In my view, the “community” reaction was terrible. Regardless of if you agree with them or not, the response should be honest and rational. I found the reaction, emotional, political, and frankly dishonest. The response was that Red Hat was suddenly going proprietary, that they were violating the GPL, and / or that they were “taking” the work of untold legions of free software volunteers without giving back. They were accused of naked corporate greed by companies whose whole business is based on using Red Hat’s work without paying ( peak hypocrisy ).
Let’s start with what they actually did. Red Hat builds RHEL first by contributing all their code and collecting all the Open Source packages they use into a distribution called CentOS Stream. Once in a while, they fork that and begin building a new release of RHEL. That requires lots of testing, packaging, configuration, documentation, and other work required to make RHEL above and beyond the source code. Previously, they made the output of all this work publicly available. What they did was stop that. So, what does it look like now?
Red Hat now only distributes the RHEL SRPM packages to their subscribers ( which may be paying customers or getting it free ). The support agreement with Red Hat says that, if you distribute those to others, they will cancel your subscription. That is the big controversy.
What you cannot do now is “easily” build a RHEL clone that is guaranteed “bug for bug” compatible with RHEL and use it to compete with Red Hat. You will notice that those making the most noise, like Rocky Linux, want to do that.
So, are Red Hat violating the GPL? No.
First, Red Hat distributes all the code to make RHEL to the actual people they “distribute to” ( to their subscribers ) including everything required to configure and build it. This is everything required by the GPL and more.
Second, less than half of the code in RHEL is even GPL licensed. The text of the GPL itself says that the requirements of the GPL do not extend to such an “aggregate” ( the term the GPL itself uses ). So, Red Hat is going quite above and beyond the licensing by providing their subscribers code to the entire distribution. Yes, beyond.
Third, CentOS Stream remains open to everybody. You can build a Linux distribution from that that is ABI compatible with RHEL. That is what Alma Linux is doing now. Red Hat contributes mountains of free software to the world, both original packages and contributions to some of the most important packages in the free software world. Red Hat is not required to license packages they author under the GPL but they do. They are not required to make all of CentOS Stream available to the public but they do. They are certainly not freeloaders.
But what about this business of cancelling subscriptions? Isn’t that a restriction in violation of the GPL? Not in my view.
The GPL says that you are free to distribute code you receive under the GPL without fear of being accused of copyright violation. It says you can modify the code and distribute your changes. It says you can start a business in top of that code and nobody can stop you. Do RHEL subscribers enjoy all these freedoms. Yes. Yes they do.
What happens ( after the change ) when a RHEL subscriber violates the terms of their subscriber agreement? Well, they cease to be a subscriber. Does this mean they lose access to the source they got from RHEL? No. Does it mean they can be sued for distributing the code? No. I mean, you could risk trademark violation if you sell it I guess.
So, what does it mean that RHEL cancels your subscription? Well, it means they will no longer support you. I hope people see that as fair. It also means as bs they will no longer distribute their software to you IN THE FUTURE.
That is it. That is the outrage.
If you give away the results of Red Hat’s hard work to productize CentOS Stream into RHEL, they stop sending you future releases.
Again, that is it.
You can do whatever you want with what they already sent you. You have all the rights the GPL provides, even for software licenses as MIT, BSD, Apache, or otherwise. Nothing has been taken from you except access to FUTURE Red Hat product ( other than totally for free via CentOS Stream of course ).
Anyway, as you can see, they are the devil and we should hope their business fails. Because, why would we want a commercial successful company to keep contributing as much to Free Software and Open Source as they do?
But what about this business of cancelling subscriptions? Isn’t that a restriction in violation of the GPL? Not in my view.
You are just repeating the exact narrow definition that Redhat/IBM’s lawyer leeches found to justify what they did. Yes it’s legal - but by no means in the spirit of GPL or any FSF or OSI approved license.
Starting with the FSF definition, ANY software from OUTSIDE that RH builds on (this includes the kernel and numerous other parts) comes to them with 4 assured freedoms. One of them is the freedom to distribute the software or the modified forms of it. To put it in short, what RH says is - “You’re still free to exercise the freedom - but we will stop doing business with you if you do”. While this is not against the letter of the license, this is most certainly AGAINST the INTENT of the license.
