The ocean can’t wait too. It’s cooking something.

fsck

5 painful seconds

Damn and does it work as an init too? xD.

Wait linux community is removing maintainters because of their nationality???!!

(Optional)

There’s a CH34A fix. I had a lot of problems with the cables that come with the CH34A.

In any case you should always refer to this.

Devs should use crossplatform engines. No C# based crap.

Nice one more libre software protected!

Nintendo should be burned

It’s probably because another backdoor microcode embedded in southbridge firmware.

Someone recompile it fast, hahah

It’s a way of explicitly remarking the free part. Before OSI’s definition Open Source referred to permissive licences. In most cases it still refers to permissive licences, thus the clear distinction is relevant.

Unless people starts to refer to BSD, Apache and similar as open source permissive in order to differenciate with open source copyleft (or similar).

Otherwise I feel is completely relevant to refer to copyleft software as Free Software. It helps both to show that there’s differences between both and also makes new people realize that there are different alternatives.

Putting GPL (copyleft) licences in the same bag as BSD-like (Open source and similar, permissive) licences is prejudicial for the FOSS environment.

While Open Source licencea are better than privative ones, they still do not defend the software freedom. Thus making them equivalent to GPL-like licences is misleading.

Users that do not have much knowledge about software freedom may think that Open Source projects are as free as GPL-like ones. This could mean that users end trusting this software as much as GPL-like one.

Open Source does not respect software freedom which in turn means that it also does not defend user freedom.

Putting Free software and Open Source as the same concept is dangerous. Companies prefer Open Source licences because they are able to not respect the software freedom.

If Free Software and Open Source is treated as equal, then those companies can disguise themselves as something they aren’t.

In internet different people reads what you post. Talking with property is important in order to not fool possible new users.

You could for example know the difference between both licences but someone reading you could not.

Swapping concepts of projects that explicitly are Free Software and advertising them as Open Source is a quite disrespectful statement against the creators of those projects.

It’s like confusing left from right. It completely negates the intentions they had when opting for a Free Software licence.

If you are not able to distinguish them at least refer them as FOSS as some kind of respectful attempt.

You realize that Linux is not Open Source. The open source parts of Android are mostly of the google ones (AOSP).

FreeBSD is an Open Source OS.

macOS uses the lack of defense that BSD provides (for Darwin). That’s what Open Source licences are.

There are more examples of Open Source project:

MINIX 3 -> Derives into one of the worst pieces of malware ever. The Intel Management Engine.

There is no such Open Source licence infringement. Open Source licences like BSD clause 3 are permissive in every aspect (well maybe not in TM part). They are so open that they allow restricting the freedom of the software.

Linus Torvalds already stated (LinuxCon 2016):

Over the years I’ve become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don’t care about. I’ll use it myself. If there’s a library routine that I just want to say ‘hey, this is useful to anybody and I’m not going to maintain this,’ I’ll put it under the BSD license.

Referring to Free (libre) Software as Open Source is a disqualification of those projects and their philosophy.

Open source? Hmmm MacOs? Android?

I come from Debian stable so…

I’m currently ending the Guix manual. I want to add freetube and N64recompiled packages. Didn’t know it’s difficult to get patches or packages update to mainstream.

It’s a bit funny that the records that Guix uses are not the baseline records of the Guile api but modified ones. And the documentation in some low-level regards is scarce.

But using Guix opens up endless options and more importantly it helps you manage and learn how to setup operating systems.

Guix System. The way that this distro keeps track of changes of the distro itself. The concept of having a store where everything you build is stored there with write protection. The fact that you can configure not only the system but every home environment to every detail but without having to deal with various configuration files that you keep track of it.

The fact that all builds are bit by bit reproducible. The extensibility you have in your system.

It’s the first distro I feel that nothing in your own OS instance is tied to any distro decisions.

The fact that you can have multiple versions of the same library without breaking the system.

It has a lot of things that I never thought it could be possible with a distro without going crazy about creating a very messy configuration.