2007/12/12, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...]
> that there is a ports.tar.gz file on the CD. > > HOWEVER, that file is not installed by default, and the OpenBSD > install program *does not even give the user the option* to install > ports.tar.gz, be it from CD or otherwise. See here: > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Filesets On OpenBSD: for install (a few) non-free (for someone) software (non developed by OpenBSD), you need to manually cp, tar, search, cd, make etc... and it is _unrecomended_ On gnewsense: wget the .deb and then dpkg -i package.deb, or add a repository (manually or from a gtk interface) and using latter another interfaces (apt/aptitude/sinaptyc/etc) for install A_LOT of shit. A_LOT is a relation about 10000:1 compared whit openbsd ports (may be short). On OpenBSD, you have a tool to install (a few) non-free licensed programs, the Ports (Makefiles), but this tool is not designed or intended for promote non-free software. On gnewsense, you have A LOOT of tools to install non-free licensed, Makefiles, .debs, dpkg, apt, aptitude, sinaptyc, kpackage. Also whit apt-url, you can install non-free software only "clicking" on a url (yes, like IE5,6,7) This is on userland. But if you go to the heart of the system, take a look on the .h files of the fat .tgz of the linux kernel... you will find a lot of "intersting" comments about licenses. I would like to know, from all the users of gnewsense or ututo, how many of them have some of: non-free blobs, firmwares, drivers, aplications, codecs, java, flash, or other shits... and how many OpenBSD have any... compared in percent. B?is recomendable one, the other or bot? Greetings
