Le 29/07/2014 à 02h30, Allan Irving a écrit :
What is regarded as the most free linux distro?
See https://gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html that lists well known fully free distributions which are following free system distribution guidelines: https://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html. Some other popular distributions aren’t included for the following reasons: https://gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html.
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where the *distribution* (or at least people too close to it) distribute proprietary software.
Would it be Linux from scratch with only free software added to it or otherwise?
Since Linux from scratch has as purpose of making you compile fully a Linux-based Unix system (GNU/Linux with more or less GNU, depending of how you build it) with teaching purposes, it’s quite easy to build it fully free.
For the basis system you just have to download, compile and install GNU Linux-libre instead of the classical Linux kernel shipped by kernel.org.
For the rest (BLFS) you have to be aware of the license of the package you’re installing, but that isn’t so difficult.
Since LFS/BLFS is not a distribution but a *book* it can’t be qualified of “free” or not, since *you* determine what will be the final system. ;)
Is there an already existing distro that is in line with the FSF ideals?
Yes, several (even if only a few), as I said: https://gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html.
I use Debian for servers at the moment and I am looking into Debian or Arch as a desktop distro.
Debian is fine because it is more upstream, known and stable. Therefore it is fine *until you don’t use nonfree repository* which ships proprietary software for “users who should absolutely use it”, to “make them still use Debian instead of something even less free”. Their wiki even recommend several times to install nonfree software without even warning the user about its implications.
This approach is wrong and doesn’t even try —as do Trisquel or Parabola— to fully base itself on education rather than consciousness (“you have to buy a free-friendly wifi card to have wifi to stay free, see, it’s not *so* expensive, it’s quite quick and easy” instead of “Oh yeah you can just install the proprietary driver doing this”).
So Debian is fine is you’re a warned user who can know the implications of using proprietary software and will know to not use them even with the wiki (and people on IRC) promoting nonfree repo.
Otherwise, if for example you’re advising to switch to GNU/Linux some non-completely-warned friend, and you fear them to be invited to use proprietary software, you have gNewSense, a Debian-based FSF-financed distribution: http://www.gnewsense.org/.
And if you think something more “ubuntuish” would be more adapted to them but you don’t recommand Ubuntu and derivatives because of the obvious issues they have, you still have Trisquel, an Ubuntu-based fully free distribution (very fine): http://trisquel.info/
For Arch it’s quite simple, because some simple things allows to blacklist all proprietary software, with Parabola: http://parabolagnulinux.org/.
Hoping to help :)