The officially official Devuan Forum!

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Devuan Derivatives » JWM KIT love fest » Yesterday 17:15:41

zapper wrote:

Actually, Hyperbola devs don't trust adding rust for this reason:

As an aside:

"Open washing"  advances...

zapper wrote:

That being said, Hyperbola devs are in a bit of a pickle, because of palemoon devs going balisitic over some users not following their trademarks which resulted in a cascade of people removing their commits from uxp. So, unless that rust issue is fixed, or someone makes a build of firefox that doesn't require dbus to run, then alas, you will have to use a VM to do that stuff... ;(

Sadly, that's become what this situation has been reduced to.  Thank the palemoon devs for being a bunch of absolute morons. 

I was wrong about Palemoon devs being any good it begins to seem...

As I said around a year ago (?), there is little difference between that project's attitude with regards to trademarks and mozilla's, except mozilla have better people skills.

As I also said around the same time - all browsers are shit, along with the WWW itself.  My philosophy is simple: I pick the best of a bad lot, then configure it to my needs.  what I avoid doing is going "window shopping" for browser forks, where there are all kinds of claims and boasts and it really amounts to little more than customisations you could do yourself and a fancy logo and different name...

At the moment, though chromium is more secure, telemetry/harvesting of data and privacy is a bigger issue there, so I use firefox - even though I dislike many things they have done recently.

#2 Re: Off-topic » Show your desktop (rebooted) » 2021-11-18 13:50:56

andyprough wrote:

And you would be 100% incorrect in that assessment. [...] Hyperbola BSD is a different beast altogether which is only in the planning stages, and which you will not see for several years.

Hyperbola BSD was what I was referring to.  If you read the links I posted, you'll see that:

* The intent is to abandon the Linux kernel. See the interview with the developer.
* HyperbolaBSD is new name of the project, to be based on the OpenBSD kernel (refer again to the interview)
* As hevidevi menioned, an Alpha was supposed to be out by now.(refer to the itsfoss interview)

We expect to have an alpha release ready by 2021 (Q3) for initial testing.

* HyperbolaBSD git repositories have seen little to no activity, Hyperbola repositories aren't that active either.  I provided the link to the git repository, so you can check for yourself.  In terms of HyperbolaBSD, from the git repo, it looks like they are about as far away as you can imagine from an Alpha release - with only two commits 5 months ago and nothing since.

There has also been no news posted on the website since February 2020.

Last post in the "development" forum back in May:

(Which consists of a lot of chat and not a lot else.)

andyprough wrote:

It's the kernel which makes it Linux or BSD, you see.

That's not quite correct.  There are four distinct BSD derived OS.  Those OS use a different kernel and userland - each is a complete OS, rather than just a kernel.  So if you port the kernel from any of those projects to the "userland" of a different OS, you actually have a "GNU/someBSDkernel" operating system.

andyprough wrote:

Oddly, Hyperbola and Devuan are both seeing a high amount of development activity. Never got the message that their projects are supposed to be long dead by now.

I'm not seeing that kind of activity in the git repository.

If PC-BSD, TrueOS, "Project Trident", etc is anything to go by, I wouldn't count on the Lumina Desktop being around for much longer either...

#3 Re: Off-topic » Show your desktop (rebooted) » 2021-11-17 10:43:00

This was the "Hyperbola BSD" people.  Development seems to have stalled:

Seems like a lot of obsessive, compulsive de-blobbing and tokenism and not a lot else...

Some insights here:

The non-free firmware blobs in OpenBSD include various hardware firmwares.


These blobs may contain vulnerabilities or backdoors in addition to violating your freedom, but no one would know since the source code is not available for them. They must be removed to respect user freedom.

I read it up until that point and then lost interest.  The same unfounded idealogical ranting, almost taken word for word from Stallmanist literature...

#4 Re: Off-topic » Troll appreciation thread » 2021-09-28 17:10:18

headstick will be nursing a semi reading this....

#6 Re: Devuan » Windows 11 will _enforce_ Secure Boot » 2021-07-18 11:49:59

UEFI is the Trojan Horse, Secureboot is the Trojan inside, the "payload" if you will. If I can boot my chosen OS using CSM, and it boots normally then I am not convinced of the benefits of UEFI.   UEFI features such as GPT, are possible with a PMBR.  So if an OS does not support GPT with a legacy BIOS, that's a business decision they are making, not a technical one. If you search the web for the advantages of UEFI, you will find a lot of hot air about a GUI using a mouse and of course "security". That latter claim is insane, as UEFI increases attack surfaces and introduces vectors which weren't there in legacy BIOS. For example: remote management / networked capability....