One might ask, if that’s the intent of the license, why does the license allow such a loophole? To put it simply, the creators of the license created it based on certainguidelines. But they couldn’t foresee all the ways in which the license would be twisted, violating its intent. This happens from time to time - causing the licenses to undergo revisions. For example, GPLv3 was created due to what FSF calls Tivoization - a practice that violates the intent without violating the license. Hell, this is against even OSI’s intent.
However, just because there are loop holes in the license to violate its intent, doesn’t mean that it’s ethical or moral to take advantage of it. When some company does so, it’s nothing short of parasitism. In this case, RH managed to suppress GPL after profiteering for decades from it.
In my view, the “community” reaction was terrible.
Clearly, your view is heavily colored. Remember that the community’s reaction was only a response to what RH did. You clearly are not seeing the possibility that what RH did is way way worse and extremely damaging towards the community and FOSS principles.
If you give away the results of Red Hat’s hard work to productize CentOS Stream into RHEL,
This is a very myopic, one-sided and biased take. A lot of people who are complaining are contributors to the work RH uses. This isn’t just about some bit of work. This is about trust that forms the foundations of the FOSS movement. People will be hesitant to contribute to any project that RH may take and profit like this. RH is using their code in a way that they were not expecting. What RH did is to fundamentally exploit that trust and then betray it.
Nothing has been taken from you except access to FUTURE Red Hat product ( other than totally for free via CentOS Stream of course ).
The same narrow definitions to justify the malicious intent. Remember that distributing the recipe for ‘FUTURE Red Hat product’ wouldn’t be wrong in any way if RH hadn’t created the new clause - that they will stop supplying if you did. They had to invent a way to override the intent of FOSS.
So, Red Hat is going quite above and beyond the licensing by providing their subscribers code to the entire distribution. Yes, beyond.
They don’t have a business if they didn’t distribute the source code. There are numerous other offerings that give you the same services without the source code. They are doing nothing beyond what it takes for them to make money. So, their moral superiority arguments are based on false premises.
I’m honestly very tired of people shilling the false arguments of corporates that exploit regular folks to make money. The stories of how RH damaged the entire Linux ecosystem for supporting their business is too long for me to even get into. For now, I will just say that RH’s entire business model has been to make the Linux ecosystem too complicated for anyone else to reasonably manage or modify. So, please stop giving this greedy corporation more credit than what it’s worth and stop demonizing the people who complained when their reasonable expectations were violated.
I am not repeating anything Red Hat has said.( even if they said it ). I have not read any of their responses. I am reacting to what I have read and seen myself in the corners of tue Internet that I frequent ( where I have never seen Red Hat post — like here for example ). My thoughts and analysis are my own.
“Starting with the FSF definition” you say and then completely ignore what the GPL itself says about aggregates like RHEL. Again, less than half of RHEL is even software released under the GPL. Much of the software that is GPL was authored by Red Hat themselves. According to the text of the GPL itself, Red Hat is not required to distribute the code to the totality of the RHEL distribution or even to more than half the code. That is not a “loop hole”. The authors of the GPL went out of their way to spell this out. The word “aggregate” is introduced in the text of the GPL to specifically differentiate something like a full OS distribution from an individual work released under the GPL and included in that distribution. Beyond the hand-waving, I have never seen somebody explain to me how RHEL itself is governed by the GPL other than as an example of an “aggregate” that the GPL goes out of its way to point out would NOT be governed by the GPL. I have pointed this out many times and, disappointingly, the responses I get always completely ignore this. RHEL is not governed by the GPL other than as something that is specifically and explicitly excluded from the conditions of the GPL by the text of the GPL itself ( not as loop hole but by a section of the license that does not even need to be in the license other than to clarify this very thing ).
As for the “4 freedoms”, as stated above, you have all 4 of those freedoms for any GPL software from Red Hat. They even extend these freedoms to you for software that does not require it.
Let’s talk about “the spirit” off Free Software here.
The controversy is about Red Hat restricting the ability ( really just making it less convenient ) to piggy-back off them to make guaranteed “exact”, “identical”, “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL. Why does Rocky Linux want to make “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL? Why does Orace? Why does SUSE? Well that is simple. It is because they have built a business on providing guaranteed compatibility with RHEL.
What does “bug-for-bug” compatibility with RHEL mean? Well, it means that all that can be done is to rebuild and redistribute the packages created by Red Hat exactly as Red Hat created them. Does “the community” want to use this code as a base for incorporating their own changes and innovations? No. They cannot change it or it would no longer build into a bug-for-bug clone of RHEL. Can they even fix bugs? Again, no. “Bug-for-bug” means having the same bugs.
