Hey Jonathan, Why on earth did it take 12 hours indeed! Primarily because I started with a .vdi on virtualbox and that was useless so then I snagged an .iso and installed that. Many attempts to download ports because of network errors, which I obviously resolved. I didn't want to be root user but have my user account and that was made more difficult by having to get X11 working as I also wanted a GUI and had to set up conf files that weren't automagically set up. (It is a 20 minute install with no GUI!) I had to append several of them, adding glarb from my google searches to them and also using my sad intuitive abilities to determine where these files were or if they needed to be created. Yes and yes. I'm using MATE primarily because of the modifications and additions, again, to files to get Gnome3, according to the wiki (not ready for 11 apparently from the messages on the forums. I'd like to know how you installed it) or KDE, which I don't care for. I also added the guest additions which are not installed as they are for any other guest OS. I only do this to play with a UNIX OS and to learn from that. Linux is not UNIX, as you know, so I'm interested to expand my knowledge base. I have installed and played with Slackware and tried Gentoo but it is not easy (Gentoo). My FOSS ? is to get a sense of it. I'm all FOSS as much as possible but veer from time to time for ease of use. Like, is there a FOSS version of googleearth? No. and I used GE to create maps that I needed for my defense in a felony case against me from Standing Rock. Blew the prosecution away as the maps completely contradicted the affidavits of the "witnesses" and police. I would have had a very difficult time doing that work otherwise. So power to FOSS! But when push comes to shove and there's no real alternative....well? On 12/31/18 2:31 PM, Jonathan Haack wrote:
Brian,
Why on earth did it take 12 hours? I have freeBSD 12 (recently upgraded) running on a 2GB Core 2 Duo and it took maybe 30 minutes to install freeBSD on it (10 and 11).
I am also curious ... have you thrown a GUI on it? I got GNOME3 on my instance, but I saw that they finally upgraded to a respectable version of KDE (not my thing)._[Update - I read closer, you used MATE, but spelled it Mate so I missed it.] _ Lastly ... what are you doing with this? And why freeBSD instead of Slackware or Gentoo? Is it just preference or are there technical reasons.
Also ... imho, the BSD license is not FOSS. Its OS (open source) - and I think post-TIVOization, that open source and free software mean different things now. Sorry if I trigger anyone ... just my opinion. Free to use to anyone without restriction is different than building a set of compacts around freedom that guide something's use.
All the best - feel free to email me atjonathan@jonathanhaack.com ... but I included the list at first since GLUG is this Thursday ... and I still think freeBSD is cool.
Jonathan --
On 12/31/18 2:31 PM, Jonathan Haack wrote:
Also ... imho, the BSD license is not FOSS. Its OS (open source) - and I think post-TIVOization, that open source and free software mean different things now. Sorry if I trigger anyone ... just my opinion.
That opinion isn't shared by the FSF, who consider permissive licenses to be "free" by their own definition. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html Of course, FSF does claim that "free" and "open source" are different. But they don't claim that permissive licenses, as a type, are not free. By your definition, Linux would not be FOSS, since the kernel is licensed under the GPL version 2, and subject to Tivoization. The FSF came up with the term "Tivoization" in response to the kernel's license. -- Anthony J. Bentley
Since GNU HERD OS development pretty much stopped (I did install it a few years back and it was marginally usable) then there is really no Stallman approved FOSS OS, is there? On 12/31/18 3:38 PM, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
On 12/31/18 2:31 PM, Jonathan Haack wrote:
Also ... imho, the BSD license is not FOSS. Its OS (open source) - and I think post-TIVOization, that open source and free software mean different things now. Sorry if I trigger anyone ... just my opinion. That opinion isn't shared by the FSF, who consider permissive licenses to be "free" by their own definition.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
Of course, FSF does claim that "free" and "open source" are different. But they don't claim that permissive licenses, as a type, are not free.
By your definition, Linux would not be FOSS, since the kernel is licensed under the GPL version 2, and subject to Tivoization. The FSF came up with the term "Tivoization" in response to the kernel's license.
--
I think the FSF installs Trisquel Linux on their work laptops: https://trisquel.info/ I still run Debian, but am increasingly tempted to give a serious shot to a systemd-free OS like Devuan. On 19-01-01 08:01:40, Brian O'Keefe wrote:
Since GNU HERD OS development pretty much stopped (I did install it a few years back and it was marginally usable) then there is really no Stallman approved FOSS OS, is there?
On 12/31/18 3:38 PM, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
On 12/31/18 2:31 PM, Jonathan Haack wrote:
Also ... imho, the BSD license is not FOSS. Its OS (open source) - and I think post-TIVOization, that open source and free software mean different things now. Sorry if I trigger anyone ... just my opinion. That opinion isn't shared by the FSF, who consider permissive licenses to be "free" by their own definition.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
Of course, FSF does claim that "free" and "open source" are different. But they don't claim that permissive licenses, as a type, are not free.
By your definition, Linux would not be FOSS, since the kernel is licensed under the GPL version 2, and subject to Tivoization. The FSF came up with the term "Tivoization" in response to the kernel's license.
--
_______________________________________________ nmglug mailing list nmglug@lists.nmglug.org http://lists.nmglug.org/listinfo.cgi/nmglug-nmglug.org
I think I meant HURD? Anyway, I'll check out Devuan as I've never heard (no pun intended) of it. So FSF uses Linux? Hmmm... Brian On 1/1/19 8:42 AM, Casey Dentinger wrote:
I think the FSF installs Trisquel Linux on their work laptops:
I still run Debian, but am increasingly tempted to give a serious shot to a systemd-free OS like Devuan.
On 19-01-01 08:01:40, Brian O'Keefe wrote:
Since GNU HERD OS development pretty much stopped (I did install it a few years back and it was marginally usable) then there is really no Stallman approved FOSS OS, is there?
On 12/31/18 3:38 PM, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
On 12/31/18 2:31 PM, Jonathan Haack wrote:
Also ... imho, the BSD license is not FOSS. Its OS (open source) - and I think post-TIVOization, that open source and free software mean different things now. Sorry if I trigger anyone ... just my opinion. That opinion isn't shared by the FSF, who consider permissive licenses to be "free" by their own definition.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
Of course, FSF does claim that "free" and "open source" are different. But they don't claim that permissive licenses, as a type, are not free.
By your definition, Linux would not be FOSS, since the kernel is licensed under the GPL version 2, and subject to Tivoization. The FSF came up with the term "Tivoization" in response to the kernel's license.
-- _______________________________________________ nmglug mailing list nmglug@lists.nmglug.org http://lists.nmglug.org/listinfo.cgi/nmglug-nmglug.org
nmglug mailing list nmglug@lists.nmglug.org http://lists.nmglug.org/listinfo.cgi/nmglug-nmglug.org
--
participants (3)
-
Anthony J. Bentley -
Brian O'Keefe -
Casey Dentinger