Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Questions specific to SolydK Business Edition
User avatar
Schoelje
Site Admin
Posts: 8460
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby Schoelje » 10 Feb 2014 18:40

As you might know, both SolydK BE, and SolydK BO do not have any deb-multimedia packages installed: they are pure Debian with a hint of SolydXK.

However, they both have non-free packages installed, and because of Munich (viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2359&p=27267), I was thinking how BE/BO would be if the non-free reference, and packages were removed.

So, I removed non-free from the sources.list, and removed all packages that are in the non-free section:

Code: Select all

apt-get purge amd64-microcode
apt-get purge atmel-firmware
apt-get purge bluez-firmware
apt-get purge firmware-atheros
apt-get purge firmware-bnx2
apt-get purge firmware-bnx2x
apt-get purge firmware-brcm80211
apt-get purge firmware-intelwimax
apt-get purge firmware-ipw2x00
apt-get purge firmware-ivtv
apt-get purge firmware-iwlwifi
apt-get purge firmware-libertas
apt-get purge firmware-linux
apt-get purge firmware-linux-nonfree
apt-get purge firmware-qlogic
apt-get purge firmware-ralink
apt-get purge firmware-realtek
apt-get purge intel-microcode
apt-get purge libertas-firmware
apt-get purge unrar
apt-get purge zd1211-firmware
You see that a lot of firmware had to be removed, and that raises the question: is a pure free SolydK BE/BO a workable system (with only organizations/companies in mind)?

You can try it out for a spin: http://downloads.solydxk.com/dev


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
ScottQuier
Posts: 1760
Joined: 18 Jul 2013 15:55
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby ScottQuier » 10 Feb 2014 18:45

I don't know, but I'll give it a spin as a bare metal install on a spare partition. This could be fun. Could be quite frustrating. :D
Scott
Quoting zerozero, "The usage of PPA's in debian-based
systems is risky at best and entails serious compatibility
problems; usually it's the best way to destroy an install"


Fargo
Posts: 888
Joined: 17 Sep 2013 14:40

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby Fargo » 10 Feb 2014 20:04

I understand the concern of including non-free items. But personally I want a distro that has all the codec and things installed or easy to install. If you went this route, I would recommend you offer a version with all non-free items installed (Maybe have a disclaimer when installing), then you could also offer a version that is free. But I would be sure to create a metapackage that can install everything as well. It needs to be very easy for the end user to install things. Links on desktops are good for this kind of thing.

My other advice is to clearly define what non-free vs free means. I've been a Linux user for years and I've never been able to firmly grasp what it means myself. I know newbies are even more confused. When they see non-free, they think they need to pay for it. So they will opt for the free version. Then they will complain that they can't open files or play dvds or their are no drivers available etc.

In short, I personally don't like distros that are 'free'. They always seem to require too much effort to get things to work properly. If at all possible, I would stick with 'non-free' and setup the install so the installer has to accept the terms and conditions set forth by the non free software. I assume most companies or organizations would have an IT dept that is familiar with accepting the various terms and conditions of installing software.

I think the biggest issue would be if you could put all the terms and agreements on one page so the installer only has to accept the terms and agreements once. I'm not sure if the software vendors (adobe, nVidia, etc) would allow this or not.

kurotsugi
Posts: 1952
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby kurotsugi » 10 Feb 2014 21:35

I agree with the post above, I think we need to define our "free" first :lol:
personally I prefer 'free' as free to use and distribute. aside from unrar which can replaced by 7zip, we'll still need those packages since they're device driver and essentially important for most user.

User avatar
ScottQuier
Posts: 1760
Joined: 18 Jul 2013 15:55
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby ScottQuier » 10 Feb 2014 23:27

This is all in the "For What It's Worth" column of the spreadsheet .... and I'm not so sure it's worth a whole lot.
  1. sources.list

    Code: Select all

    scott@be64-free /var/log $ inxi -r
    Repos:     Active apt sources in file: /etc/apt/sources.list
               deb http://packages.solydxk.com/business/ solydxk main upstream import
               deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian wheezy main contrib
               deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib
    scott@be64-free /var/log $
  2. The system:

    Code: Select all

    scott@be64-free /var/log $ inxi -Fxxx
    System:    Host: be64-free Kernel: 3.2.0-4-amd64 x86_64 (64 bit, gcc: 4.6.3)
               Desktop: KDE 4.8.4 (Qt 4.8.2) info: plasma-desktop dm: kdm Distro: SolydXK 1 testing
    Machine:   Mobo: ASUSTeK model: SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 version: Rev 1.xx
               Bios: American Megatrends version: 1503 date: 01/11/2013
    CPU:       Octa core AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core (-MCP-) cache: 16384 KB flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 sse4a ssse3 svm) bmips: 60687.2
               Clock Speeds: 1: 3792.951 MHz 2: 3792.951 MHz 3: 3792.951 MHz 4: 3792.951 MHz 5: 3792.951 MHz 6: 3792.951 MHz 7: 3792.951 MHz 8: 3792.951 MHz
    Graphics:  Card: NVIDIA GF106 [GeForce GTS 450] bus-ID: 01:00.0 chip-ID: 10de:0dc4
               X.Org: 1.12.4 drivers: nouveau (unloaded: fbdev,vesa) Resolution: 1600x1200@60.0hz, 1600x1200@60.0hz
               GLX Renderer: Gallium 0.4 on NVC3 GLX Version: 3.0 Mesa 8.0.5 Direct Rendering: Yes
    Audio:     Card-1: NVIDIA GF106 High Definition Audio Controller driver: snd_hda_intel bus-ID: 01:00.1 chip-ID: 10de:0be9
               Card-2: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SBx00 Azalia (Intel HDA)
               driver: snd_hda_intel bus-ID: 00:14.2 chip-ID: 1002:4383
               Sound: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture ver: 1.0.24
    Network:   Card: Realtek RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller
               driver: r8169 ver: 2.3LK-NAPI port: b000 bus-ID: 0a:00.0 chip-ID: 10ec:8168
               IF: eth1 state: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full mac: 60:a4:4c:62:25:19
    Drives:    HDD Total Size: 231.1GB (2.7% used)
               1: id: /dev/sda model: WDC_WD2000JS size: 200.0GB serial: WD-WMANL1136184
               2: USB id: /dev/sdf model: Voyager_Mini_3.0 size: 31.0GB serial: 07083B8355196611-0:0
    Partition: ID: / size: 20G used: 5.2G (28%) fs: ext4 ID: swap-1 size: 17.18GB used: 0.00GB (0%) fs: swap
    Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 12.2C mobo: N/A gpu: 33.0
               Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: N/A
    Info:      Processes: 168 Uptime: 36 min Memory: 795.1/15985.4MB Runlevel: 2 Gcc sys: 4.7.2 alt: 4.4/4.6
               Client: Shell (bash 4.2.37 running in konsole) inxi: 1.9.14
    scott@be64-free /var/log $
  3. Observations:
    • Kernel: 3.2.0-4-amd64 - Really :lol: :) That's so ..... well, 2013 .. or 2012 ... or 2011 .. just when did it come out? But .... it's STABLE and that's the key. It is noticably slower than the kernel in the Home Edition. But ... It's STABLE

    • The font in FireFox is a bit strange:
      snapshot3.png
      snapshot3.png (6.88 KiB) Viewed 3839 times

      Just finer/thinner - a bit harder to read than in the Home Edition. And see what's happening to the "M" in HTML5 and the "K" in "seem to be OK". Is this because of something that's changed between FF 24.2.0 and FF 27.x.x? This could be due to a setting be not quite right. But, I didn't change anything and I don't change anything in the HE installs and they look different.

    • Youtube videos (even HTML5) seem to be OK. Sound and video working just fine.
  4. I did not notice any errors during boot. Even Plymouth seemed to behave itself.
Conclusion: I would think that, for those organizations that have to be completely FOSS this could be a very viable alternative - depending on their hardware; if they have to be FOSS, they are going to know enough to be sure they buy hardware that is supported. Especially so if I goofed something up in FF to make the fonts therein not quite right when they normally (as in if installed by someone who knows more than yours truely) would be.
Scott
Quoting zerozero, "The usage of PPA's in debian-based
systems is risky at best and entails serious compatibility
problems; usually it's the best way to destroy an install"


duped
Posts: 43
Joined: 17 Jan 2014 17:29
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby duped » 11 Feb 2014 02:23

I would love for everything to be FOSS but one of the reasons I chose SolydK BE over just pure debian is that it has some of the hard work done for me that I would eventually end up doing myself in debian but probably in a really half-assed way and taking up a lot of time to do it. I am really happy to take advantage of the solyd developer's expertise and now two weeks into it I can say that solydK BE is exactly what I was looking for.