The people fighting hardest to take the exact packages output by Red Hat are explicitly fighting for the right to take RHEL without paying and with the express plan of giving absolutely nothing back.
And you know what, you can still do that with any code you get from Red Hat. If you are going to do that though, they want to stop sending you their future work. The horror.
The fury around these changes from Red Hat is that people ( most loudly companies that want to compete with Red Hat ) not only want to explicitly take without giving back but they also want to ensure that Red Hat is forced to provide all their future work for free as well. The demand is that Red Hat provide their labour and expense for free—forever.
And again, to be very clear, we are not even talking about source code. Because Red Hat does give away the code that they produce not just because they have to but because they want to ( they author stuff and make it GPL when they could choose other licenses ). They founded the Fedora project to create an aggressively free distribution and pay the salaries of many of its core contributors. This is very clearly something they volunteer willingly as they founded the project specifically to do that. Red Hat also pays to make CentOS Stream available which has all the same software and code in it as RHEL and can even be ABI compatible ( as Alma is now doing ). All the code, if that is what you want, is very available. Red Hat is not hoarding code. Red Hat is not taking anybody’s code and trying to close it off.
If this was about the code and the ability to preserve it for “the community” then then there would not be much problem. The problem is that people want specifically to make “bug-for-bug” RHEL clones now and in the future and they want Red Hat to do all the work to make that possible without any contribution from “the community” at all. Again, “the work” here is not authoring source code but all the other work that goes into making a full distribution.
What “community” is being damaged by telling people to use or fork CentOS Stream instead of trying to make “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL? How is this “extremely damaging to the community and FOSS principles”?
If the right to take without giving back is what people mean by “the spirit” of Free Software then this is the moment that I break with Free Software and go fully Open Source.
For anybody that thinks that Free Software and Open Source are the same thing, Open Source is a pragmatic philosophy about how developer collaboration leads to better software while Free Software ( as defined by the Free Software Foundation ) is a political movement focused on the rights of users ( just user freedoms - explicitly not software author or developer freedoms ). The GPL, specially, restricts the freedom of software developers which is why many other Open Source licenses are often called “permissive” licenses ( because they are MORE free). Not all Open Source software is Free Software by the definition of Open Source provided by the Open Source Institute.
Red Hat, I notice, voluntarily chooses the GPL for the code they author instead of choosing a more “permissive” license. Interesting choice for such a “greedy corporation”.
I am all over the idea of collaboration around software development. I do not see though how anybody can claim to credibly fighting for that in this Red Hat spat though. If this were about collaboration ( not just explicit duplication ), I imagine Red Hat would be on board. Based on “the community” reaction, It seems that “the spirit” of Free Software is more about entitlement and the right to demand continued servitude from the people that create software for you. Ask not what I can do for the software but rather what does my software provider HAVE to do for me. Those are not politics that I care to support. Count me out
Again, less than half of RHEL is even software released under the GPL.
I would be completely shocked if this were true. I’m calling BS here.
I used to be my company’s primary contact for our Red Hat TAM for almost 13 years. Our TAMs were very proud to claim that all of RHEL was FOSS software, licensed under the GPL or sometimes other FOSS licenses.
So 65% of RHEL 9’s packages are under a GPL license.
Much of the software that is GPL was authored by Red Hat themselves. According to the text of the GPL itself, Red Hat is not required to distribute the code to the totality of the RHEL distribution or even to more than half the code.
Half?!? Again, where are these mysterious numbers coming from?
It doesn’t matter if Red Hat authored those packages or not. What matters is if they were distributed under a GPL license. If you’re claiming that Red Hat multi-licensed those GPL’d packages that they exclusively wrote so they don’t have to comply with the GPL, please point those out to me (or at least a few), so I can check them out.
And all the people that provide the free software RH is using and making money with don’t count?! How about RH subscribe to all their projects to be able to repackage and redistribute their code, and if one of them doesn’t like RH then they’ll just cut them off like RH is doing to their customers. Does that sound like a good direction for the OSS ecosystem to you?
Of course RH does also provide back to the community, but that is the whole deal! You get free and open code, you give back free and open code. And they are a big company making a lot of money, so of course they should also contribute much more than a handful of devs would. That shouldn’t give them the privilege to unilaterally change this deal.