#7 Re: Devuan » Windows 11 will _enforce_ Secure Boot » 2021-07-16 07:14:51

While I admire your ideals zapper, I think you may underestimate the power of money and "Big Tech" in particular. While RISC-V certainly has a lot going for it, as with Raspberry Pi and indeed Linux, it's a relative unknown and if it were ever to become a threat to Microsoft's or Intel's or AMD's or .... market share, it would be snuffed out. Linux in particular, never became a threat to the Windows desktop, that was perceived by some in the early 2000s.

There is also the argument that open hardware would stifle innovation.  If you develop something for profit, and a competitive edge but then are not allowed to keep that as a trade secret, then why bother? I would say it's feasible, but would require a radical rethink on patents, licensing and how hardware vendors do business. As you say "not in our future".

At this moment in time, it looks like it will get a lot worse before it can get any better.

The root of of this evil is unfettered, bottomless greed and a super rich elite controlling 99% of the worlds wealth. Solve that and we can talk about details such as open hardware .

#8 Re: Devuan » Windows 11 will _enforce_ Secure Boot » 2021-07-13 17:15:31

No not OpenBSD's thinking, the actual definition which goes back more than a few decades:

I don't place much faith in belief systems surrounding GNU/FSF.  Device firmware is just a fact of life  - some implementations are acceptable others are bad, some more are utter crap. But unless you have the money and resources to develop your own hardware, we're stuck with x86.  I think that situation is positively win, win for Microsoft.  Linux and 'BSD users stranded on old hardware, while it continues this latest "embrace" phase.

While we're talking "beliefs" I have the firm conviction that the new Microsoft is far more dangerous to free software than the old.

MS have been working on WSL/WSL2, Azure, etc for many years. All of those products are about /not/ running a Linux OS on bare metal but on proprietary software owned ad controlled by Microsoft. Its takeover of the github platform and other acquisitions are all part of the same strategy.

Hardware is "intellectual property". To maintain a competitive advantage there are "trade secrets". The hardware you use was developed by corporations who seek to profit from it

"All rights reserved" refers to copyright - it has nothing to do with software licensing.

The MIT license would not stop e.g. Intel from taking Nvidia's code, which they have spent billions and decades of research on, and just incorporating it in their own products - decreasing Nvidia's advantage in that market and share value. tl;dr - they won't do that.

#9 Re: Devuan » Windows 11 will _enforce_ Secure Boot » 2021-07-12 17:07:17

BLOBs are not the same as device firmware. The latter is part of most devices, either residing the device's NVRAM or as a firmware image which is loaded via the device driver/firmware loader.

Far from being unnecessary, they are actually the device's own OS.  In that they are code which runs on the device itself and not any kind of x86 OS binary.

Some firmware is "open source", some is proprietary.  Despite contributing driver code the Linux graphics stack, Intel and AMD graphics tech is every bit as proprietary as Nvidia - with closed source firmware and hardware. They won't release  code which could threaten their commercial interests.

Camtaf, you're correct in that modern CPU's actually use a firmware layer called microcode, which runs on the "hardwired" CPU. Microcode makes it possible, well most of time, for the vendor to "patch" the CPU. There are also "out of band" processors running on modern CPU's, running a small OS - e.g.  the Intel Management Engine.

The IME has been deliberately designed to prevent the end user disabling it.  Along with UEFI and Secureboot, all of this tech equates to less freedom, privacy and security for end users.

As headstick has said, raspberry pi and its Broadcom chips, is no escape - neither is in fact ARM, if/when Nvidia buy them out.

The raspberry pi people already made their intentions plain in the PR disaster regarding the vscode Microsoft repository. But if you're already in bed with Broadcom, signed NDAs and developing devices loaded with proprietary firmware, courting Microsoft is not such a big deal.

#10 Re: Devuan » Windows 11 will _enforce_ Secure Boot » 2021-07-09 17:19:08

Secureboot is not a security feature.

I've warned about Secureboot and UEFI for years. That it was essentially a ploy by Microsoft to have greater control over the OS that's installed on the x86 platform which it effectively controls.

