Talk:Trisquel

Live CD?

Is Trisquel a Live CD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.170.127 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Trisquel is a live CD in similar format to the Ubuntu live CDs.

Added details to the article. Platypus333 ([[User talk:Platypus333|talk]]) 03:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Trisquel 5.5 EOL

I noticed that Trisquel 5.5 has been set as unsupported. I don't think this is true, as I haven't found any sources that say that. Normally Rubén will post an announcement if a version is EOL'd.

Can someone please check if 5.5 is/isn't supported? 203.24.101.2 ([[User talk:203.24.101.2|talk]]) 23:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I believe Trisquel 4.0 is still receiving security updates until 2015. The wiki says that 5.5 is supported for one year. I will fix the table now. If anyone objects, please comment here. 203.24.101.2 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking that! Hekerui (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

Is there any chance we can update at least some of this terminology to align with what the project uses? I understand that some powerful editors across WP are anti-GNU and will revert any attempt to do so, but I wonder if we could at least do it on the page of this project since it's currently embarrassing/disgraceful to those who use it. Paradox (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not Linux-libre

According to Trisquel's own documentation, it doesn't use the Linux-libre kernel per se. It uses a deblobbed version of the Ubuntu kernel. The article should reflect this information. Pikolas (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It says in detail: "We start with the kernel from the Ubuntu repositories (rather than the latest vanilla version, to assure compatibility with the rest of the system), including the modifications done by Ubuntu in the form of a huge patch. We then apply the Linux-libre deblob script for the matching version, and as a final step, the latest Linux-libre script, modified to allow it to be run against older kernels. This step double-checks the code, and also adds the latest Linux-libre features to the package." So does that not result in a Linux-libre kernel? - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it ends with a deblobbed Ubuntu flavor of the Linux kernel. Ubuntu tweaks the kernel to make it run more smoothly on hardware. Pikolas (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can use these refs to describe that, if you would like to go ahead. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Trisquel vs Trisquel GNU/Linux

This article was recently renamed from Trisquel to Trisquel GNU/Linux and back again, claiming MOS:LINUX as the basis (this edit by User:Voidxor). However, the Manual of Style seems to disagree with this latter change: Use "Linux" to refer to the family of operating systems based on the "Linux kernel", not "GNU/Linux". Note that this practice does not apply to proper names of individual operating system; e.g. "Debian GNU/Linux". MOS:LINUX does not seem to be being adhered to, even in Debian's case, although this is more ambiguous, as Debian refers to itself only as "Debian" on its front page. Trisquel describes itself as "Trisquel GNU/Linux" on its front page, and seems a much clearer case. Note this is not about using the term GNU/Linux throughout the article, which the MOS is unambiguously against, but using the term for the title. Greenman (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This should be no controversy. If the distro calls itself FOOBAR GNU/Linux, then that's the name. Pikolas (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME prevails and the most common name is simply Trisquel, which is why "Debian GNU/Linux" is found at Debian. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem then seems to be ambiguity at MOS:LINUX, so continuing the discussion there. Greenman (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME may certainly apply here, but MOS:LINUX clearly doesn't, since it explicitly spells out an exception for things like this (replace "Debian" with "Trisquel"). I was "kindly asked" to bring the issue here from this user talk page where it's by now obvious I'm unwelcome, so I will gladly do it, since I see there is already a discussion in progress. I personally think it's okay for this article to be named "Trisquel" if that's what the distribution is commonly known as, but rationales are as important as their effects, and MOS:LINUX is not a valid rationale. LjL (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, LjL. Speaking for myself, when you came to my talk page I found you a rational person. Now, MOS:LINUX is not directly involved here, unless someone is added the "GNU/LINUX" suffix for revenge (WP:POINT), and not for complying with WP:COMMONNAME. And as for the common name, the suffix does not seem to be common. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not too familiar with Trisquel specifically, but in Debian's case, people usually call it "Debian", not "Debian GNU/Linux". So I would interpret MOS:LINUX's exception that gives that example as applying to when WP:COMMONNAME just doesn't cut it and there is a need to disambiguate, or when there's a valid reason to state the official name (not usually done in article titles). In the case of a distribution with a name that means other things, adding the full qualifier to the article's title would make sense in my opinion. I reckon that Trisquel, though, can just stay Trisquel. LjL (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Because several users like yourself unanimously said the same things, I've already gone ahead and edited MOS:LINUX to implement the consensus. Not that I did anything new; everything is already covered by existing policies and consenus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that your modification is better than specifying an exception; however, I felt it made things less clear, which could be a problem given MOS:LINUX had been already misread/misinterpreted a bunch of times. So I tweaked it again to make it as painfully obvious as possible that naming guidelines take precedence for Linux distributions. LjL (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: FYI, FleetCommand removed most of my explanations from MOS:LINUX. They claimed most other editors didn't find anything ambiguous, but in fact, Voidxor whom I argued with (see above) made the claim that he was only the latest in a line of people trying to make MOS:LINUX apply to names like Trisquel. In addition, simply stating "For the proper names of individual operating systems, however, adhere to Wikipedia:Article titles § Use commonly recognizable names" is obviously flawed, because per policy, that applies to titles, not elsewhere, which is why I specified. For these reasons, I reverted back to the original version where "Debian GNU/Linux" is given as an example of an explicit exception. Sorry. I thought we had some decent consensus, but sometimes people force us to be back to square one. LjL (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Yes, I saw what you did. Quite frankly, I was concerned the second you touched MOS. This last revert was brutish. It destroyed Cedar101's edit too. For what it's worth, when one pushes others to prevent them from falling off one side of a cliff, he or she must consider not pushing them so hard as to make them fall off the other side. Although, I am going to ask Fleet Command who these four editors were! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice analogy, Codename Lisa. Basically, I'm all for making the text of MOS less exception-based, but if this means that after we adjust it, someone changes it in a way that makes it less clear than before that, sometimes, "GNU/Linux" can be used, then that's not very okay with me, and reverting to the original state seems the safest option. MOS is policy, and bigger than both of us, and it does state in the hat note that edits to it should reflect consensus, so... if our little improvements were problematic, oh well. Don't pass go, don't collect $200. LjL (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Per your assertion that you're not welcome on my talk page, that's not entirely true. You are welcome, but your incessant pointing out of others' errors and insult hurling are not. Please be mindful that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that such harassment gets you nowhere. – voidxor 21:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll let others able to read the talk page judge whether any claims you make of harassment are substantiated. LjL (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Release date delay from base distribution release date