I get that it’s technically within the bounds of the GPL, but it’s a loophole and not how an “OSS company” should act imo! The whole OSS ecosystem as we know it would collapse if all projects started doing this.
Red Hat does “subscribe” to the software they ship and fully complies with the terms specified for them to do so. Again, rhetoric completely at odds with the facts.
Let’s be explicit about the “loophole” that keeps getting talked about. What is it?
The GPL outlines a bunch of freedoms that you get when somebody distributes software to you. It does not provide any rights to anybody that has not been given software. Is that the loophole?
Red Hat provides CentOS Stream to everybody and so it, along with all its source code and everything else is available to the public. Only RHEL subscribers have any rights to RHEL because they are they only ones that get it from Red Hat. The public has no inherent right to RHEL, code or otherwise. This is of course compatible with the GPL and not in some nuanced tortured way but of course with its core purpose—to grant freedoms for software that you use ( have been given ). Is that the loophole?
The GPL talks about the rights you have regarding software you have already received—that you use—not software you may or may not receive in the future. Is that the loophole?
Importantly though, we are not talking about an individual package covered by the GPL. We are talking about RHEL, which is a collection of software of which less than half is even GPL licensed. On that basis, I submit that the following text ( extracted from the GPL itself ) might be the “loophole” that you are referring to:
“Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.”
Again, that language is quoted directly from the license.
Is that a loophole? Because it seems like a very specific provision to me. Did the authors of the GPL say that the GPL does not extend to all of RHEL by accident?
The GPL outlines a bunch of freedoms that you get when somebody distributes software to you. It does not provide any rights to anybody that I have not distributed software to. Is that the loophole?
Imo the loophole is that RH is disrespecting the rights people have under the GPL by threatening negative consequences when they use those rights. E.g. you can’t say I have the right to freedom of speech and also break my arm when I do it, just because I can physically speak about whatever I want. Respecting rights includes not punishing someone for using those rights.
Of course technically they are in the right, but imo it still violates the ethos of OSS as I see it.
Look, everybody is entitled to their opinion and I respect yours. I have posted enough that it is just going to look combative and so I think this will be the last one. That said, this feels like the kind of “then why don’t we just allow murder” straw man that gets used when we want to argue emotions instead of facts. Yes, breaking your arm sounds very unfair. Is that a good analogy?
I think a much better analogy would be me signing an employment agreement that places restrictions on my freedoms that I otherwise have as a citizen of my country. Who cares what restrictions. Maybe I cannot drink at work. Maybe I cannot travel to certain countries. Maybe I cannot play video games on the work computer ( even at home ). Maybe I am not allowed to express certain political or religious views with customers. Or maybe there is a public article showing that all our competitors are better than us and I am not allowed to tell customers about that article. Let’s take that last one and assume I am American ( I am not but we need a legal framework we may all know ).
Has my company taken away my 1st amendment right to free speech? If I say something they do not like, they will take away my job and all the income I wanted from it in the future. Is that fair and ethical? It certainly hurts me. How is that not massively illegal under the US constitution? Surely employment law is less important than the constitution. How is it morally ok and not totally against “the spirit” of a free society?
Well, I have not lost any rights. I remain free to say what I want. However, there can be consequences. In this case, they are consequences that I have contractually agreed to. The First Amendment and my Employment Contract are not the same thing and they grant me different rights and impose different obligations. I am free to share the damaging article but, if I do, my employer will stop paying me.
Free Speech Absolutionists may insist that I not be fired for acting against the interests of my employer. Most of the rest of us understand that this os ok as we have to balance the interests of all parties of we want a system that works well overall. We also understand that no rights have been lost.
I see this as very much like that. Red Hat is not adding any new restrictions to the copyright license and, as such, they are granting you full rights as per that license. Legally, Red Hat is granting you the right to redistribute their code when they give you code licensed under the GPL. Simultaneously, they ask me to agree to a subscription agreement ( like an employer asks me to agree to an Employment Agreement ). The subscription agreement outlines what Red Hat will do for me and what I must agree to do in return. I do not have to agree to the subscription agreement. I can CHOOSE to because it offers something I want. In doing so, I may have agreed to some constraints on my otherwise fundamental rights or more general legal agreements.
So, I do not think Red Hat is threatening to break your arm. They do not harm you in any way other than to stop doing nice things for you in the future.
What I see in the reaction to Red Hat is a bunch of people that think they should be able to break their employment contracts but still keep getting paycheques from their employer.
