You are not logged in.
"Proton" is based on codeweavers' winex. Which was based on wine, which is what I said.
Not exactly sure what point you're challenging, nor what point you're trying to make. Linux based devices such as games consoles are viable and Valve has already explored that (SteamOS and Steam Deck). This is likely because MS owns and controls PC gaming.
Do 5 minutes of research into which large games developers and publishers MS aquired over the last decade alone. Valve could be seeking to cause trouble with Steam Deck and any future console in the hope that MS simply buy them out for an eye watering sum... You may say "oh no never", but many thought the same about Bethesda, ID, Obsidian and Activision/Blizzard.
Unfortunately Microsoft control PC gaming. A few native Linux ports and Steam's utilisation of "proton", which is a proprietary Wine variant (look up codeweavers and winex) doesnt prove otherwise.
If you think Valve are in the business to sell proprietary games on an OS that makes up only a few percent of the PC desktop/laptop market, and less than one percent of the PC gaming market, then I can only suggest that you do a little more research.
Valve's Steam platform is all about DRM and "pay per play". It's a proprietary platform designed to serve needs of big corporations - not users. It only runs on Linux, as a testing ground for a "console" of sorts... Valve, as with MS, are not interested in desktop Linux users.
Ironically the only real competitor to xbox is playstation - and guess which OS their OS is based on?
Your post bears all the hallmarks of misinformed trolling.
There are CPU C and P states and there is CPU frequency scaling. You're conflating the two.
In FreeBSD you have to configure these, it's not done for you. This guide by a respected long term user, covers a lot of this:
https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2018/11/ … anagement/
Or refer to the FreeBSD handbook or man pages.
Also, sorry to break it to you, but you cannot get a "gaming machine" with Linux and "2-3 commands". Gaming machines are called "Xbox" or are high performance PCs running MS Windows. If you want a "gaming machine" you should not even consider FreeBSD, or Linux for that matter.
Oh no, I haven't missed any points: Much drama about nothing at all. I just watch through the glass/bars. The only point I'm missing, is why the point needed proving. Your joke in the thread was enough.
I had no idea that the Devuan forum was a social experiment, staged solely for the amusement of the administration. Learn something new every day...
@mrnhmath, you might care if they set their lawyers on you - and you're the low hanging fruit they will go after. Making a desktop called gnome/2 isn't a problem - but once you try distributing it, your problems will begin. You may be outside of the US but your methods of distribution may not be.
GNOME/2
Beware of gnome brand trademarks...
Getting out enough is quite important. You can sit behind a screen most of the time and that can be enough for some.
My work means I'm sat at a computer (actually three computers...) most of the day. When I get home I try to do other things - same at the weekend. I have two kids, so we might go to the park, but not as often as we should - the weather doesn't help.
For single people, getting out means you might run into those other single people.
If going out to bars/clubs isn't for you, then you could get yourself enrolled on some kind of course. Failing that I suppose there are dating sites, less stigma attached to that these days. It's difficult these days to get talking to people. "Social media" seems to have made people more antisocial.
Yea but biologically and evolutionarily, we ought to have kids and stuff. Love is not permanent either.
True, or none of us or any of this would exist. There is the argument that the world would be better off without us (probably true), but if not us, some other species would evolve in a few million years, kill each other and wreck the planet anyway.
I would say that it's verging on the pedantic, to equate those, or indeed mailing lists, to "social media"...
As with gnome project and the Linux kernel, Debian is a dependent of corporate funding and leaving "X" is a PR and virtue signalling stunt, staged to deflect any outrage from the hordes of the professionally offended. They are also doing what the "community", SPI and those other "non profit" orgs expect them to do. It's important to see it for what it is.
The "professionally offended" are useful idiots who can be directed against specific targets, via the phenomenon of "social media", to defame and ultimately "cancel" individuals who don't follow the narrative - "not following the narrative" can be equal to not publically denouncing/supporting something.
We're at a point where major FOSS projects are top heavy with foundations made up of lawyers, managers and consultants. Making up supposed non profit foundations who were supposed to only exist to manage funding. "Sit back and let us manage all of the bureacracy we're going to introduce into your project". Many of these are staffed with corporate reps - so not just taking donations - who then steer the project to ensure their employers demands are met.
So make no mistake about it, Debian leaving X is for specific political reasons and not due to X's ownership' political affiliation or track record with regards to employees fair treatment and working conditions. Debian and the Linux Foundation still willingly take money from Microsoft - a corporation hell bent on infiltrating and destroying any credible alternatives to its own products.
"Social media" should play no part in the development of a computer operating system. Debian may have made their decision for political reasons - but probably shouldn't have had a presence there in the first place. I don't personally see any need for the Devuan project to react or respond to this. Just seems like typical hysteria from the kind of person who contributes nothing, but feels that everything needs to have some kind of "community".
@zapper, your post #167, is something akin to guesswork and you seem to view security and privacy as factors which can be measured in %. This not the case. Saying something like "I have achieved 95% security on my system" is more or less the same as saying you don't know how secure it actually is, but fingers crossed.
