Void linux. Package managers. Alternative to AUR?
TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe @ TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe @lemmy.world Posts 10Comments 217Joined 2 yr. ago
TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe @ TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe @lemmy.world
Posts
10
Comments
217
Joined
2 yr. ago
xbps-src is both a tool to build official packages from source and a way to install Void's "official AUR packages". Meaning packages that are maintained by Void/Arch devs but for whatever reason do not belong to the main repository. That's the only way it's comparable to the AUR.
But saying that xbps-src is like the AUR is very misleading because it lacks the "U" part. Official AUR packages are only a small part of the AUR.
The difference between Android and "proper" Linux? You said it:
Android is a semi-immutable (heavily modified and basically owned by Google) distro that runs app in sandboxes.
That is not what "tinkerers" want. They want access to the system. I have not tried it but can you even run an android app from the command line? I guess you can somehow but that just brings me to my other point. You kinda have to be an Android dev to tinker with Android, while on "proper" Linux the learning experience is more granular.
edit: indeed running Android apps from CLI is not very tinker-friendly:
It's nothing sophisticated. You just steal someone's phone number by calling their phone service provider pretending to be them. I don't know how serious this threat is but for this reason SMS is not considered secure in the "security circles".
https://www.howtogeek.com/358352/criminals-can-steal-your-phone-number-heres-how-to-stop-them/
The issue is that the banking app is often the only way to get 2 factor authentication. The other way is to use SMS but that can be hijacked by social engineering attacks so it cannot be considered secure.
I worded my comment badly. I was not talking about supply chain attacks, rather the ability to tinker on "proper" Linux which you don't get on Android.
The "know it better" is, I think, a big argument, that's imo often a bit overlooked. Android does not have that much "tinkers" as "proper" Linux has. For the average Gnome DE @ Ubuntu user, Android forks are fine. But if you're the kind of person, who optimizes their Arch system with cool scripts from Github, you won't get the same experience on LineageOS. I know Termux is a thing but that feels more like a workaround.
Edit: Had to reword the comment, because people thought I was talking about malware and supply chain attacks.
Edit2 to clarify my point: I think big downside of Android is that if you want to tinker with it, you basically have to be an android developer. With "proper" Linux the barrier to entry is smaller and the learning experience is more granular. Hence why we think "we know 'proper' Linux better".
It does not matter how powerful the phone is as long as the drivers suck. The original Pinephone would have been fine if it had proper standby mode. If this makes it to production, it's going to be ewaste. Judging by the fact that they don't mention software challenges and only focus on privacy/foss buzzwords and le epic HW specs.
What CPU do you have? Have you enabled hardware accelerated virtualization in the BIOS? Did you do any tweaking when running the VM? I had a Windows 10 VM on a 2013 laptop, so what you are describing might just be bad configuration.
Enabling virtualization in the BIOS is required for usable performance. Tweaks are optional but I highly recommend them because out of the box Windows VM feels pretty sluggish mainly because of bad graphics configuration. For that I use Quickemu which is a script that automatically sets up your VM for optimal performance. (Works for MacOS VMs too but I have not tried it) Finally you can try debloating your Windows 10 installation with Chris Titus' Winutil, which btw also includes some useful Windows tools like a GUI for package manager.
CLA is basically a requirement for any larger scale open source project. It would be mental to add a "this single edited line is licensed under X license" to every tiny commit. Microsoft's CLA does not tranfer rights btw, it just licenses your contribution to M$ under "basically BSD 0 clause license" terms.
I guess sure they could do a ragpull but it does not make much sense. Reasons:
- they have open sourced it themselves
- It's made by M$ for M$. They don't have competition in the Windows space, so there is no point to hide the code.
Also what would be the worst thing that could happen if they did that? You would either use a fork, because WSL2 is basically feature complete at this points, or you would be have to use a proprietary app on a proprietary OS. Imo the licensing of WSL specifically is the least of Windows' issues.
I actually do know what I'm talking about. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Though I advise you to read the whole article. They for example explain why you should charge "substantial fee" for redistribution of Free Software.
But you posted an image of Stallman with "absolutely proprietary" written inside said image. You can imply whatever you want but it's weird to add that image when Stallman would be completely fine with "pay-walling a free OS". Rather he would probably even encourage it.
The official python installer uses wpa_supplicant if it doesn't find NetworkManager. On my debian I was using wpa_supplicant for eduroam only because it could not "find" NetworkManager on my machine.
Ignoring Red Hat which according to the Software Freedom Conservancy organization they GPL violators.