An IP editor recently added some numbers to the release table. I got clarification via the edit summaries as to what these numbers mean, have fixed the column title so that is more clear and also tagged each entry as per WP:V to find out where these numbers came from and so readers can verify that they are correct. That said, I am not convinced these numbers are at all notable, even if cited. Perhaps someone can make a case for the significance of these numbers and why they are not just WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Extra columns for the base distro date have now been added, but all this clutter just begs the question "so what?". I propose this all be removed as trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the extra columns quite interesting, so would probably go with a mild keep, but if others feel differently have no problem with them being removed. Greenman (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's trivia. Let's do away with it. Hekerui (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay it has been a week since this was brought up and there have been no convincing arguments to keep this, including from the IP editor who first put it in. I think we have a good consensus here to remove this as trivia and clutter. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I added columns with the same info as this issue addresses. So it seems to be a recurrent theme. I think that this addition is not trivia and it is relevant for the following reasons: In the first paragraph of Trisquel wiki page, it says "The project aims for a fully free software system without proprietary software or firmware and uses a version of Ubuntu's modified kernel, with the non-free code (binary blobs) removed". This information (dates of release and delta between base and derived) is neutral and objective.Rcoeurjoly (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Twice in five and a half years is hardly a recurrent theme. It is not a question of whether it is neutral or objective, it is a question of whether it is important enough to include. Anyone can look up the numbers and do the math, but where is your reference that says this is worth noting? If is is notable then some software review, magazine or publication will have written about it, showing that is important in some way. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The Free Software Foundation’s favourite distribution is back after a four-year hiatusRcoeurjoly (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The closest that ref comes to this subject being discussed is: The good news, however, is that work on Trisquel 9.0, based on the latest Ubuntu 18.04 LTS release, is already underway. It should be released in around six months, which is the usual time it takes Trisquel to rip out the proprietary parts from an Ubuntu release. If you want to add some text to the article that indicates that Trisquel releases generally follow Ubuntu releases by about six months and cite that ref that would be fine, but it doesn't support that all those table calculations are somehow notable. - Ahunt (talk)

I say remove the added columns as trivia that is of zero use to the reader, add text (with citation if at all possible) in the body explaining that Trisquel typically lags behind Ubuntu and what they do with that time. That is an interesting story that helps the reader to understand why Trisquel exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Release_history

Trisquel 9 (Etiona) is not supported anymore:

"Previously Released Versions

• 9.0 - Etiona (October 2020) - Supported until April 2023." - https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/versions

https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/versions should be added to the "Supported until" column for all entries. 79.138.56.45 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Aramo kernel 5.15

Hi, just passing around to mention that the aramo's release kernel is version 5.15. Cheers! Ark74 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Need a ref. Where does it say that? See WP:BURDEN. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it tracks Ubuntu's 22.04 LTS defaul kernel (5.15), so it's not like someone can hide that fact. Still FWIW, we prepared this wiki for the release of Aramo. Ark74 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Thanks!  Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Outdated Info

When I went to trisquel.info to download Trisquel Mini which is version 11.0 Aramo, it said that its size is now 1.5 GB, which is more lightweight. The page needs that outdated info to be removed, and new info should be added. How do you think? Gnu779 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Another mistake for memory, as more outdated info is there...

First of all, I would like to declare that Trisquel GNU/Linux 11.0 can run with 2.9 GB, and so I'm going to have to edit it again. There are some archived pages, and now some of the info has changed. Gnu779 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)