You could have "95%" of "security" and that 5% you neglected could be by far the worst flaw with a known exploit, hence the logical fallacy in that approach.
Microcode updates are released by the vendor of the CPU to fix flaws in the CPU. If you don't install them, the system is potentially vulnerable. If you're concerned about privacy, well you already went out and bought an x86 PC which is designed for MS Windows and Windows users and contains dubious tech such as the IME.
The x86 platform is one that uses a lot of system firmware, much of that closed source like the hardware itself. Most of that firmware, as I and many others have advised countless times over the years, is already flashed to the device itself. Getting rid of superfluous firmware provided with the Linux kernel, or disabling e.g. an integrated Broadcom netextreme device so as to dispose of the firmware, will only give you some "feel good". It's not tackling the real problem.
"Open hardware" is a nice ideal, but being realistic about it, that's a long way off and niche non x86 hardware is too expensive for most people. I remember years ago, there were hopes with platforms such as Raspberry Pi, but that turned into a Broadcom firmware based disaster. Who remembers their "we have taken the decision to trust Microsoft" statement?
Maintainers of Linux distributions can't do much about firmware, if hardware vendors designed their products in that way and said maintainers want to support the platform in question.
@Ron, let's be clear here: I referred to "right wing nuts" - at no point targetting you or mentioning you by name or inferring anything about you personally.
Then in post #85 you proceeded to personally attack me, unprovoked, quoting and reacting to just that statement of mine. You were triggered and you seem to have a "personal vendetta".
You were indeed triggered by that comment, you responded with a personal attack and then you went to great trouble to unearth an old post, advising others to refer to it, to seek to justify your reaction - so yes that does raise questions about you and your motives.
@Ron, I see you've identified yourself and saved us all the trouble. Thanks.
I would say that you have jumped to conclusions.
My first paragraph was in reply to you. Nothing in the next two paragraphs was directed at you at all. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
The existence of derivatives or "tinkering" is never a problem for any Linux distribution. I had pointed out that the project spawned some of these early on, but not gained enough core developers to work on the distrbution itself. That's not the same as saying the derivatives aren't wanted or are part of the problem. It means there are a lot willing to do personal hobby distro respins, but few available to get more involved. I believe there are a number of factors as to why this is the case - in no shape or form are you, or those involved in similar endeavours, to blame.
The idealogues have done far more damage here over the years than the distro respin hobbyists. Whilst the distribution is perceived to attract and accomodate such people, it will struggle to find new maintainers and developers willing to participate. Most people will work on a software project if they believe there is technical merit in doing so Not because they like the politics, or hate MSor Red Hat, or believe there is corporate conspiracy to destroy Linux using systemd.
These forums, official or not, are a big part of the "visibility" of the Devuan project and while conspiracy theorists and e.g. right wing nuts are tolerated here, it will be assumed that the project itself endorses those people and their views. Like it or not, that's the world we live in.
One thing the project should make very clear is that it will not invest time and effort removing systemd files from "upstream" packages - and this needs to be a bold statement. Giving in to those who want a "sterilised" system for ideological reasons, rather than technical ones is a doomed philosophy. If certain users can't understand why harmless unit files will not suddenly come to life and install Lennart Poettering in your distribution, then that's not something the project should cater for.
One earlier poster in this thread posted a very apt "guest bedroom" analogy, when it comes to systemd related cruft. They were of course drowned out by the noise of a certain kind of poster.
As with any distro forums, we see these posts from people who know next to nothing about how a Linux distribution is developed and maintained - or indeed about free software in general. To them Devuan is an "anti" activist movement and this site, a platform like any other.
The "systemd cleansers" are also the same kind of individual who angst over non-free firmware and despite every explanation, still want it removed if ony for some "feel good".
It all amounts to: "I don't undedrstand this, so it must be something nefarious".
If I were to do a grep of the FreeBSD ports tree for "systemd", I'm sure there would a fair few hits. No FreeBSD user that I know of cares and let's see if you can guess why.
@greenjeans, yes I understand what you're trying to do and I won't comment on that, other than to highlight the obvious difference between running services and installation size. Linux distributions have to suit a wide userbase, hence a lot is provided. Otherwise the distribution only suits one individuals use case.
********
Personally I believe Devuan spawned a lot of small derivative hobby projects early on, and not enough "core" maintainers to keep things moving. The idealogues which the project picked up along the way haven't helped the project's image or it's ability to attract new people to do the work either. Sadly we live in a world where marketing seems to count more than ever. It's about challenging perceptions.
In my view Devuan needs to promote itself better, but also some of the users of this site need to consider how their behaviour reflects on the Devuan project as a whole. We all know what systemd is about, but criticism needs to be fact basd and limited to where it is relevant. All too often I have seen "systemd is svchost" or "systemd is an MS registry" which are totally false statenents which only serve to perpetuate the stereotype of "systemd haters" as a clueless, kneejerk, lunatic fringe, unworthy of consideration.
As far as utterly superficial and pointless projects go I wouldn't say it's the worst idea...
There is little to be gained from such work except the adoration of those who regard every instance of the word "systemd" to be an infection.
