Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
There are currently no FSF-approved BSD distributions, and not many designed for servers. Do the GNU/Linux-libre distributions need separate design to be useful on servers? LibertyBSD is a fork of OpenBSD that contains only free software. That is, the firmware blobs - both distributed with the system, and downloaded at first boot - have been removed. How do you check if there are any blobs left or if new upstream releases add them? Do you change or remove userspace packages? (GNU/Linux distros usually need to adapt man pages and programs recommending nonfree software, and remove several nonfree programs.) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
At Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:12 -0800, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: welcome This delightful News I have some suggestions - Replace clang to gcc Well, it's based on OpenBSD, which uses clang or gcc based on the architecture (as clang does not support all of the architectures that OpenBSD does). Further, the switch to clang was pretty recent. Using GCC probably would be pretty easy. (to those on the gnu-linux-libre list: the original email was forwarded to the Parabola dev list, whre a couple of other replies happened) -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 30/12/14 07:13, Luke Shumaker wrote: At Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:43:42 +1100, Riley Baird wrote: On 29/12/14 15:31, Jason Self wrote: Riley Baird orthogo...@librewrt.org wrote .. So, it is with great excitement that I announce today LibertyBSD. I wonder if there is an advantage to work with the people of NuBSD [0] instead of starting another free BSD? I hadn't heard of them. It seems that they're system is based on FreeBSD, though. In any case, since I've already finished making LibertyBSD, I don't see any point in not releasing it. If I'm not mistaken, NuBSD is eventually going to have a variant based of of each of the popular BSDs. NuBSD Fire is FreeBSD. There are plans for eventual Air, Aqua, and Earth variants based on the other popular BSDs (I'm not sure which is which); though Fire is being prioritized as a first release. Ah, I didn't know that; I thought they were only working on FreeBSD. I'll contact them to let them know about LibertyBSD.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
I wonder if there is an advantage to work with the people of NuBSD [0] instead of starting another free BSD? I hadn't heard of them. It seems that they're system is based on FreeBSD, though. In any case, since I've already finished making LibertyBSD, I don't see any point in not releasing it. All NuBSD work that I know about is the wiki and an incomplete deblobbing script. (All that I currently do for NuBSD is wiki hosting.) In my experience, every person interested in FSDG-freeing a BSD distro prefers a different BSD distro, so due to limited time of a single contributor no such project has enough work done to be posted on this list. Yours might change this. I already strongly recommend against using the ports tree. However, the BSDs being what they are, a ports tree fetched two weeks from now may not work on a release downloaded today. It's the same if you mix repos for different versions of a GNU/Linux distro. For this reason, I would like to provide the tarball of a working ports tree, such that people can work on deblobbing it if they wish to do so. Otherwise, there is no hope of ever having a free ports tree. Deblobbing can be done incrementally, with scripts that adapt a current revision of the upstream ports tree into one compliant with the FSDG. This might be similar to how Parabola or Trisquel removes some packages and modifies the rest (with nice scripts editing source packages in Trisquel). signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 30/12/14 07:17, Michał Masłowski wrote: There are currently no FSF-approved BSD distributions, and not many designed for servers. Do the GNU/Linux-libre distributions need separate design to be useful on servers? Yes. Most GNU/Linux-libre distributions have a GUI and various other unnecessary, potentially vulnerable programs. These are useful for desktop users, but not for server users. LibertyBSD is a fork of OpenBSD that contains only free software. That is, the firmware blobs - both distributed with the system, and downloaded at first boot - have been removed. How do you check if there are any blobs left or if new upstream releases add them? OpenBSD has a strict policy against non-free software, making an exception for microcode, which they don't see as software. They would not accept any other blobs, and if, in some strange accident, they did, then they would want to remove it very quickly once informed. Do you change or remove userspace packages? (GNU/Linux distros usually need to adapt man pages and programs recommending nonfree software, and remove several nonfree programs.) I don't think it is very practical to change the manpages to remove all reference to non-free software - I'd have to read every single manpage, and even then I'd probably miss some. I'm happy to accept patches for this once LibertyBSD is released, however.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 30/12/14 07:20, Luke Shumaker wrote: At Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:12 -0800, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: welcome This delightful News I have some suggestions - Replace clang to gcc Well, it's based on OpenBSD, which uses clang or gcc based on the architecture (as clang does not support all of the architectures that OpenBSD does). Further, the switch to clang was pretty recent. Using GCC probably would be pretty easy. (to those on the gnu-linux-libre list: the original email was forwarded to the Parabola dev list, whre a couple of other replies happened) Is there any significant reason, other than the license, that gcc is better than clang? I really don't want to deviate too much from upstream, and as long as the license is free, I don't see a problem. If it's about the license, I can see that OpenBSD's, or Debian's decision of which compiler to use would be influential, and thus they should use gcc. But LibertyBSD is not likely to be influential, so I don't see the point in changing the default compiler.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 30/12/14 07:29, Michał Masłowski wrote: I wonder if there is an advantage to work with the people of NuBSD [0] instead of starting another free BSD? I hadn't heard of them. It seems that they're system is based on FreeBSD, though. In any case, since I've already finished making LibertyBSD, I don't see any point in not releasing it. All NuBSD work that I know about is the wiki and an incomplete deblobbing script. (All that I currently do for NuBSD is wiki hosting.) In my experience, every person interested in FSDG-freeing a BSD distro prefers a different BSD distro, so due to limited time of a single contributor no such project has enough work done to be posted on this list. Yours might change this. That's exactly what I hope. But I need the help of the free software community for this to become a reality. You can: 1. Make a donation to 1BFQEqzhxTbvfjZ3f9eoTbeEBgJdkVcj4m 2. Buy a pre-release copy. I've already had one order, so contact me for more details. 3. Help my submission to Slashdot be accepted: http://slashdot.org/submission/4088331/openbsd-forked-to-remove-non-free-firmware I already strongly recommend against using the ports tree. However, the BSDs being what they are, a ports tree fetched two weeks from now may not work on a release downloaded today. It's the same if you mix repos for different versions of a GNU/Linux distro. From OpenBSD's FAQ, it seems to be a lot worse: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#NoFun For this reason, I would like to provide the tarball of a working ports tree, such that people can work on deblobbing it if they wish to do so. Otherwise, there is no hope of ever having a free ports tree. Deblobbing can be done incrementally, with scripts that adapt a current revision of the upstream ports tree into one compliant with the FSDG. This might be similar to how Parabola or Trisquel removes some packages and modifies the rest (with nice scripts editing source packages in Trisquel). That's a good idea. But let's see if we can at least get the base released first. :)