MS left it up to OEMs to decide on whether they allow secureboot to be disabled. But MS also has an undisclosed deal with the OEMs. Part of that deal is exclusivity for MS Windows.

#11 Re: Off-topic » Presentation of LinuC » 2021-07-08 17:06:17

This site will always attract nutters - that's just inevitable.

July 7, 2021
On July 7th, 2021 the LinuC website was attacked by Devuan hackers! The attackers announced it in their forum, with a matching time stamp of the attack! You can see the hate speech in the following link, people are very busy with themselves:

#12 Re: Off-topic » What will happen to Windows? » 2021-06-17 16:48:41

JSM wrote:

And I'm not a software developer either, as you can read on LinuC. But I'll try to motivate some good people.

I see...

It seems you want others to construct your pet project Linux distribution thing for you?  Are you going to motivate these "good" people with monetary remuneration for their efforts?  Or do you expect them to work for free ?

As I first suspected - this is vapourware - in fact it hardly qualifies as that...  as that term usually applies to those with the skills but who lack either the time or the will...

#13 Re: Off-topic » What will happen to Windows? » 2021-06-17 07:13:32

I think there's a huge difference between design philosophies of any given software project - and people who's involvement or usage of,  any given project is only as a means of a platform for pushing their ideology/beliefs/worldview/political agenda on others.

#14 Re: Off-topic » What will happen to Windows? » 2021-06-16 16:42:48

"Project management" eh?

Against ideology?

"Praised be Jesus Christ!" is the only content on your website.

I think you should stop now.

#15 Re: Off-topic » What will happen to Windows? » 2021-06-15 16:46:24

That's trading Intel or AMD,  closed source firmware, etc - for Broadcom, more closed source firmwares and the company who famously stated that they had taken the decision to "trust Microsoft", when they included an MS repository in their OS.

#16 Re: Off-topic » What will happen to Windows? » 2021-06-14 21:56:30

zapper wrote:

x86 is also a huge and stupid problem. 

On a semi related note, corporations are dangerous without actual checks and balances.

There is a reason x86 was often dubbed "wintel".

MS hijacked that market from IBM who admittedly probably got what they deserved and again with OS/2.  Their were casualties along the way along with, most notably, CP/M, and others of course. Everything that has occurred since has been at the behest of Microsoft, including UEFI and Secureboot, often to the rapturous applause of some Linux fans (quoting some developer on the payroll of AMD, Intel, Microsoft or whoever as they gush about meaningless quasi security). If things had worked out differently you might have had two Apples instead of one and no "open" x86 hardware. It's hard to say, but old MS may have been a "necessary evil", whereas new MS are just evil. EEE didn't just stop, it was simply adapted to the times.

The reality is that MS' secret deals with its OEMs continues, alternative OS are still frozen out of new PC sales and closed source firmware is the norm.  The Intel Management Engine may not be the worst thing they will devise...

#17 Re: Off-topic » A peek into the future of distros » 2021-06-14 21:34:18

I would not dismiss FreeBSD, NetBSD or DragonFly BSD either.

GPL zealotry has gotten us exactly here.. .

#18 Re: Off-topic » What will happen to Windows? » 2021-06-13 12:17:24

"If my fears come true, there will be a storm of indignation around the world, very soon! And that will affect Microsoft too. I don't know how many users Windos has, but if only 25% switch to Linux, then you should be well prepared for it."

I'm afraid your predictions might be just a bit off oh great prophet.

Whatever is exposed about certain individuals, no matter how big, the world will still turn and MS will still dominate their x86 PC market. Business is business.

#19 Re: Off-topic » The open source crisis? » 2021-06-13 11:55:45

"But unfortunately he made it freely available to everyone"

This argument is nonsensical. You're arguing that he should have made it proprietary?

"How many Linux distributions and derivatives are there? It should be 5, maybe a maximum of 10. But unfortunately it really is a crisis!"

"But it bothers me that as a user I have to search for the good distributors in this pile of "crap" for days or months! This is what makes life difficult for us as a user!"

Choice isn't a bad thing. You're essentially asking people not to release their distributions so that you have less options. More nonsense.

#20 Re: Off-topic » ${THEY} continue crippling browsers... » 2021-04-30 17:08:52

I'm sure that if you look at most browsers and in fact the source code of many well known GUI applications, you'll find similar.