Fargo
Posts: 888
Joined: 17 Sep 2013 14:40

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby Fargo » 11 Feb 2014 03:21

duped wrote:I would love for everything to be FOSS but one of the reasons I chose SolydK BE over just pure debian is that it has some of the hard work done for me that I would eventually end up doing myself in debian but probably in a really half-assed way and taking up a lot of time to do it. I am really happy to take advantage of the solyd developer's expertise and now two weeks into it I can say that solydK BE is exactly what I was looking for.



Quoted for truth. That is why I use SolydK and Mepis before that.

User avatar
Schoelje
Site Admin
Posts: 8460
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby Schoelje » 11 Feb 2014 07:47

Okay, let's forget the technical aspects for a moment, because these are easily solved.

Would a real free SolydK BE benefit organizations, and governmental institutions, better than SolydK BE with non-free firmware?


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
zerozero
Posts: 5373
Joined: 10 Feb 2013 23:37
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby zerozero » 11 Feb 2014 12:17

Free!?
there's only one definition of Free :)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
or the YT version for those with reading phobia :lol:


===
the idea here is interesting ;) but i don't know if it is really necessary (wait, lemme explain :lol: )

we have (that i know) 2 distributions that meet this criteria:
gnewsense [official page]
and
trisquel [official page]
and (as far as i know)none of them is being massively adopted in scenarios like this.

and why? to be FSF-compliant and "real free" there's a lot to cut (see the above distro's work so far: trisquel is not even using the standard debian kernel because it is tainted; but also and obviously flash, java are absolutely no-gos)
FF and TB can't be used either (see the brand controversy between mozilla and debian)

will a distro built according to those standards be useful to organizations and governmental institutions?
or do they need something reliable, compatible, secure and that "just works"?
bliss of ignorance

User avatar
MAYBL8
Posts: 1478
Joined: 10 Mar 2013 18:41
Location: Maryland Heights, MO USA
Contact:

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby MAYBL8 » 11 Feb 2014 12:24

I couldn't help it, I had to chime in on this one.
I know I will get ridiculed for this but....
Where I come from "free" means I don't have to pay anything out of my pocket.

Let me add to this.
Also if an individual or company wants to give me something that I don't have to pay for then I also consider it "free".
That is probably not the subject here but that is how I look at Linux.


User avatar
ScottQuier
Posts: 1760
Joined: 18 Jul 2013 15:55
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby ScottQuier » 11 Feb 2014 12:30

free: freedom to use, study, distribute and modify that software

@Schoelje - My sense is you are asking two questions:
  1. Q. Is there a market for free (see def above) software in one or more of the non-profit, commercial, governmental world(s)?

    A. Sure there's a market - there's bound to be one or more such concerns interested in FOSS. Identifying them ... now that would be the trick wouldn't it?

  2. Q. Do these markets, when combined, generate demand enough to make building, maintaining, and supporting the release worth the time and effort; especially in light of the demands already being placed on the small SolydXK development/support team?

    A. Wow. As one of my professor ("A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." :) ), "That's an interesting question. I'm glad you asked that. Now, if there are no other questions, ....." :) Seriously, I wish I had an answer. I also would like to see more government agencies go the way of Munich. I would love to see my tax dollars go where they should rather than into the coffers of for-profit concerns. Even more, .... Ok, I'm starting to preach a bit. Sorry.
Scott
Quoting zerozero, "The usage of PPA's in debian-based
systems is risky at best and entails serious compatibility
problems; usually it's the best way to destroy an install"


Nomen Nescio
Posts: 63
Joined: 02 Oct 2013 09:01

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby Nomen Nescio » 11 Feb 2014 12:36


Although that is a good idea from the maintainer's point of view, it is not very user friendly.
So, that will change into "solydk_201401.iso", and thus will include the version number.


Thank you for this. I'm still happy with the Solyd(X/K/BE) experience but sometimes having troubles finding my way and although there is a lot of knowledge here, a lot is in the founders heads so "we, the users" sometimes miss the rationale behind some decisions. I played a lot with SolydK on my main machine but as mentioned somewhere last year I wanted to experiment with a new simple PC and booting primarily Solyd, backed-up with XP for legacy reasons/games.


