What are the steps I should if I am only concerned with protecting myself from law keeping bodies in my own country(And not worried about foreign corporations)
wiki.installgentoo.com
What are the steps I should if I am only concerned with protecting myself from law keeping bodies in my own country(And...
Ian Diaz
Other urls found in this thread:
wiki.installgentoo.com
wiki.installgentoo.com
wiki.installgentoo.com
gnu.org
bsdcan.org
prism-break.org
ssd.eff.org
privacytools.io
torproject.org
guardianproject.info
tails.boum.org
epic.org
twitter.com
Benjamin Jenkins
Henry Scott
I have a low opinion of Gentoo GNU/Linux.
Gentoo is a GNU/Linux distribution, but its developers don't recognize this; they call it "Gentoo Linux". That means they are treating me and the GNU Project disresepectfully.
More importantly, Gentoo steers the user towards nonfree programs, which is why it is not one of our recognized free distros.
Jose Perez
If I will remove GNU Core Utilits and GNU C Library from my GNU + Linux distribution will it still be GNU + Linux or I will have to either call it just Linux ot list all the components I added on top of Linux?
Joseph Young
1. Don't break the law.
Owen Stewart
If you can remove 100 % of GNU libraries and coreutils, then yes; the operating system is called Linux (or whatever the fuck you want to call it). Otherwise the OS is called GNU because that's the name the creators of the OS decided.
Elijah Morales
I believe there's no distribution which would allow that easily. You could use Gentoo (as a framework) to produce a system built with an alternative non-GNU libc, tools, loader and so on, but still it would be a less-functional derivative of the initial GNU+Linux distributive. So the title should have 'GNU' in it regardless.
Also it's important to understand that the purpose of the name 'GNU/Linux' is not to display the composition of the system, or the most prevalent components of it, but rather to point that the GNU Project has been essential for development of the system in a first place.
Grayson Watson
Despite of this self-contradiction, I see the meaning you're trying to concede.
I believe you're wrong and one cannot de-GNU-ify a system by just removing GNU components from his installation,
and respectively one cannot archive a "GNU/NT" system by just replacing Windows components with GNU ones.
The initial make-up of the distribution matters, hence if you produce a new distributeable system without GNU in it, the naming rules will not apply, but if you remove components from a pre-existing GNU/Linux system or add them to a non-GNU system, the resulting configuration will not stop/start being a GNU system.
We approach the ship of thesus paradox here and I might be mistaken.
I'm emailing rms to clear this matter.
Isaiah Torres
Thanks for the replies.
I got curious about this subject after I decided to try out the Void distribution of GNU + Linux, which comes in two versions: one uses GNU C Library (gclib) and the other uses musl libc.
Obviously, this distribution still has GNU Core Utilities but I was wondering what if one distribution would replace them with alternatives that are not made by GNU Project.
One can argue that even if you remove all the software components made by GNU, the Linux kernel itself (and probably some alternatives that you will use to replace the GNU components) is licensed under GNU General Public License, but on the other hand... it's just a license -- Linus could use, for example, an MIT license if GPL would not exist.
One other thing to note is that if you replace the Linux kernel with HURD the system should not be called GNU/HURD but rather just GNU.
I'm not against calling the system GNU/Linux or even GNU + Linux, as you can see above (and I think the slash makes even less sense than a plus sign, because it's not "GNU or Linux", not "GNU out of Linux", and neither it is "GNU devided by Linux"), I just think that the name is a bit imperfect when it comes to the meaning.
Be sure to post his reply.
Michael Nelson
That's not what I meant. There are already various operating systems that use the Linux kernel, but no GNU components. Android is the most known, but there are also various embedded systems.
Calling them "GNU" makes no sense, and calling them "Linux" doesn't make sense either, unless that's the name the developers want to give it.
On the other hand, there are several GNU systems with different kernels (kBSD, MINIX, the Solaris one, NT, etc.), so, again, it's ridiculous to call them "Linux".
This would be solved by calling all operating systems by their name instead of using the kernel as the name. That way GNU-based systems would still be GNU (or whatever the author wants to call it, which is the case of Chrome OS which is based on Gentoo but removes every GNU piece).
