'frolic' Marques