[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [ #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

From: bill-auger
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [ #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:46:30 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2

where is this ticket that you reference? #1262331 - it is not on
the CC list - is that a on public tracker?

On 01/17/2018 11:45 AM, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> Should a distro that hasn't been maintained for several years be
listed in free-distros.html, especially if it is based on a major distro
which itself isn't maintained anymore? I am thinking of Blag, based on
Fedora 10 (2010).

i asked this question myself when i did a review of the FSDG distros
list last summer[1] noting that proteanos appears to be inactive as well
- still today there has been no response on either of the blag or
proteanos mailing lists[2][3] - six months with no response to a simple
question like "is this project still active?" should indicate a negative

my opinion however, is that there is no reason to remove a distro from
the list only for being unmaintained - if it works: it works - and
always will - but the case with blag is something different - blag
actually has no software available - the download links on their website
have not worked in a very long time because (as ive heard) the files
were lost - "blag" exists in reality only in the form of it's website -
so there literally is no blag distribution by nature of the fact that
there is nothing being distributed - so i still suggest that blag be
removed (or perhaps moved to a new "honerable mentions" section) - but
if proteanos is still available and viable software then there is no
reason to remove it merely because it is un-supported

On 01/17/2018 11:45 AM, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> Conversely, if unmaintained distros are listed, is there any good
reason not to list a new one, which clearly is actively maintained (Uruk)?

there is an evaluation process for adding new distros - uruk has
requested consideration about a year ago and it fell short of FSDG
standards at that time; but they are improving it and the discussion is
still open[4]

On 01/17/2018 11:45 AM, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> Le Dim 31 Déc 2017 15:50:11, address@hidden a écrit :
>> BLAG is inactive
>> Dragora GNU Linux-Libre is inactive
>> Dynebolic is inactive
>> Musix is inactive

it was this comment that prompted me to respond - as mentioned above, i
looked into the current status of all of the FSDG distro last summer and
i can not concour with Le Dim's evaluation

dragora has been very active in recent months working on the next
release - far from being inactive, if all FSDG distros were ranked today
according to development activity, i would place dragora in second place
closely behind parabola with trisquel a more distant third - of course,
to put into persoective, parabola, being a rolling release distro
requires a far greater amount of routine maintenance just to remain sane
where the other FSDG distros are LTS and designed to require only
high-priority stability/security upgrades - that is only to say that
some distros require more or less maintenance than others

the developer of dynebolic is still as active as ever in the dyne
project and is planning for the next release of dynebolic to be based on
devuan once the devuan-sdk is completed

the musix developer is also still in contact with it's community and is
planning the next release[5]

the important thing to note is that regardless of whatever development
activity is immediately apparent, the current releases of dragora,
dynebolic, and musix are still available and viable, functioning
perfectly as intended; and their developers are still in communication
with the community - this is an especially important factor to consider
in regards to "Live" distros such as dynebolic and musix which are
static by design (i.e. they are intended to be run directly from the
read-only medium and never installed nor upgraded) - the fact that the
operating system is guaranteed never to change a bit from one boot to
the next is among the most desirable features of these distros - they
are not the typical sort of distro that require any intermediate
maintenance nor is that even possible; so such a distro can not
reasonably be said to be "inactive"; because they are designed to be
fixed in form ("carved in stone" if you will) - the project itself could
be be deemed dormant or inactive; as in: "we can probably not expect
version N+1"; but that says nothing of the efficacy of any current
available versions


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]