For instance, a system that fuses GNU with BSD components would be called GNU, BSD or whatever the fuck the author wants to call it, regardless of kernel.
Nobody should have called it "Linux" to begin with. It just creates confusion and inconsistencies.
Evan Garcia
We could just call it freedom.
It conveys the idea of what the OS is about and it may gain traction because of the name.
Ayden Nguyen
Even if it is sharia law?
Ryder Cox
Most of us are developing a very low opinion of Stallman for encouraging this obsessive, pedantic, obnoxious spamming about "GNU/Linux". It's always been called "Linux" 99% of the time since the earliest days. If that bothers Stallman, tough shit. He should get back on his OCD medication.
Stop SPAMMING this trash..
Zachary Robinson
That's true. Though I'm not aware of systems based on Linux which are produced (i.e developed, maintained and compiled) without using any of GNU stuff.
A GNU/MINIX system is possible, but there is no such yet.
MINIX itself is a BSD variant, closely related to NetBSD (See bsdcan.org
A GNU/NT is impossible for obvious copyright reasons.
(Again, running GNU components in a non-GNU system does not produce a GNU system)
GNU/k*BSDs and OpenSolaris derivatives (*) are the proof of concept indeed.
* - to a lesser degree, since they don't use GNU Libc.
You mean a 'distribution name'. Distribution != operating system.
The GNU is an operating system, the ways to distribute it to users vary.
'A GNU variant' or 'a GNU system' is an umbrella term for such distributions, so the name the distributor chose may not specify which system is distributed.
The kernel is an important part nevertheless.
The difference between a GNU system with Linux and a GNU system with kFreeBSD is big enough to be embodied by specified the kernel name.
The degree of changes you have done to the system matters. If the package manager allows you to easily remove GNU components (and few of them do), then the system remains 'GNU/'. If it has been altered enough to be functional and distributable without GNU components, you can drop 'GNU/'.
The same principle applies.
If you have FreeBSD installed and add bash, coreutils, etc to it. The result is not GNU/kFreeBSD. Since GNU stuff is not crucial, easily removable and wasn't meant to be here in the first place. Such changes are not thorough and creative enough.
True. This misconception was created by the media in 90s, the companies went along with this hype in order to not confuse costumers and the name stuck.
Aaron Lewis
I agree. It's a real mistake to overload the Linux name to mean multiple things, the meaning changing within multiple contexts.
Jeremiah Clark
1. Don't break laws.
2. Don't piss off powerful people.
3. Learn general security measures like firewalls, anti-malware, and what not to click, visit, open, reveal, or run on the internet.
4. Optional: Learn to use Tor, VPNs, Tails, Orbot, secure DNS, etc.
Good sources of internet privacy and security information:
prism-break.org
ssd.eff.org
privacytools.io
torproject.org
guardianproject.info
tails.boum.org
epic.org
Chase Murphy
Not a mudslime so can't
Kevin Myers
Overloading the Linux name to mean multiple things have always been a mistake. Overloading technical names will inherently lead to confusion.
Easton Murphy
For "them" it had the same "Linux - the OS" meaning from the beginning.
Very few retarded people use the word in the both correct and "their" ways.
The way of pronouncing it with the silent slash or plus is cancerous as well, cause the slash don't be silent.
Juan Davis
Surprise. There are words with multiple meanings in the English language. You can verify this by buying a thing called a "dictionary", which you may not have ever heard of.
Linux the OS and Linux the kernel are the same word with different meanings. Tbh, only a retard would not understand that or complain about it.
William Long
It's called Android.
Connor Perry
That's a mistake to do that. Promoting this practice will certainly cause confusion.
Matthew Wright
It's "Linux". It's always been "Linux" and it's always going to be "Linux". People are tired of you mentally ill spammers trying to spam people into using only words and terms you like. Go away. You're worse than Jehovah's Witnesses.
Zachary Gutierrez
The kernel, yes, that's correct. No one is arguing that.
Caleb James
If overloading the Linux name to have multiple definitions is a meme, then it's always possible to promote a different meme - the one where overloading Linux is a mistake and it should only strictly refer to the specific OS kernel program and not to the whole OS.