gNewSense makes sense

January 31, 2007

This article was contributed by Joseph Quigley

A relatively new Linux distribution has emerged whose mission is to provide a completely free and open source Linux distribution. gNewSense (originally known as gnubuntu and Gnuiscance) is designed for those who just want to use free software for everything in their operating system. Based on Ubuntu, the gNewSense Linux distribution is officially supported by the Free Software Foundation. Even though gNewSense is based on Ubuntu, it stands out from other Linux distributions since it does not focus on having numerous features; its goal is to produce a completely free distribution--in every aspect.

gNewSense was created by Paul O'Malley and Brian Brazil, two Irish FOSS (free and open source software) advocates. The distribution was born because neither Ubuntu nor Debian meets O'Malley and Brazil's definition of a completely free distribution. Builder, a program that was developed in-house, was created to assemble gNewSense and it also aids the creation of a new GNU/Linux distribution based on Ubuntu 6.06 Dapper Drake. It requires that a large amount of disk space be reserved, since it downloads over 25 gigabytes of data. Builder not only configures most of the distribution but it also creates a Live CD of the newly created Linux distro.

The gNewSense distribution differs from its parents in many ways, primarily in the removal of some non-free firmware from the Linux kernel. Furthermore it includes several software development tools such as gcc, make, and GNU Emacs which it installs by default, and it only runs on the x86 platform. To cater to hackers, bsdgames and nethack are also installed. The gNewSense community's beliefs on kernel firmware are stricter than Fedora's so that gNewSense users can be one hundred percent free of proprietary software.

The second major difference between it and Ubuntu is gNewSense's repository changes. The "multiverse" repository is disabled and the "restricted" repository was removed entirely. gNewSense encourages users to download free and open source software by enabling the "universe" and "main" repositories. Although most software in the "universe" repository is free and open source, the gNewSense team has been forced to remove several packages that were not completely free due to licensing issues, such as nvidia-xconfig (a package to configure non-free drivers) and gstreamer-0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse (which allows gstreamer applications to play a myriad of closed-source codecs). In the kernel, over 115 files that are in Ubuntu that did not comply with gNewSense's free software beliefs were removed from project since its 1.1 release earlier this month.

Recently, gNewSense has been making some changes and considering others. The community recently set up a forum and although gNewSense provides its users with full security updates, they are also planning a community-managed software repository, with some of the same principles of the Fedora community (which maintains livna.org). The community managed repository would be for software that gNewSense will not distribute. Some users have also proposed a new distribution logo which combines the aspects of the Ubuntu and GNU logos. The results look promising. Some potential users may be discouraged by a question that was raised about the frequency of gNewSense package updates. Brian Brazil responded "7 months isn't old, it's actually very new. 10 years is old. Stability is important, and it's a lot easier to track LTS which has major changes once every 3 years, rather than every 6 months. Thus far, noone [sic] has put any effort into working on the non-LTS releases." This could be one disadvantage to using gNewSense over Fedora.

gNewSense is a great example of what a completely free Linux distribution should be. It allows its users to free themselves from proprietary clutches with ease of the apt package manager, while giving it the stability and speed of Ubuntu and Debian. This project has a promising future.

Index entries for this article
GuestArticles	Quigley, Joseph

to post comments

gNewSpeak

Posted Feb 1, 2007 7:38 UTC (Thu) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (5 responses)

The name "gNewSense" raises echoes with me, not of the word "nuisance", but "NewSpeak". If you remember from George Orwell's 1984, the dictionary of NewSpeak (the language that everybody in that world had to speak) actually got smaller with each new edition, as various words and concepts were found to be unnecessary and were excised.

An important part of freedom is the freedom to make your own choices. So what if distros like Ubuntu and others include non-Free software? You can choose not to use it. But having a distro that forces you to choose only Free software seems like a contradiction in terms: you can't force people to be free. That's the kind of logic that led to the invasion of Iraq.

gNewSpeak

Posted Feb 1, 2007 9:42 UTC (Thu) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]

Or, you could decide one time to install a free operating system. Then you don't have to individually look at each package and decide whether or not it fits your choice: you make the decision once, and it's done.

You can't force people to be free, but offering them the option of a completely free OS is hardly "forcing" them.

gNewSpeak

Posted Feb 1, 2007 10:20 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]

Agreeing with Alex. It's better to start pure and know what you're adding than to start with a "messed up" distribution (like SUSE before becoming openSUSE) without knowing which parts are free and which are not.

That said, I'm still using Ubuntu with the "restricted" component disabled (never used multiverse), I think it's quite good enough at the moment especially since I know I'm not using those closed firmware (some of which are in the main kernel package instead of the restricted component's packages) or anything in the kernel.