If we still disagree, that is fine. I think this post fairly explains my position.
In what world? I’ve just started using it at work, and I swear the other day it tried to sell me an XBox controller. Not like I was on the Web and an ad popped up, no. It was part of the operating system!
Can you imagine going back in time 10 years and telling somebody “In the future, Microsoft is going to put pop-up ads in Windows.” People would think you were crazy!
The phrase “Windows 11 may be the king of operating systems” brings to my mind an image of a malformed non-functional decadent brat, the result of generations of might makes right and cousin fucking, given absolute power by sheer force of habit because it’s utterly incapable of achieving anything under its own merit. Either this one or his son will be so preoccupied with throwing opulent parties that he won’t bother securing the army’s loyalty, then we can overthrow him and ratify a constitution.
10 years ago was 2013. Windows 8.1 was their then-current product. If you told me they were going to put ads in Tile Hell, I would have 100% believed you and/or asked “Are you sure they don’t already?” I think you have to reach back to the XP era or earlier for users to be actually incredulous that the OS itself would serve commercials.
Copyright won't help here. Extending it to allow the protection of concepts as well as literal implementation is what Oracle tried to do, and would've resulted in a few megacorps demanding licensing for core concepts that no one can really make quality, functional software without.
Of course, software patents are also stupid, even if the general intent of patents seems reasonable.
Patents should simply be a monopoly on an idea for enough time to gather resources to develop that idea’s prototype. I know it doesn’t work that way, but it should. They really should be there for small inventors, not giant corps who have plenty of resources, but I digress.
But software itself can implement that prototype without having to build anything. Your ideas can be created directly. We don’t patent math and we don’t patent poetry or even poetic writing structures.
Software and business method patents are utter bullshit.
Well okay, since it’s up to me: Let’s have free software. Fully free Linux on every phone, including all “firmware” which has gotten awfully soft lately. No more proprietary driver blobs for ethernet controllers or cellular modems. No more proprietary DRM modules. No more “smart” consumer goods that come without source code. The free software revolution has gone pretty well in some respects, but we need to finish the job and put an end to all that garbage.
The icons you hate are icon set specific. I haven’t tried tinkering with them (I don’t actually use them, most of those plugins that come by default on most distros are removed on my installs), but I think you can change icon sets… or maybe themes (some themes also hold icon sets).
So, basically, you should install new icon sets and/or themes to get new icons and just pick one that you like, unistall the rest. Your default repo should hold most popular themes and icon sets for xfce.
PS: Some things may be inacurate, but I’m not much of a graphical person, I usually use xfce with default settings and maybe Greybird Dark as a theme. I leave everything else to default, whatever the defaults may be.
hey there, i have done that already with both changing themes and icons and that only affects everything else but those few icons that never change. it’s very weird
Hm, that is weird… they should change with the theme…
I don’t know if there is an xfce comm here on Lemmy, but if there is, it’s best to ask there, since this is an xfce specific thing (KDE or other DEs may implement this differently).
EDIT: There is, !xfce, but the last post there is from 4 months ago 😔.
Xfce is cool, I use it on all my installs. But than again, I have never tinkered with themes that much or tray icons 🤷.
Try Void if you’re not too afraid of the terminal 😁. The repo is pretty good and stuff mostly works out of the box. If they don’t, you just need to configure them correctly.
I may give Linux Lite a try, which is of course xfce based. Void I hear is very good, but after researching it a bit, I feel it’s more complicated or advanced than what it appears. more for like advanced users that really know how to work linux. i’m more intermediate.
The funny thing is though, I wasn’t as advanced when I jumped ship, but I never felt lost in it either. Like with Ubuntu and similar distros, things are fairly simple, but once you start getting nitty gritty with the system, start tinkering and whatnot, things just start not working. Like I was banging my head why this particular app just can’t access the internet, when all of the time it was ufw that was blocking it 😒.
What really pissed me off was the sheer number of apps that got installed allongside the main sustem. Like LibreOffice, maybe I didn’t want that installed on my system. And systemd seemed way too slugush and buggy for my taste, I really wanted something simpler and very easy to configure and run. So Void fit in there perfectly. Just xfce with some basic apps and plugins, that’s it.
Also, one of the main reasons why I bailed ship regarding conventional distros was dependency hell. You try and compile from source and there is always some dependency that’s outdated and just doesn’t compile 😒. This really really pissed me off, cuz I wanted to use the rig for, let’s say encoding, but the x265 lib in the repos was outdated. I wanted the latest, cuz I also wanted to test the progress of x265… things like this really grind my gears and I decided that conventional distros are probably not for me.
