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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Isaac David Reyes González
isacdaa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, this is though.
Tough I mean
12 matches
Mail list logo