Documentation for any particular software project will likely contain systemd references. The project will also most likely provide unit files for systemd. These will take up a tiny amount of space (far less than the man pages many users don't read). Devuan repacking every .deb file to remove these, is a waste of time and resources - even if Devuan had these available.
Removal of every unused file associated with systemd, when system is not in use, is merely token appeasement of clueless zealots and the Devuan project should resist this. Those types of users are detrimental and no loss if they decide to move along.
This seems offtopic, but some seem to think they are entitled to an i386 OS, maintained and developed for free. Unfortunately that's not how it works. Big corporations such as MS kept x86_32 alive because it was in their business interests to do so. Unlike the OpenBSD project, MS had the resources and developers to do this. This was out of necessity - i.e. due to the very large number of devices still out there at the time, which could potentially have become Linux machines if MS had moved fully to 64 bit (as Intel famously attempted with IA64).
Due to the increased usage of OpenBSD/amd64, as well as the age and practicality of most i386 hardware, only easy and critical security fixes are backported to i386. The project has more important things to focus on.
https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html
The i386 platform is a Tier 2 platform in FreeBSD 13.0 and later.
https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/i386/
(And by 15.0-release i386 will be unsupported)
Support for the platform is on the decline due to the declining numbers of machines still in use. CPUs of the current platform, amd64, have been in production for over 20 years.
As to systemd files in Devuan, the project's standpoint is correct: Packages will come with harmless bits and pieces, such as unit files, which are not worth the trouble removing. If someone regards those files as being equivalent to systemd being installed, then you probably can't help them, as they are likely a) misinformed, b) ideologically and emotionally driven and c) don't have the technical aptitude to learn and correct their misapprehension. If you don't like what's on offer, you aquire the skills and build your own. If you lack the skills to do this, then you either pay someone who can or you just use what's on offer.
They won't boot out a developer who works for one of the big paymasters...
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
Quality control was never that great however...
Just need to get a bucketload of money from somewhere and we're good to go...
The problem with this older amd64 hardware is the perceived security flaws in those chips. This is all marketing strategy - MS are happy if Linux or the BSDs are perceived as something you install on old junk, so there is no incentive for them to take any interest in killing i386 - you can squarely blame the Debian project / lack of maintainers for that.
The next generation of "old junk" is the 64 bit hardware which is vulnerable to spectre/meltdown which MS intentionally ended support for with Windows 11. Again MS won't have too many problems with Linux and BSDs being installed on that - but they also know that many users will get Windows 11 installed on that "unsupported" hardware regardless. This is the same mindset, as "at least they're running Windows". See "security theatre" for what it is.
Someone has to volunteer and step up to do the work to maintain an i386 or other obsolete architecture OS. Charities may provide obsolete computers to the developing world, but they don't provide or maintain the OS.
Soon there will be tons of old amd64 hardware up for grabs, quite ironically thanks to Windows 11. At that point any perceived problems with phasing out i386 will be much smaller, decisions much easier for those maintaining an OS.
The real issue here, is the prevalence of IME/PSP in newer amd64 CPUs along with faux security features such as Secureboot, TPM chips, and as time goes on the choice is getting much narrower to the point where the x86 platform is no longer a viable choice for anyone who values privacy. Make no mistake about it : MS and its OEM cartel were up to their necks in this mutual back scratching.
Intel walked away from spectre/meltdown with barely a scratch - fast forward to the present and it's going to sell a lot more CPUs thanks to MS Windows 11...
The sad reality is that the whole x86 platform is a lost cause and the key players in that platform are some of the biggest donors to the Linux kernel and are bankrolling and steering projects such as wayland, systemd and Debian.
I doubt i386 is significant enough to be a target for the likes of MS.
The real project for forced hardware obsolescence has been Windows 11 and ending of support for older Core architecture CPUs. i386 is likely just being phased out due to it being very niche these days. You can get a Pentium 4 from 20 years ago and install an amd64 OS on it after all.
As mentioned above, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all abandoned architectures over the years. Dragonfly BSD dropped i386 over 10 years ago.
Nothing theoretical about the Deep State. Pull your head out of the sand. The DS are the communists. Big Oil (Rockefellers et al, Banksters et al, Bill Gates et al) are the communists (Khazarian Cabal) which are being taken by the Military Alliance with DJT who has President and Wartime C-i-C (Commander-in-Chief) since 2016.
The "deep state", has to be theoretical, in order to be the deep state... you cannot prove it exists, even though there are several theories. Yes there are theories, but most are what amounts to bullshit spread by the misinformed, or disinformation spread by "conspiracy theorists" wanting to make money out of gullible people / amass followers / all of the above.
It seems that you actually believe that the "deep state" and tech billionaires such as Bill Gates are "communists" (rather than capitalists). You must have a very poor understanding of communism. It appears to me that you are subscribing to the popular US idea of a "left", i.e. a left which isn't a left at all, but some form of "right wing authoritarian" politics.
The anti zionist conspiracy, fueled by the "Khazar hypothesis", has long since been dis-proven (via genetic testing) and has no basis at all.