As headstick knows, Theo de Raadt gave a fairly casual "best of a bad lot" endorsement to chromium, as the code quality and security aspects are well ahead of Firefox, but chromium comes with many other problems such as horrible UI and being a google project.  It's partially why there are so many forks.  The problem I find is that none of the forks are any good or worthwhile or come with their own problems - Brave being one example.  Or the fork is from the likes of Microsoft...

Terrible choices, but given all those choices Firefox still come out looking like a better option than many others.  Aping chromium and taking google's money for years has gotten them to where they are now - fielding the only viable contender to a chromium / chromium based mono culture, having lost most "market share" to chromium, but with google in a position to pull the plug at any time... talk about "own the resistance".

#21 Re: Off-topic » ${THEY} continue crippling browsers... » 2021-04-30 07:16:30

andyprough wrote:

But palemoon didn't really even block the extension he was mad about, just made you flip a bit in about:config to be able to install it. For example, he's upset that they "blocked" noscript, but I was still using noscript with palemoon quite recently by flipping that bit in about:config.

Mozilla have been doing this for years with firefox i.e. removing UI elements from the browser chrome and only allowing tuning them in js config. If you look at for example Seamonkey's configuration, you will have a rough idea of earlier firefox configuration. Firefox UI based configuration is unusable to the extent that it was designed to ensure the user easily misses the things Mozilla (and its paymaster google) want them to miss. My point is that its not an excuse to remove an on/off control and the insist that users can alter the js config to get that same result.  Why remove that control if you're not planning to deprecate it?

Once a project goes down that route, they're already knee deep in the same philosophy as e.g.  the gnome or chromium projects - i.e. contempt for the end user and manipulation of said users to use the software only in the way the UI designers intended it.

As a general rule - if the UI control is removed, the ability to tune that variable from the js will follow, then it will be a compiler flag, then gone altogether.  If you consider it carefully there is no other viable reasoning for hiding a UA control in the first place other than to deprecate it altogether to stop users from changing it

#22 Re: Off-topic » ${THEY} continue crippling browsers... » 2021-04-29 17:15:36

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
mstrohm wrote:

Pale Moon looks promising

No, it doesn't: … l#palemoon

That article comes across as to being spurred by a particular agenda, but citations are relevant.  The developers are making some very questionable decisions - and perhaps it's time the browser's fans cast their minds back as to why they stopped using browsers such as chrome or firefox?

The way the forum is administered and how the lead developers behave, may be irrelevant to the actual software itself, but the obnoxious and arrogant posturing and in particular the attitudes on show in the "insect" comment and the posting directed at the individual trying to work on an OpenBSD port, is in fact reflected in the code - in the decisions regarding tor, add ons, blocking user agent override, etc - in general foisting changes on users for a particular reason, while publicly offering another line of reasoning - not so plausible reasoning.  For example the UA override removal and reasons stated for doing so were questionable - and it's likely that the same narcissistic reasoning of "branding" was behind that, as it was with the OpenBSD port situation - in that allowing users to masquerade as firefox his perceived "market share" suffers. It looks like it's - "Our browser, Our way"...  Except in reality it's a fork, with the  overwhelming bulk of that code being from decades of dev work at Mozilla (and Netscape before that).

#23 Re: Off-topic » ${THEY} continue crippling browsers... » 2021-04-26 17:14:10

They are developing and maintaining a boatload of "garbage features", yet FTP protocol handling has to go.

FTP is "secure" because it's used by those with a good understanding of why they use it, i.e. those who will check the md5sum of a downloaded file. It's just not useful to mainstream faecebookers.

People have more to worry about from malicious js used in websites served over over https run by phishing scammers and the like...

#24 Re: Off-topic » ${THEY} continue crippling browsers... » 2021-04-24 14:13:04

I still use ftp professionally. I've had to go back to filezillla at work for simple anon ftp etc.

There is nothing wrong with using it. If you download an .iso image and check the md5sum, that is really no different to using SSL/TLS.  Ultimately you should have the choice. They have willfully deprecated it as part of a wider industry led strategy and not because of any concerns over maintaining it.

HTTPS is being de facto standardised to force all traffic via google, faecebook, amazon, ms, cloudflare, et al.

#25 Re: Installation » I had to use sudo to setup my printer » 2021-04-16 17:10:06

You could have tried:


Board footer

Forum Software