provectus

But I needed a Linux VM and somehow I couldn’t get the hypervisor to work with anything but BSD

Do you know about the linux-compat on FreeBSD? https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/linuxemu/

I also wish debian GNU/kfreeBSD was still a thing.

I just think a majority of people do not care about which OS they use, or even know what is an OS. The only way for GNU/Linux to become big is if companies start shipping it in computers instead of windows.

OSX also came from NextStep which came from the original BSD Unix. They used FreeBSD as well. OSX is also certified Unix starting from leopard. This year apple did not renew the certification, so later releases of macOS are not Unix, but Unix-like.

Linux is the second-most popular descendent of Unix, the first being OSX.

Linux is not really a descendant of Unix. It is a Unix clone, but its roots do not trace back to Unix.

NetBSD has a clear stance on no ai.

Yeah, I am worried that we are becoming too dependent on Linux(kernel) and systemd. I think it would be very hard to maintain a fork of Linux and systemd because their codebases are very large, and develop at a really fast pace (ai will make this even worse).

Of course these are my opinions, but I wonder if anyone shares them as well besides me.

From what I understand from the article is that public domain’s legality can be questioned (especially in germany), therefore they conclude that it is not opensource, similar to how releasing software with no license is not OSS. That is where licenses like in the article CC0 come in play and unlicense to help create legal public-domain-like software.

In templeOS case

TempleOS is 100% open source with all source present.

From https://github.com/cia-foundation/TempleOS/blob/archive/ReadMe.TXT

templeos is public domain, which is incompatible with open source

Where did you come up with that conclusion?

Public domain just means you waive your copyrights. Unlicense is a license that helps you get your piece of software into public domain and is OSI approved. I prefer public domain over permissive licenses because it is easier to release a gpl version of them over permissive licenses (public domain does not have any restrictions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain_software

Yeah no problem. I originally thought macOS was based off FreeBSD, but someone in the forums corrected me and I did research to find he was right.

I believe the worst example of what could happen if you use a permissive license is MINIX. It runs the closed source spyware, Intel ME. This makes MINIX the most used OS in the world though.

as an example, the OS for Mac OS, the PS3, as well as the Nintendo Switches, are all just closed, proprietary versions of OpenBSD.

No, they are not. MacOS’s kernel, Darwin, uses some FreeBSD code. MacOS is not a closed version of openBSD. I think macOS mostly is derived from NeXTstep. The PlayStation OS is a closed fork of FreeBSD. Nintendo switch made its own OS using FreeBSD networking code.

Same, here, but I think also my thinkpad is not powerful enough for guix (Intel core duo).

Ubuntu is fine. When you get your PC, you can see for yourself and decide. If Ubuntu just works for you, stick with it, if it is a bad experience, try another GNU/Linux distro. Be aware though that the back end of the appstore in Ubuntu is proprietary/closed-source/nonfree/bad.

systemd vs sysv

There is no systemd vs sysv war. It is systemd suck or systemd fine.

Yes, but does anyone actually use LGPL still?

That does not matter. I think glibc uses it, not sure.

Anyway that is a different license and not really GPL anymore, as it does not force anything.

It forces people to give back to LGPL code. It is a weak copy left. I do not know what you mean by being GPL.

If they were LGPL from the start, yes, that probably would solve it.

That is my point.

Do you know about the LGPL license? I think it allows you to statically link proprietary code, and the LGPL code remains open while the closed code remains closed. Modified and distributed lgpl still remain under the LGPL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

The corporate adoption on uutils already started.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/core-utils/overview

Windows is now using uutils for their coreutils. I want to see if Microsoft gives back anything to the project with that permissive license. Also, aren’t canonical and Microsoft partners or something? I saw the Ubuntu wsl news.

Check this out. The Hurd is just a collection of translators, which are kinda like fuse. https://gitlab.com/AlmuHS/hurd-translator-in-rust

The GNU Hurd. Keep laughing, it will get there.

Edit: instead of outright promoting the GNU Hurd, I will give my reasons.

1. The architecture of the Hurd is very scalable compared to other kernels. It does not need much rewriting to adapt to modern technology. Rewriting the Hurd in rust is much easier than other kernels.

2. It is a GNU project so if it does succeed, we can spread the Free software philosophy to others. It also means that corpo’s cannot influence it.

3. It is GPLv2 or later, so that is nice to have.

4. It holds all the benefits of a microkernel.

There is probably more, but they are not as important to me personally.