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 12/30/2014 09:45 AM, Riley Baird wrote: Is there any significant reason, other than the license, that gcc is better than clang? I really don't want to deviate too much from upstream, and as long as the license is free, I don't see a problem. If it's about the license, I can see that OpenBSD's, or Debian's decision of which compiler to use would be influential, and thus they should use gcc. But LibertyBSD is not likely to be influential, so I don't see the point in changing the default compiler. If you were going to pick apart something because of the license, you probably wouldn't be doing BSD in the first place. BSD licensing is horrible, and does nothing to prevent antagonists from appropriating your code and not sharing their changes with you. Whilst I think that LibertyBSD is an interesting project, and possibly edifying to its developers, it is like fishing ice cubes out of an ocean filled with iceburgs, freedomwise. --
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
Michał Masłowski asked: Do the GNU/Linux-libre distributions need separate design to be useful on servers? Riley Baird replied: Yes. Most GNU/Linux-libre distributions have a GUI and various other unnecessary, potentially vulnerable programs. These are useful for desktop users, but not for server users. That's just what packages are installed by default, not an argument to why the underlying system itself needs to be designed differently. Seems more a perception thing. If your point is over what packages are installed by default then Trisquel, gNewSense, and Parabola all have minimal ISO images which are enough to boot your computer, bring up networking, and then install exactly (and only) what you say to, thereby eliminating all of that stuff you mentioned. (And really that copy of Postfix I install on my server is the same as that which I'd get from most any other system.)
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 30/12/14 11:19, Jason Self wrote: Michał Masłowski asked: Do the GNU/Linux-libre distributions need separate design to be useful on servers? Riley Baird replied: Yes. Most GNU/Linux-libre distributions have a GUI and various other unnecessary, potentially vulnerable programs. These are useful for desktop users, but not for server users. That's just what packages are installed by default, not an argument to why the underlying system itself needs to be designed differently. Seems more a perception thing. If your point is over what packages are installed by default then Trisquel, gNewSense, and Parabola all have minimal ISO images which are enough to boot your computer, bring up networking, and then install exactly (and only) what you say to, thereby eliminating all of that stuff you mentioned. (And really that copy of Postfix I install on my server is the same as that which I'd get from most any other system.) To some degree, what you're saying is true, but LibertyBSD is generally easier to setup as a server. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from using it as a desktop, it just takes more effort.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
Better is very broad. Most people in these lists would see the GPL as an advantage, but none would deny that Clang or LLVM are essentially free and compatible (maybe after some proofreading work) with the FSF's Free System Distribution Guidelines. As much as I prefer GCC and the GNU GPL in general, I wouldn't like to see precious efforts going to porting your OpenBSD spinoff back to GCC before actually making it a wholly free system. Not that I'm going to tell you how to spend your time, but getting a wholly free BSD is obviously the real issue here. To be honest I like the idea of staying as close as possible to upstream OpenBSD while also meeting the FSF standards, so OpenBSD users feel attracted to make the jump. I think this was your original intention. If manpower is scarce, ask no more and keep Clang (assuming it doesn't need further liberation-wise tuning). There are some points that I would like to ask though, because your emails and website didn't clarify them for me: How do we know beforehand that LibertyBSD is actually compliant with the FSDG? Why are you so confident that it will make it to the FSF list? Don't get me wrong, I don't underestimate your work and knowledge but I'm afraid that my donation might go to a dead end. I think going a bit more technical about what you are deblobbing and how you achieve it helps. Assuming some trusted third party reviews your work and confirms it is libre, how will LibertyBSD be maintained? I look at all the work that Parabola hackers for instance undergo in order to clean up a GNU/Linux distro that is allegedly easy to clean, and I tell myself Hell, this is though. Have you considered building a community? Some organisation like the FSF might want to help you complete the crowdfunding, but then what? On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Riley Baird orthogo...@librewrt.org wrote: On 30/12/14 07:20, Luke Shumaker wrote: At Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:12 -0800, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: welcome This delightful News I have some suggestions - Replace clang to gcc Well, it's based on OpenBSD, which uses clang or gcc based on the architecture (as clang does not support all of the architectures that OpenBSD does). Further, the switch to clang was pretty recent. Using GCC probably would be pretty easy. (to those on the gnu-linux-libre list: the original email was forwarded to the Parabola dev list, whre a couple of other replies happened) Is there any significant reason, other than the license, that gcc is better than clang? I really don't want to deviate too much from upstream, and as long as the license is free, I don't see a problem. If it's about the license, I can see that OpenBSD's, or Debian's decision of which compiler to use would be influential, and thus they should use gcc. But LibertyBSD is not likely to be influential, so I don't see the point in changing the default compiler. ___ Dev mailing list d...@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Isaac David Reyes González isacdaa...@gmail.com wrote: Hell, this is though. Tough I mean