One problem gNewSense should issue is to separate non-free code and code that might be encumbered in some parts of the world. I don't think gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse installs anything but free/libre code, and actually only just one mp3 decoder afaik, so maybe there's an error in the article? And yes I don't understand why an "ugly-multiverse" package is in universe in 6.06 LTS and multiverse in 6.10, it might be a mistake on Ubuntu's side. There's also the plain "ugly" package in universe, which depend on some free mpeg2 decoders and such. Confusing... but anyway, I wish the best to gNewSense and hope it keeps Ubuntu awake.

gNewSpeak

Posted Feb 1, 2007 14:58 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (1 responses)

"An important part of freedom is the freedom to make your own choices."

That's not actually true - whilst it's impossible to have freedom without choice, it's perfectly possible to have choice without freedom; simply disallow the choice to decline all choices.

Moreover, cause and effect decrees that the choice you make now may have a limiting effect on the choices available to you in the future.

Finally, whenever people talk about choices there seems to be an implicit assumption that all choices must come with exactly the same cost. Life ain't like that; some choices are harder than others, and the choice to decline all choices is frequently the hardest of all (consider the effort involved in a completely self-sufficient lifestyle, for example).

So whilst you're wittering on about "choices", you might care to consider that nothing in gNewSense will stop you from replacing it piecemeal with as much non-FOSS as you can find.

It'll just be *less easy*.

That's only a limitation of choice in the same way as Pizza Hut limit your choice by not serving hamburgers; do you complain to them that they're eroding your freedom by circumscribing your choice? No, of course not, because it would be silly.

It's equally silly here. So stop it.

gNewSpeak

Posted Feb 8, 2007 23:05 UTC (Thu) by john_garbuio (guest, #43245) [Link]

"...and the choice to decline all choices is frequently the hardest of all (consider the effort involved in a completely self-sufficient lifestyle, for example)."

Thanks for mentioning this; there is a subtlety to this point that is often missed both in "free software" related discussions and in other political discussions.

gNewSpeak

Posted Feb 10, 2007 13:47 UTC (Sat) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

What you don't seem to be getting is that noone's forced to use gNewSense - anyone who wants to have the freedom (or "freedom") to choose propietary software can use Ubuntu, for example. It's not like there's just one Linux distribution - there's literally hundreds, and many include proprietary stuff.

So much for a lack of choice.

(Of course, whether being able to choose proprietary software is really freedom is another question; I think it's just like asking whether people in a democracy should have the right to vote for the abolishment of democracy. Are you truly free if you can't give up your freedom, knowingly and voluntarily? I'd say yes, although I acknowledge that other opinions are also valid.)

But having a distro that forces you to choose only Free software seems like a contradiction in terms: you can't force people to be free. That's the kind of logic that led to the invasion of Iraq.

While I share your opinion on the attack on Iraq, I'm pretty sure there's some version of Godwin's law that should apply here - comparing the creation of a distro that - unlike many others also in existence - does not include proprietary software and that noone's forced to use to an unwarranted attack on another country that cost more than half a million lives is, to be frank, ridiculous. Sorry, but really...

(And if there's no version of Godwin's law for this, there should be one.)

gNewSense makes sense?

Posted Feb 2, 2007 4:10 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] (2 responses)

I see no advantage in a distribution that is just a pared-down Debian, without bringing anything new to the table. Debian has got clear distinctions on what is kosher and what isn't, Fedora has a rather radical "only open source" policy. That none of them is enough for the FSF is a sad reflection on the later.

gNewSense makes sense?

Posted Feb 2, 2007 12:06 UTC (Fri) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (1 responses)

I welcome that these developers have decided to scratch their own itch. At the same time, I do not think their userbase really exists. That is, users who really care about freedom, but yet cannot manage to decline to use the non-free package source in Debian (which is not enabled without your decision to do so).

The choice of gNewSense or the choice of not bothering to turn on non-free are similarly a single choice, so they seem of equal convenience to a free software fan.

I suppose gNewSense might offer "warm fuzzies" of cleanliness to a certain mindset, but this is really a difficult feature to pin down.

gNewSense makes sense?

Posted Feb 2, 2007 19:59 UTC (Fri) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

I concur. gNewSense seems completely pointless to me - I don't know anybody who would use it instead of Debian. What is worse, it may be artifically dividing the community.

As far as I can tell, the only real difference between Debian and gNewSense is that Debian still has some sourceless firmware in the kernel. That said, my personal opinion is that firmware which doesn't run in the kernel is not part of the kernel and should not be subject to the GPL; similarly the hardware schematic doesn't have to be GPL either. Neither the firmware nor the hardware are derived from the kernel.

