|
|
Void
Jun 2, 2016 21:47:34 GMT -6
Post by Skalle on Jun 2, 2016 21:47:34 GMT -6
Most excellent. I was so mad when Debian reverted me to systemd. I rebooted and was like, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!11111!! Runit is pretty cool, and I have all the software I need. It's actually kind of a good thing to get away from the AUR, since it's pretty insecure. It also removes the temptation to install nonfree software.
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 6, 2016 11:56:38 GMT -6
Post by bowtiev8 on Jun 6, 2016 11:56:38 GMT -6
That's always a good thing (not being tempted to install nonfree software).
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 6, 2016 22:02:45 GMT -6
Post by Skalle on Jun 6, 2016 22:02:45 GMT -6
I think the FSF might be a little too strict on its list of approved distros. If nonfree software isn't enabled by default in a distro, I think it should count. Like Debian and Fedora, for instance... you have to jump through hoops to put nonfree software on your computer. Same with Void, of course.
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 8, 2016 12:07:36 GMT -6
Post by bowtiev8 on Jun 8, 2016 12:07:36 GMT -6
Yeah, or they could at least put in a comment saying it's approved in its default state. I also don't understand why they say FLOSS is being neutral.
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 8, 2016 13:40:01 GMT -6
Post by Skalle on Jun 8, 2016 13:40:01 GMT -6
What do you mean? I know they disapprove of FOSS.
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 13, 2016 11:11:45 GMT -6
Post by bowtiev8 on Jun 13, 2016 11:11:45 GMT -6
Comment from the GNU site: "Thus, if you want to be neutral between free software and open source, and clear about them, the way to achieve that is to say “FLOSS,” not “FOSS.” We in the free software movement don't use either of these terms, because we don't want to be neutral on the political question. We stand for freedom, and we show it every time—by saying “free” and “libre”." www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html |
|
|
|
Void
Jun 13, 2016 14:57:57 GMT -6
Post by Skalle on Jun 13, 2016 14:57:57 GMT -6
Oh, I missed that. I thought the free software side of the debate used FLOSS. Apparently not.
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 14, 2016 12:13:26 GMT -6
Post by bowtiev8 on Jun 14, 2016 12:13:26 GMT -6
I don't understand their stand of it, since I believe to ensure full Libre software, it will also have to be open source to you can study the source code for yourself so you know exactly what is going on.
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 14, 2016 19:56:48 GMT -6
Post by Skalle on Jun 14, 2016 19:56:48 GMT -6
I knew RMS dislikes the term "open source." His take is that it's an issue of pragmatism vs. ethics. "Open source" is more of a pragmatic stance, saying such software is technically superior and therefore should be used, meanwhile "free software" is concerned with the issue of freedom for users. I think at this point I'm somewhere in the middle at this point... if someone wants to enslave themselves to non-free garbage, that's their problem, but I personally won't, and there's no point in arguing with people who won't see your point of view. Like my wife... she doesn't want to use free software. Fine, don't, but don't expect me to violate my principles by using proprietary garbage. (And I do think F[L]OSS is generally technically superior, but as RMS says, that's not the point.)
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 16, 2016 15:23:16 GMT -6
Post by bowtiev8 on Jun 16, 2016 15:23:16 GMT -6
I agree with most of it, and that's why I want FLOSS and not FOSS. That way you can get the transparency and combine it with the Libre philosophy. In other words, good quality free (Libre) software with the transparency of having the source code available to you.
|
|
|
|
Void
Jun 16, 2016 16:48:27 GMT -6
Post by Skalle on Jun 16, 2016 16:48:27 GMT -6
You must also be able to change and distribute the code! See also the thread on "what is free software."  |
|
|
|
Void
Jan 13, 2020 8:12:26 GMT -6
Post by Ellnake on Jan 13, 2020 8:12:26 GMT -6
Value Of Propecia <a href=http://cialibuy.com>Cialis</a> Buy Generic Plavix Canada Foro Cialis Original
|
|
