Re: [DNG] Which is free, which is open source, et al.

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 04:26:17AM +0100, arne wrote: [cut] > > Devuan is not Linux, and RedHat is not Sun Microsystems, but we'll see > > how it goes. According to some professionals and experts in the field, > > Devuan should not even exist. Nevertheless, a lot of users are having > > a lot of

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:47:18 +0100 Antony Stone wrote: > On Friday 12 January 2018 at 18:23:19, Steve Litt wrote: > > > Just speaking for myself, because of its deliberate obfuscations > > making integration extremely difficult, I don't consider SystemD to >

Re: [DNG] Which is free, which is open source, et al.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 00:43:15 + KatolaZ wrote: > Sun Microsystems had a huge lot of money back in the late 90s. They > desperately wanted total domination over the entry and mid-level > server segment. They also had a lot of exposure and a respected > legacy. They were

Re: [DNG] Controlling screen brightness

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:20:06AM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote: >     The brightness is controlled through 3 files in > /sys/class/backlight/intel_backlight, named actual_brightness, brightness > and max_brightness. > >     The brightness can be controlled by writing to these files. But these >

Re: [DNG] Which is free, which is open source, et al.

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:18:00AM +, William C Vaughan wrote: [cut] > > From the perspective of a retired programmer/analyst, now dilletante, you > Dejuan folks are on the precipice of success. See the forest over the > trees, get your message out as an upstream solution to Linux in the >

Re: [DNG] Which is free, which is open source, et al.

Devuan, Dejuan it. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:17 PM William C Vaughan wrote: > Lurker here. Following this stuff for a couple of years, playing with > Dejuan and its downstream variants with some success, some failures, but > always interesting. I’m very empathetic to

[DNG] Which is free, which is open source, et al.

Lurker here. Following this stuff for a couple of years, playing with Dejuan and its downstream variants with some success, some failures, but always interesting. I’m very empathetic to Steve Litt’s feelings on the systemd stuff, and am particularly inspired to reply to the latest missive on the

[DNG] Previous post

Dang. Apologize for all the drek following my previous post. Posted to a collective of the dng list, ignoring reply protocol. Should have replied like this, without all the “he said, she said, it said” stuff following. Good luck with your distro. I hope it is successful, from my old philosophical

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

On Friday 12 January 2018 at 23:28:14, Rick Moen wrote: > I wrote: > > > Don't advance this argument that X isn't free software because its >^ > > source code is too difficult for a third-party fork to adopt and > > maintain in practice unless you're also

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com): > I don't think the definitions of free software and open source > anticipated a form of obfuscation so powerful that a simple computer > program couldn't de-obfuscate it. Don't advance this argument that X isn't free software because its source

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:23:19PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: [cut] > > Which comes around to the original question about free software: Is > SystemD really free software? > > Obviously, by the FSF definition of free software and the current > definition of open source, yes it is. By the letter

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

I think systemd plays by the rules as regards both Free and Open Source software, where it falls short is when it comes to the Debian Manifesto https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ap-manifesto.en.html The Manifesto really foresees the situation that has been allowed to occur

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

Antony Stone wrote: >So what do you classify it as? > >Proprietary? Closed source? Commercial? > >What label works best for you? Malware? (Admit you left the door open for that one and we'll move on.) Perhaps it's not really bad by intent, but like a few other well-known companies, and in

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

On Friday 12 January 2018 at 18:23:19, Steve Litt wrote: > Just speaking for myself, because of its deliberate obfuscations making > integration extremely difficult, I don't consider SystemD to be free > software. So what do you classify it as? Proprietary? Closed source? Commercial? What

Re: [DNG] Which is Free, Which is Open Source, is there any difference?

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:35:58 -0500 Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:57:54AM +0100, KatolaZ wrote: > > > > Technical motivations have always been too feeble to cause > > revolutions. We are not here just because systemd is technically > > flawed (as we

[DNG] Controlling screen brightness

    Hello.     I am using xfce4 on my laptop with an Intel LVDS screen.     The brightness is controlled through 3 files in /sys/class/backlight/intel_backlight, named actual_brightness, brightness and max_brightness.     The brightness can be controlled by writing to these files. But