I came across a site that offers instructions on how to "sanitise Slackware" so it's fully libre-software only.

http://www.freeslack.net/

It took me the time it takes for a normal full install, plus the various steps to blacklist the non-libre bits, install a libre kernel and then update via slackpkg. Now running as expected - no issues so far.

Would be great to see this as a stand alone distro.

Is there any real benefit to these types of systems other than limiting the software included? Non-free, non-commercial, and allowing OEM optional modules, as well as licenses that are free but unclear on limits of free shouldn't make a difference if functionality of a working operating system is the key purpose. Case in point, nouveau may be the free nvidia driver but it's abilities and support pale vastly in comparison to the nvidia OEM driver.

It's nice projects like this exist to offer options and point out things that could be better, but where functionality is concerned to cover the broad spread-spectrum of users and situations a Libre solution may have downfalls as often some hardware has some support through the free driver, no support through the kernel, support with a staging driver requiring firmware, or support from an OEM only.

The argument that these software packages do not belong in a free operating system doesn't make sense nor does it carry weight. Free is free depending on point of view. To me that statement doesn't prove FreeSlack is better or worse than standard Slackware, but presents only an argument of bias from the FSF with few if any merits.

4 members found this post helpful.

I respect you both for caring about the deep philosophy, salparadise and ReaperX7, and I hope you respect each other for the same reason.

And I also hope you'll both forgive me when I say: meh.

4 members found this post helpful.

Another freeslacker here. I used the kernel buildscript for 3.14.17.
There is no need for a fork in my opinion since the steps to go from slackware to freeslack are trivial.

3 members found this post helpful.

Since I don't think proprietary software is necessarily evil and I rather not sacrifice functionality I don't care much for it. Don't get me wrong, I rather have free software.

1 members found this post helpful.

My feelings are this, a distribution doesn't have to conform to the FSF. They can do as they please, be unique, offer unique software, support as many platforms and hardware devices as possible, and if an OEM wishes to support the device with an OEM driver rather than a kernel driver, that's up to them, but it should have proper support.

While it would be nice if all companies just handed over driver code to the kernel and allowed free drivers to be built in and maintained within the kernel, the world isn't perfect.

Libre is nice, and is a nice goal to achieve, but it shouldn't limit a distribution's support levels.

1 members found this post helpful.

I said this several years ago:

Debian is designed to be free, Slackware is designed to be useful.

But serious: I am full of respect for the achievements of Debian. When they reached their original design goals after so many years, Debian became a lighthouse demonstrating, what is possible with only (F)OSS. The value of this achievement is the vision it promotes, while the practical value is very limited (for me, at least).

And, of course, if someone wants to "liberate" Slackware: Please go ahead. If someone is willing to do a fork and maintain it: I think Pat and the crew wouldn't mind, as long as the few rules set by Pat for Slackware are followed (e.g. don't use the Slackware brand name etc.). But I shouldn't speak for other people, and therefore stop my post here.

gargamel

It is a matter of philosophy; about whether or not one believes in the ideals of free software. Those of us who care are willing to do without something or go through extra steps to get it. The view you express is one of "the ends justify the means." For some people the means are important.
Definitely. To use existing terminology; Free as is speech and free as in beer. The key is to not confuse the two. I do not care that most Linux systems are freely distributed. I would pay for a Linux system long before I buy Windows. Free and open source software is a different matter. Linux would not exist without it. Personally, I believe abandoning the desire for free (as in speech) software not only abandons the ideals of open source, but loading a system with proprietary software makes it no different than Windows and Apple. In which case, it is no longer an alternative and there is no need for it. It simply becomes a free (as in beer) version of Windows. The whole idea behind free software is to be free of restrictions on software imposed by companies and their copywrites, so people are free to use, modify and distribute software. People are free to choose whether or not they agree with the philosophy, but it is of paramount importance to understand the difference between free and free.
Yes people like the FSF are biased. So are people who believe all software is good, regardless if it is free or not. The problem is, too many people believe a bias toward free software is bad, while a bias toward not caring about free software is good.

With the exception of a recent ten-month period in which I needed to use wireless internet, I ran Debian without any problems only using free software. And I have an Nvidia video card!

I'm only biased towards software that works. Other than that, unless I actually have to legally pay for it, or the software is garbage, I stay away. Non-commercial, freeware, limitless-shareware, and anything else that doesn't require currency to install and use is free enough for me. And, yes, you shouldn't confuse the different free software types.

1 members found this post helpful.

I believe in free speech software and you believe in free beer software. It is a good thing we are not in the same room. Especially if the real beer is flowing.

Debian still ships binary blobs

Mmmmm... beer... *drools*

And that, in a nut shell, is pretty much why I don't spend any time round here these days.
Because ReaperX just displayed the fact that s/he doesn't understand the issues behind the software he uses, everyone else weighed in on that and every single one of you forgot the original post was made by a human being.

Meh indeed.

Heaven forbid banter being present on a board. Would it have been better for me to call ReaperX7 an idiot for not believing in the ideals of free software and for him to call me an idealistic moron?

5 members found this post helpful.