[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [ #1712352] freenix endorsed ?

From: Ivan Zaigralin
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [ #1712352] freenix endorsed ?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:41:34 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0

Looks like you have many suggestions to improve our wiki. Please use our
forum, just like our wiki is asking you to do, and create a topic for
each issue you would like us to address. Discussing these issues in this
mailing list would be off-topic and a waste of everyone's time.

To answer your first question, we keep the trail of our communication
with FSF here:;

On 4/7/21 1:50 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
> Dear Ivan,
> Thank you. I understand "Zaigralin" like one who started playing,
> speaking some Slavic languages too. Am I right?
> * Ivan Zaigralin <> [2021-04-07 02:54]:
>> Dear Jean Louis,
>> We have been waiting for FSF to do something, anything, for years now.
>> If you want to "rush", please let them know.
> Tell me to which person did you speak to?
> By which communication line did you ask?
>>> What I don't understand is the mentioning of these packages which are
>>> non-free:
>> These are non-free packages which we've purged from the Slackware
>> upstream in order to create Freenix. We are fully committed to
>> documenting every step of our work.
> Ivan, that what you say here is not described on that page. I would
> like to enter proposal on the page, but I cannot see how to subscribe
> on Wiki if at all possible.
> Again, you better communicate on the page with something like: "This
> is the list of proprietary and FSDG non-conformant packages we
> excluded from Slackware". But what you write exactly there is up to
> you. I just say, page is not communicating enough.
>>> What is very hard to find on that website is:
>>> - Packages, package list or search of packages, as that is starting
>>>   point to verify if there are some considered non-free or
>>>   non-compliant to FSF Free Distribution Guidelines
>> No, it's not very hard to find. The entire distribution is linked from
>> the Free Repository article:
> Well you say it is not hard to find. Then you offered me hyperlink
> which I could not find myself. Please understand it from users'
> viewpoint. You know it, and I am not you, I cannot find it. I do know
> how to browse websites. What I am speaking of is that at almost every
> OS distribution there are list of packages, easy to find, search,
> browse.
> Please see here:
> You can clearly see menu item "Packages", website visitor can at any
> time locate it and search for packages. I do not speak of FSDF rather
> of habits. OS users do have need to see at list a list of packages
> like a single file, that is referenced from pages which user is
> visiting. Putting it in a menu item is very good for website and for
> distribution.
> Let me say, it is confusing. Is it Freenix or Freeslack? I do not
> know. I do not know what is Freeslack -- learn from this statement, as
> your website is Freenix and not Freeslack. To me it is confusing.
> Why would I search for list of packages in Freenix OS inside of a
> Freeslack OS? That is viewpoint and my impression at this time. You
> maybe equal those, me not, name is different, and there is no visible
> proper justification for it, not on the first page. I found it later,
> but you should consider harmonizing the name into one, not having two
> of them. You can introduce HTTP redirects server-side to move to new
> name.          
> In this URL I find only 20 packages listed:
> ⇛ So do you see now that I cannot find full list of packages?
> Let me say that making a search for a package is very easy, I did it
> years ago with simple grep and awk.
> You can serialize information about one package into one single line,
> just replace \n with space and remove redundant words such as "or"
> "and" "the" "a" or similar. This allows for grep-ing the package. Once
> greped, awk can extract the name of the package from specific field or
> maybe URL as other field and construct HTML listing.
> Or if packages have their URLs you can just run it through Markdown 
> and make single HTML that is searchable by using browser functions. Or
> Pandoc, and construct Wiki pages.
>>> - Issues -- I have seen it, but I missed it, it is very hard to find
>>>   issues. That is one of requirements.
>> In Participation article of the wiki, there are clear instructions for
>> reporting issues.
> That does not make it easy. Do you see that me, who took effort to
> tell you about this, told you my experience, I came to site, I could
> not find issues though I did see it on some page hyperlinked, but I
> removed the page and could not find it any more. I hope you will
> understand this as a serious impairment of the website. This is
> positive critics for you to implement something.
> I am asking myself, why people provide Search option on websites that
> do not yield with result:
> It is not just your problem. Again, if I wish to index all my website,
> I would just convert it to single lines per page and use simple
> functions to extract URLs and pages. Old method that worked before
> 25-30 years. Today people are complicating and do not get result.
> In this example, I could not find "Issues" page. 
>> Please let us know if you have any ideas for improving our
>> communication via the wiki, the forum, or anything else, but please
>> understand that there's absolutely nothing we can do to move the
>> certification process forward at this time. Several years ago FSF
>> told us to stand by while they are rendering their final decision,
>> and they've done absolutely nothing since then, as far as we can
>> tell, despite my occasional efforts to check in.
> To me it looks like communication problem. First you should say to
> which person did you communicate?
> In regards to improvements, why call it expansion pack if it is not?
> Or if it is not distribution in itself, make it clear. It is
> confusing.
> Still I do not find it right that you have the link here:
> What does it mean "Slackware package licensing"? To me, first
> impression is that you are licensing something.
> Then second impression is that you talk about some packages that are
> for commercial use only, thus non-free. And I run away.
> Think about how you are communicating.
> If you wish to say what is non-free clearly designate labels and say
> what Slackware non-free packages have been excluded and why, you miss
> only clearly designated labels.
> I still don't understand is it fully integrated OS in itself, or I
> need to use Slackware together?
> Do you see here the breadcrumbs:
> Trace: • participation • licensing • slackware_14.1 • slackware_14.2 • 
> slackware_14.0 • start • free_repository
> I may think this is some kind of licensing related to your website,
> there is no clear designation what you mean with it.
> Don't write text by expecting people to know already 90% of the
> subject, write it so, by thinking that person by reading one single
> page should be able to understand all relevant information without
> looking up other pages or third party pages.
> I think "Report issue" should be in the menu.
> Your link to report issue only points to forum. But forum does not
> speak where to report which issue, it is not clear.
> Compare it with other distributions, they receive reports, and you do
> not receive reports. Find out why? Maybe it is not accessible website,
> not appealing, not easy to find out.
> Sometimes I make a HTML page and I just want that one page to stand
> out without anything else, that is alright as purpose is not to browse
> the page or look for some subjects. On Freenix website purpose should
> be to hyperlink or relevant pages, especially those very much needed
> and wanted:
> - Main page
> - Download
> - Installation
> - Documentation
> - Package list
> - Reporting issues
> - Users' forum
> - Donations
> - Contacts
> What do you think about it?
> Jean
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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