But with Ubuntu it depends on whether you consider paid repositories features or support. Sure you can just compile it yourself but that's kinda the same thing Zorin is doing: https://lemmy.world/post/29546682/17016426
Stallman's usual take is "Yeah sure you can sell it, as long as you respect the 4 freedoms.". So I don't think selling Free Software is against the spirit of FOSS. The issue is rather that the Free Software is against the spirit of selling because realistically you can sell it to one entity which can then just make 7 billion copies of said software. At that point it's no longer financially viable to sell it for you.
I also think that the majority of people creating Free Software would be fine with someone else selling it. Remember how much permissive-licensed software is out there. If authors really cared, they would have licensed the software under GPL, but instead they even allow it to be used with commercial licensing. Obviously I'm not taking away your opinion, but I don't think your opinion represents the majority of FOSS.
According to this comment
https://lemmy.world/post/29546682/17016426
it's not absolutely proprietary. It's just Free Software they are selling, which is approved by Root Mean Square.
I know what kind of projects you are talking about, I just think it's kinda pointless to talk about "shifting focus" when 99 % of focus has already been shifted since forever. The projects you listed are really just hobby projects. It's kinda like saying people should stop working on "alternative" init systems and they should instead work on systemd. People working on hobby project won't suddenly shift to professional projects, because that would kinda ruin the hobby.
I see so many people here on Lemmy who are desperately waiting for Linux phones to replace their iPhones or Android phones
In my opinion it's similar situation with the users. I think people waiting for Linux proper phones aren't really waiting for a replacement for their Android phone, rather for a niche alternative for hackermen, like alternative init systems to systemd or Gentoo to Ubuntu. It doesn't have to be a drop in replacement, it just has to do the job (calls, sms, internet, camera, usable battery life). Right now it does not even do the job.
unless they use my discord server to spread those views
To me that's not controversial at all and does not suggest in the slightest that he's a fascist, National Socialist or whatever. And he isn't creating "safe spaces" for these kind of people either. A safe space to me means a place where said people can express their (stupid) opinion freely, which Vaxry according to this statement does not support. Also I don't have the exact quote but in a different episode of his blogpost saga he claimed that when some person was transphobic, said person was banned. So that would also be supporting evidence that he does not create safe spaces for bigots.
If we're talking strictly hypothetically, I'm a worse person than Vaxry because unlike me, he claims not to allow bigots to express their opinions in his dicksword server, while I am engaging in communication in a Lemmy community where being a fan of Mao or Stalin is allowed.
In the rest of the article he presents nazism as an opinion people might have that you disagree with.
He didn't say anything about Nazism being an opinion you disagree with.
He argues that his silent acceptance of nazis is the morally correct stance while inclusive communities are toxic actually.
He does argue that his stance is morally correct but what you said is not his stance. I think the following quote implies the point he's trying to make.
It's important to note that there are many people who disagree on topics like religion, economic systems, LGBT issues, geopolitics, and other. For whatever reasons they may, we still should not ostracize them as long as they can interact with the FOSS community in a respectful manner, without arguing about those issues in places not meant for such discussions.
I think his point is that him disallowing ostracising of people creates communities that tolerate all kinds of people including say, LGBT people. The Nazis would be collateral damage of inclusiveness, I suppose. I'm naming specifically LGBT, since in a different quote he's talking about illegal things in Hungary, which is famously a highly LGBT-discriminating country in the EU:
I stand by my stance that even if you are something that the country I live in disagrees with, you still are free to use, contribute to, and be a part of the greater FOSS community.
Also part of his point is that just because someone claims some other person is a bigot, does not mean that's actually true. The former person could just be lying or otherwise twisting the truth, therefore it's important to be inclusive:
They will try and find things that you do outside of your proffessional persona, or often infer, guess, meddle with, or lie about what you say and stand for.
The vast majority of the FOSS mobile development community has already shifted to AOSP. "Proper" mobile Linux has never been a serious thing except maybe during the Nokia N900 era (It was released in 2009.). So I don't really get what you're trying to say with that statement. Also the main thing that's lacking for mobile Linux are the drivers and hardware*, so there it does not really matter whether it's Linux "proper" or Android because the low level stuff is pretty much the same.
*With hardware I mean that the devices are not designed to be tinkered with unless it's Pinephone like Linux phone, where the problem are said drivers.
I stated why OP is painting a misleading picture about
xbps-srcin my other reply but I guess the only thing you missed isxi.xiis tool that allows you install both source and binary packages. So it's kinda likeyaywith the caveat, that there is no central place for user submitted packages.