'Speaking about the devil'... :twisted:

I just completely reinstalled SolydKBE this weekend and again last evening because I wanted a stable and usable distro.
This weekend I also tried to install Wheezy instead of SolydKBE but this was more difficult than exptected (hp microserver n54l, sapphire hd 7750 lp and asus xonar U3), so I was happy to make use of the 'added value' of SolydKBE. I even managed to install the fglrx driver with DDM (only thing I had to do was press 'E' during whilst in grub and add 'radeon.modeset=0' to prevent black screen with blinking cursor after finishing plymouth), instead of using smxi.

Apart from the discussion free versus non-free, I came here for the Solyd experience. Is there a way to add those sources and or metapackages again? BTW, I found that in SolydKBE the Hugin tools were present and installed, only had to add the GUI package.

At least I'm happy I was able to make some images of the different partitions.

User avatar
Schoelje
Site Admin
Posts: 8460
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby Schoelje » 11 Feb 2014 13:00

Just a short note (my daughter's 4th birthday...not much time).

@ScottQuier
Your two questions really define what I'm aiming at. Spot on!

@ZZ
Isn't there a middle way?
Still keep it functional, and be care free (as much as possible). So, that they are not confronted with unexpected expenses because MS (or any other) want to squeeze their last penny from them?


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
ScottQuier
Posts: 1760
Joined: 18 Jul 2013 15:55
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby ScottQuier » 11 Feb 2014 13:25

Schoelje wrote:@ScottQuier
Your two questions really define what I'm aiming at. Spot on!

OH BOY! Praise. Positive feedback. Joy! I got one right! :lol: :lol:

Acutally, it wasn't that hard. I think I have some insight into at least a portion of your end game; you've made it clear enough in this and other posts. 8-) :geek:
Schoelje wrote:@ZZ
Isn't there a middle way?
Still keep it functional, and be care free (as much as possible). So, that they are not confronted with unexpected expenses because MS (or any other) want to squeeze their last penny from them?

There is a significant range of gray in this question. Some organizations will want to avoid any closed-source software like the plague. Others won't care - "Just give me a system that will allow me to get the job done." And there will be others at all points between these two ends of the spectrum.

I would be willing to bet a good size chunk of change that, were plot data associated with those even a little interested in Linux, one would arrive at a nicely formed bell curve; one shifted slightly to the "just make it work" end, but a nice bell curve even so.
Scott
Quoting zerozero, "The usage of PPA's in debian-based
systems is risky at best and entails serious compatibility
problems; usually it's the best way to destroy an install"


User avatar
zerozero
Posts: 5373
Joined: 10 Feb 2013 23:37
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby zerozero » 11 Feb 2014 13:58

MAYBL8 wrote:I couldn't help it, I had to chime in on this one.
I know I will get ridiculed for this but....
Where I come from "free" means I don't have to pay anything out of my pocket.

Let me add to this.
Also if an individual or company wants to give me something that I don't have to pay for then I also consider it "free".
That is probably not the subject here but that is how I look at Linux.

that is one of the shortcomings of the english language :)
free in this context doesn't mean "free-of-charge" but "as-in-freedom" ("shockingly" it can even have a price-tag, it's still F/OSS as long as it respects the 4 freedoms)
bliss of ignorance

User avatar
MAYBL8
Posts: 1478
Joined: 10 Mar 2013 18:41
Location: Maryland Heights, MO USA
Contact:

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby MAYBL8 » 11 Feb 2014 14:17

ZZ,
I get the "free" vs "freedom" that Linux is about. Thanks for the clarification.
I suppose that a software company or person has some sort of license statement that you can't change their code then in the purest sense you don't have the "freedom" to change it.
I haven't read up on all the aspects of this but me being a "user" of linux system and not a developer have a different opinion on what "freedom" means to me.
I know you guys will get this all sorted out.
Thanks for listening to my ramblings.
Dan


Fargo
Posts: 888
Joined: 17 Sep 2013 14:40

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby Fargo » 11 Feb 2014 16:18

Schoelje wrote:Okay, let's forget the technical aspects for a moment, because these are easily solved.

Would a real free SolydK BE benefit organizations, and governmental institutions, better than SolydK BE with non-free firmware?


In that case. NO. What benefit is their to a stripped down version that doesn't do what you want it to do? What organizations, government institutions, and small businesses want is something that 'just works'. I don't think most of them care if its FOSS of proprietary. The politics behind the software are of little to no concern to most. Just give them something that works and works well. Something that is stable and easy to maintain.

