Exe is a “Live Linux image” pre-configured with a selection of applications for general desktop use. The image, written to CD or USB, may be used to start almost any computer with an Intel or AMD processor and runs as a complete operating system.
The core system is a Devuan Linux base. Previous versions were based on Debian. Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) is preinstalled. No non-free software is included.
| Working state: | Active |
| Desktop: | Trinity |
| Init Software: | SysV |
| Package Management: | APT |
| Release Model: | Fixed |
| Platforms: | x86_64 |
| Home Page: | exegnulinux.net |
| Developer: | David Hare |
| This article is part of our Big List of Active Linux Distros which is currently under development. |
What's a Linux distribution ("distro")? |
| A distro provides the user with a desktop environment, preloaded applications, and ways to update and maintain the system. Each distro makes different choices, deciding which open source projects to install and provides custom written programs. They can have different philosophies. Some distros are intended for desktop computers, some for servers without a graphical interface, and others for special uses. Because Linux is an open source operating system, combinations of software vary between Linux distros. |
Would be nice if you highlight if distros are really open source or something else, for example this is a freeware remix created with refracta
Is it freeware? Why do you say that?
It is a remix, there is no public code or public development, it is the backup of an installation that someone uploaded, you can’t see the modifications or the history
Sticking a GPL license to an ISO image (a finished product) doesn’t make it open source
I wouldn’t describe an ISO a ‘finished’ product.
An ISO is merely an exact copy of an optical disk such as a CD, DVD, or Blu-ray archived into a single file. It has nothing to do with being a ‘finished’ or ‘unfinished’ product.
I’m not a legal expert re the GPL. My understanding is there’s no requirement in the GPL for public development, modifications, or history, and there’s no actual requirement under the GPL to publish the source code with a binary. But if software is to comply with the GPL, the source code must be made available on request.
I emailed the project to see if the source code is available on request but the email bounced. But that’s not definitive proof either way.
Given these sorts of difficulties with remixes, I’m not going to waste time on verifying if a distro/remix is complying with their stated license. But that doesn’t stop others from going through all the distro roundups I’m compiling and placing a comment on the relevant page(s).
I don’t think there’s any real merit in showing whether a distro is open source. In reality, the vast majority of Linux distros are almost exclusively software with various free (OSI-approved) software licenses, but still include some proprietary software such as proprietary drivers for graphics card and firmware for other devices. Sure there are distros which don’t include any proprietary software at all, but they are in the minority.
> no requirement in the GPL for public development, modifications, or history
No there isn’t, yet we are 30+ years in open source and Linux distros, let’s rise the bar of informations about this kind of stuff
> there’s no actual requirement under the GPL to publish the source code with a binary
There is to provide source
> I emailed the project to see if the source code is available on request but the email bounced
It is a remix, there isn’t source code, it is a backup of an installation
> Given these sorts of difficulties with remixes, I’m not going to waste time on verifying if a distro/remix is complying with their stated license.
The thing of giving a single license to a whole ISO is silly anyway, the kernel is GPL2 only and for example samba is GPL3 or later
A more deeper enquiry about distros would be nice, there as been so many in the last 30+ years, let’s differentiate between an open source project and “backup of an installation made by a single person where you can’t see changes or contribute; when the person stop to upload the iso/img the project is dead”
I’m just a volunteer contributing to this website. Nothing more nothing less. I don’t have the time to do any more than I’m already contributing.
BTW, external links are not permitted in comments.
> external links are not permitted in comments.
wasn’t aware of that, where can find the guidelines?
See the FAQ (point 6).
https://www.linuxlinks.com/faq/
I’m a volunteer too for all my Linux and open source stuff too
I didn’t ask the author to provide source code for his remix… Sigh. I asked for the source code to the packages provided. That’s actually the requirement for the GPL, to provide source code on request.
> It is a remix, there isn’t source code, it is a backup of an installation
You don’t really know that for certain. Maybe David Hare added his own code, maybe as patches, scripts, other code changes. Maybe that’s what David Hare means by attaching the GPL.
I can see why you might want a table entry showing whether a distro is a remix, flavour, spin, or heavily based on another distro, or an ‘independent’ distro.
Given that the main page with the list of active distros says it’s really just a stub at this time, maybe more info will be added in the future to each entry.
Generally speaking, software distributed under the GPL doesn’t have to distribute the source code with the binary. The key is that the source code has to be available if someone requests it.
Off-topic I know, but why aren’t external links allowed in comments?
A few reasons really:
1) Stop spam. Links in comments are automatically quarantined.
2) Bad links – we don’t want to edit users’ comments. If we allowed external links, we would either have to fix broken links or leave them. It probably wouldn’t be detrimental from a SEO perspective leaving bad links in comments as links in comments are nofollow. But broken links are just annoying from a user perspective.
3) Sometimes links are legit to start with, the domain expires, and a spammer gets control.
4) It’s time-consuming fixing links in our articles in any event. We’re just a small band of merry open source enthusiasts.
If someone wants to bring an external link to our attention, it’s best to drop us an email in the usual way.
I understand. Thanks Steve.