Additionally, while I welcome open source firmware and would like to see more of it, one must be aware of the serious practical limitations - for example there are no free Linux tools to compile an FPGA (as far as I know); so what good is open source firmware ?

gNewSense makes sense

Posted Feb 2, 2007 23:05 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (6 responses)

I'm still mystified by distributions which aren't willing to include non-free firmware files, but are willing to include non-free license files. Surely there are more users who want to license their copyrighted works under a modified free software license than users who want their wireless chipsets to behave differently. Not that either is a large group compared to people who want to be allowed to modify all their host-side software or even people who want to remove social commentary from their program manuals, but I'd personally sooner accept NoDerivs firmware than a NoDerivs license document (and I do accept both of them).

gNewSense makes sense

Posted Feb 3, 2007 15:42 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] (5 responses)

If licenses could be changed there would be no point in naming the license. By not allowing changes to license text, a developer can just check which license is being used without needing to read the license for each file they might find useful. Reading the license is not enough you need to understand the legal issues involved in each wording change. License proliferation is a nightmare from an administrative point of view, if the wording within the license could be changed it would be very difficult to put together any meaningful collection of software because the licenses could easily become incompatible. Are you sure you want free license files?

I am not smart enough to know for sure but, I assume that firmware can be made to do things when interacting with the software or data stored on my hardware that I would not appreciate. The other concern is that firmware can be changed and the changes may not be wanted by the owner of the hardware. When I purchase hardware I don't want to be owned by the hardware manufacturer in the same way that I don't want to be owned by a proprietary software vendor. If my assumptions regarding firmware are correct, gNewSense seems like a good distribution choice.

gNewSense makes sense

Posted Feb 3, 2007 17:46 UTC (Sat) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link] (3 responses)

What are your assumptions about firmware ?

You do realize that the same firmware that you are afraid of could equally well be embedded in the hardware device itself (at increased cost). Problem solved - it is no longer distributed with the kernel. I presume that you would be OK with that. Why is the same firmware acceptable when it is stored in the device, but not acceptable when it is dynamically uploaded to the device ?

I personally find the whole sourceless firmware issue completely ridiculous.

gNewSense makes sense

Posted Feb 4, 2007 6:20 UTC (Sun) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (2 responses)

Why is the same firmware acceptable when it is stored in the device, but not acceptable when it is dynamically uploaded to the device ?

Because later case involves copying of copyrighted material by somebody other than the copyright holder, and therefore is regulated by copyright laws.

gNewSense makes sense

Posted Feb 4, 2007 20:28 UTC (Sun) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link] (1 responses)

I am sorry but that is really very unconvincing. How does it change the end result, except that in one case the hardware is more expensive and more difficult to maintain ?

Case A: The firmware is in EPROM/FLASH. The product works but is $15 more expensive and firmware bugs are somewhat more difficult to fix. The users, the kernel developers, the world, couldn't care less about the firmware since it is practically unaccessible to them, so they happily use the product.

Case B: The firmware is a binary blob, which the copyright holder has given permission to distribute unmodified. The product works. Again, the users and the kernel developers don't care about the firmware because it is practically inaccessible to them.

I can't imagine any reason, be it legal, technical or otherwse, why Case A is preferable. I would be embarrassed to explain to any of my not-so-technical friends that the free software community is wasting time with such nonsense. Ideology loses credibility when it is used to fight a meaningless cause, especially when there are plenty of _real_ causes worth fighting for.

gNewSense makes sense

Posted Feb 14, 2007 2:48 UTC (Wed) by proski (guest, #104) [Link]

We are talking about a distribution here, and my answer was not about the "end result". A distribution may have problems distributing non-free firmware, or it may be against its policy to distribute anything that doesn't qualify as free software.

gNewSense makes sense

Posted Feb 3, 2007 20:05 UTC (Sat) by filipjoelsson (guest, #2622) [Link]

If my assumptions regarding firmware are correct, gNewSense seems like a good distribution choice.

"If" is the operative word here. You have made a host of assumptions about firmware and gNewSense that you have not explained:

Will gNewSense work with the hardware in question? No.
Would a user without the hardware in question be owned by the hardware manufacturer who distributes the firmware? No.

So the point of the exercise is which of these?

To render your hardware useless?
To force users to code open firmware without documentation?
To force users to boycott hardware vendors who distribute only closed firmware?

Neither of these has anything to do with Debian vs gNewSense. This is a question of checking your hardware's support for Linux before buying it, and gNewSense is not helping in any relevant way. A hardware blacklist might help for that - but in the shape of a distro? How is that "the right tool for the right job" or "keep it simple, stupid"?

The question begs to be answered.