The question is not if its 'free' or 'non-free' software. They've likely been using 'non-free' software for the past 20+ years and are ok to use some 'non-free' software if it is a better alternative. The question about 'non-free' software really comes down to 'is this legal'? Businesses and organizations need to know that the software they are using is legal to use. So the question we should be asking is not 'should we make a 'free' version. The question should be 'How do we make SolydK BE legal to use in all countries with complete codec and driver support'?

I'm sure there are those who want completely FOSS software. They will look at Debian for their solution. Lets keep SolydK BE focused on the business user and organizations who just need things to work. But lets understand that they need to keep within the laws of their countries. So instead of stripping out all the 'non-free' software, maybe we should be looking into how we can license this 'non-free' software so that the companies behind it will not only allow us to package it with SolydK BE but would desire for us to include their software with our distro.

Lets assemble a list of the included 'non-free' software we are talking about. What are the restrictions? Is it a simple matter of the user accepting a license agreement? Can these agreements be consolidated together so the user can accept all at once? Does the software developer require fees to include the software? How much is it? Will this require a 'paid for' version of SolydK BE to be compliant with all legalities? Its my understanding that Warran Woodford at Mepis had obtained permission at one time to include all non-free software in his distro. So I think it can be done. But it might require more work than simply stripping it out. However, I also suspect that there are some people in the community who want to help but can't program. This might give them an opportunity to help by contacting some of these businesses. So I think the help will be there.

But again, I'll state that we need to consider the question we are asking. Is the question about including 'non-free' software? Or is the question about making sure all software is 'legal' to include? I think this really applies to all versions of SolydXK.

kurotsugi
Posts: 1952
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby kurotsugi » 11 Feb 2014 18:09

business people tends to want everything kept simple and work out of the box. create a fully 'free' version of solydxk might be an interesting project but that's not business people want.

User avatar
jsalpha2
Posts: 294
Joined: 28 May 2013 12:28

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby jsalpha2 » 11 Feb 2014 19:05

My take on free vs non-free. Is it better to use Firefox? or copy it and change its name to Iceweasel?
Firefox is free, but does not meet the FOSS definition of free because they don't want the name or icon to be changed.
So you basically steal their program and call it Iceweasel. Now its free enough to be called FOSS. I'll always prefer a distro that uses Firefox. Besides that, if you have wireless, you probably need non-free drivers.

duped
Posts: 43
Joined: 17 Jan 2014 17:29
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pure free SolydK BE/BO

Postby duped » 11 Feb 2014 22:03

Interesting topics. I work for the Canadian government and I think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that they would even consider a switch over to a FOSS model. I think that applies for most of the developed world and most larger businesses too. There may be a few exceptions like Munich or the Gendarmerie but that may just be question scale, i.e. concentration of power in a fewer people who want to make the switch. I would say there are a few things considered here in practice (not stated) which decides how they go:

*Security: as in few viruses, as few break-ins as possible

*Functionality: it has to do what people want it too without too many difficulties

*Accountability (or illusion of): you need to tell your bosses that this is backed by something. Seems like insurance and makes people feel better

*Cost: not too expensive. I am not sure what that is. But my IT department charges us $1200/year/person (it is just an internal money shuffle) to provide all the IT infrastructure (new machine every 3-4 years, network printers, web access, email, databases and applications). I suppose about 50-75% that would be commercial software including windows and its administration (i.e. IT people).

*Control: the infrastructure needs to be set up to exert a fine level of control on all machines including web access, application access and ability to know what employees are doing

*Compatibility: they want people to be using all the same applications to keep a tight system requiring less testing

*Longevity: It needs to have the assurance that investment today can be realised over the long term and no drastic switches in a year or two

*Extensibility: it needs to be upgradable and new components added if necessary without disrupting everything

Linux can probably offer most of those things even better than windows, but there is also the question of lock-in and the desktop world is presently locked into microsoft. Actually, I do not even see Apple really make too much of a dent there when you look at things like sharepoint and information management systems.

I think the real market for completely free systems is in the developing world. They are worried about industrial and political espionage from developed countries (where all the big IT companies are located) and recent revelations only re-inforce that. These are countries where costs are more important and because any microsoft investement immediately exits the country it creates no internal benefit. They also want customisation. I think that you might find your pure free distro market there and perhaps with small business. That said, I am not sure the firefox - iceweasel issue has much traction anywhere.



Return to “SolydK Business Edition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest