[Distribution]: Free GNU/Linux distributions

[davidhedlund]

Feature description

Free GNU/Linux distributions

Status

Issue	64-bit ARM support	Officially supported by proot-distro
Guix	Yes	Not possible
Hyperbola	Yes	No, but under evaluation
Parabola	Yes	No, but under evaluation
PureOS	Yes	Not planned
Trisquel	Yes	Yes

Does not support 64-bit ARM

Issue	64-bit ARM support
Dragora	No
Dyne:bolic	No
Ututo S	No
libreCMC	No
ProteanOS	No

[TomJo2000]

I don't mean to spoil the party, but what's the practical usecase for offering all of these as standard options?

• Dragora is built from scratch but I have never heard anybody mentioning, let alone using it.
• Ututo is based Ubuntu and has the same issue with nobody knowning about it as Dragora and not having any clear distinguishing features that would warrant shipping it.
• Parabola and Hyperbola are built off Arch, and if you want a Libre Arch just install Arch and only install software meeting whatever definition of Libre you subscribe to.
• PureOS is based on Debian and only intended for use on devices sold by Purism, that'd be like shipping TuxedoOS or Pop!_OS.

Every distro shipped as an option in proot-distro needs to be updated, maintained, hosted and tested in this repository and none of these 5 offer a clear case for why they should be shipped as standard options for proot-distro.
If you want them just because you think they'd be cool to have consider making a custom distro for yourself as outlined in the contribution guide.
https://github.com/termux/proot-distro?tab=readme-ov-file#adding-distribution

[sylirre]

I didn't get any kind of meaningful information about how PureOS will be useful on Termux which I asked in comment under ticket: #551

PureOS indeed makes sense only when used on device it was made for.

Termux and proot-distro is kind of special things. They negate benefits of this "libre software activism" just because:

1. Android OS always uses non-free components.

   You won't solve this issue or at least make situation better by using a libre flavor of distribution! This is why PureOS must be used only as host OS on specific device.

2. Proot-Distro doesn't use any kind firmware blobs.

   If non-free firmware blob somehow will appear installed, it won't be used anyway.

3. User always can choose to not install non-free software.

I really don't understand what real goal is pursued by requesting these PureOS, Trisquel and other free/libre Arches, Debians, whatever else.

I will do my own research about distributions requested in the list, but expect 90% chance that they will be rejected.

Next year I plan to set up proot-distro rootfs hosting on my own server and I will have usage statistics for each of available distributions. Low-demand stuff will be removed.

Proot-distro doesn't aim to have universal library of distributions. Rather I'd expect only most wanted distributions to be provided officially and the rest will be either "do-it-yourself" or maintained by third parties.

[robertkirkman]

Low-demand stuff will be removed.

I agree with keeping only the most popular guest distros.

Android OS always uses non-free components. You won't solve this issue or at least make situation better by using a libre flavor of distribution!

I considered posting the first response to this issue, so that I could mention this, but I decided to let you reply first and then clarify this.

Technically an advanced user can build and use an entirely free software proot-distro environment by performing these steps:

1. Install Trisquel bare metal on compatible device
2. Install Docker inside Trisquel
3. Install Redroid inside Docker
4. Install Termux inside Redroid
5. Install proot-distro inside Termux
6. Install Trisquel inside proot-distro

Arguably AOSP is not actually FSF-approved (Replicant is Android 6 which is incompatible with proot-distro), but I posit that it is a significant challenge to find actual blobs somewhere in the described setup.

Of course, such a setup is completely inane and pointless for any practical end-user purpose, so should not be a priority of proot-distro. I just needed to explain it since the thread is about libre software activism.

There is exactly one meaningful purpose I can think of for the described setup:

• Enabling a developer who uses strictly free software, and who therefore will not use Android bare metal with any non-free driver or firmware, to develop contributions to proot-distro, who would not otherwise be able to. Their contributions would work if deployed to others' real Android devices, if they tested them using such a setup.

[robertkirkman]

@davidhedlund as a suggestion, would you be willing to possibly maintain the "libre fork" of proot-distro within which you could maintain support for installing all of the requested "libre" distros and then the users of "libre" distros could find your fork and manually install it to get them?

[davidhedlund]

Arguably AOSP is not actually FSF-approved (Replicant is Android 6 which is incompatible with proot-distro), but I posit that it is a significant challenge to find actual blobs somewhere in the described setup.

"LibrePhone is the FSF's project to free up those blobs. This project's goal is not another Android distribution, but a long-term project to better understand and reverse-engineer the nonfree blobs used by virtually all SoCs made today." - https://librephone.org/

[davidhedlund]

@davidhedlund as a suggestion, would you be willing to possibly maintain the "libre fork" of proot-distro within which you could maintain support for installing all of the requested "libre" distros and then the users of "libre" distros could find your fork and manually install it to get them?

I don’t have time to maintain a libre fork of proot-distro. My work focuses on ecosystem-level contributions—submitting issues and maintaining the Free Software Directory, including the Replicant collection page. I recommend that each distro maintainer manage their own proot-distro.

[davidhedlund]

I don't mean to spoil the party, but what's the practical usecase for offering all of these as standard options?

* Ututo is based Ubuntu

That is incorrect; Ututo originated in 2000 as an independent Linux distribution created by Diego Saravia at the National University of Salta in Argentina. Ututo XS is the current stable version of Ututo.

* Parabola and Hyperbola are built off Arch, and if you want a Libre Arch just install Arch and only install software meeting whatever definition of Libre you subscribe to.

Please take a look at this article: Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems

[TomJo2000]

I don't mean to spoil the party, but what's the practical usecase for offering all of these as standard options?

* Ututo is based Ubuntu

That is incorrect; Ututo originated in 2000 as an independent Linux distribution created by Diego Saravia at the National University of Salta in Argentina. Ututo XS is the current stable version of Ututo.

Whoops, was looking at the distrowatch pages for these.
That has it listed as Ubuntu based.
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ututo

* Parabola and Hyperbola are built off Arch, and if you want a Libre Arch just install Arch and only install software meeting whatever definition of Libre you subscribe to.

Please take a look at this article: Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems

We are not part of the FSF or GNU.
To put it bluntly what does their endorsement of a distro mean to an average user?
I don't mean that antagonistically, I'd just like to understand why we should be offering these as standard options?

[davidhedlund]

* Parabola and Hyperbola are built off Arch, and if you want a Libre Arch just install Arch and only install software meeting whatever definition of Libre you subscribe to.

Please take a look at this article: Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems

We are not part of the FSF or GNU. To put it bluntly what does their endorsement of a distro mean to an average user? I don't mean that antagonistically, I'd just like to understand why we should be offering these as standard options?

Choosing a fully free GNU/Linux distro endorsed by the FSF is a matter of upholding software freedom while enhancing security by eliminating nonfree components that could introduce hidden vulnerabilities or backdoors.