I couldn’t believe the spec of that pile of garbage the phone when i first saw it. The worst being that It has a Mali-400 MP2 (2 cores, the most famous and used varient is MP4 with 4 cores), a GPU from 2008. I know it’s supposed to run linux but they choose the cheapest SOC they could find and then asked the seller if he had any unsold SOCs from the last decade they could use instead.
The saddest part is that when I pointed this, I was always told that it’s made for tinkerers and not users, but this doesn’t excuse the use of extremely outdated hardware. I didn’t expect the latest powerhouse but even 30$ Chinese tvboxes had the latest rockchip SOCs…
The phone is from 2019 and i think even back then the SoC was a compromise.
It has more quirks. There have been some hardware issues. And mainline Linux and a Linux Desktop is still struggling today with power management. Like getting chat messages while it’s asleep. It’s really not for use except for tinkerers.
But I’d agree. A newer, properly usable and powerful Linux phone would be great. Idk if there are good SoCs out there with fully open-source drivers and bootloader. And power consumption that lasts you a day.
And mainline Linux and a Linux Desktop is still struggling today with power management. Like getting chat messages while it’s asleep.
And the really sad thing is that the power management improvements devs have been working on for the PinePhone are really very specific to that particular device and don’t help mobile Linux in general (so it’s basically wasted effort).
A newer, properly usable and powerful Linux phone would be great.
Totally ! Honestly, when i first heard of a linux phone, I had stars in my eyes. I expected medium-low tier specs but that would likely more than enough to for Linux. The actual specs made me cringe because the phone was e-waste before even launch. I think I actually over exaggerated calling it a piece of garbage, I just expected too much from a small company on a niche market.
AMD APUs are beasts !. That would be a computer disguising as a phone. Now, that’s what I would call a revolutionary product. Kinda like Samsung Dex but libre.
Well, let me put it plainly, if you are selling better, I’m buying. So far the one thing Pine has done better than a lot of people talking is doing. They are not the only ones, e.g Purism, but at that price range and who actually did deliver I haven’t seen better. Pointers welcomed.
Do you think releasing a phone with hardware that is 10 years ou of date is logical ? let’s transpose it to the laptop market. What if system76 sold a laptops with a Pentium 3.x Ghz Core 2 duo, 4GB ddr3 and a Radeon HD 3xxx GPU and a 240 HDD for the price of a current medium-low end computer ?
I’m not sure what your point is. I’m not arguing that you are wrong, I’m saying it’s “just” talk, meanwhile I’m ready, today, to buy better if you can provide.
I’m saying it’s “just” talk, meanwhile I’m ready, today, to but better if you can provide.
A 200 dollar Xiaomi phone or a used pixel phone is at least 10x more powerful than the pinphone. After unlocking the bootloader and rooting it, you can use termux and have a linux environment at hand. You can even install a DE and access it. Enjoy. The plus is that you don’t lose any compatibility with android apps .
I really hope you don’t go around telling anyone that is criticizing something to just make a better version, do you ? You don’t need to be chef to say bad food is bad. To make it easier to understand let’s transpose it again : There’s a novel motor design that is free and open source. Someone make a car using it and sell it but the car can’t go beyond 20km/h and has a range of 50km. Would you tell anyone that says it’s unusable to just make a better one ??
You focus on performance while I focus on the ability to tinker. That’s perfectly legitimate and we don’t have to have the same needs. It though shows me that we don’t have the same understanding about the point of Pine64, especially as you mention Termux or rooting (which I’ve both used and done numerous times, sadly) as if it was equivalent to selling an actual Linux phone in the first place. I actually do NOT want Android. The point I believe is not to sell a replacement for end users today (even though, clearly, it would be nice, and I believe Purism is closer to that) as it says on the product page, but rather show that a legitimate (again, not hacks) alternative is possible but it must be built by the community. And yes, I do tell people who make criticism that it’s not enough because very often it shows what I believe is the case here, a lack of understanding of what it takes. That being said, again, I sincerely enjoy being proven wrong (means I can learn, new opportunities), hence why I’m not teasing you when I say I can put my money where my mouth is if you can do better. I believe in fact that’s what open source is all about, we’re in it together, to do better, to be better.
linux
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.