Fedora Project Feedback Tour: 4chan Edition

Nothing. It's perfect.

>>55964888
It has systemd.

Split dev packages.

Whatever dumb policy that doesn't allow Chromium in the main repos.

>>55964888
Its name.

Best distro ever!

>>55966938
They only allow software that respects your freedom.

It's one of those
"lets make proprietary software as hard as possible to install because it's evil, even though some people need them for work and or studies, because nothing says freedom like limiting peoples options"

>>55967216

You have the freedom to not use it as well.

>>55964888
updates way too quickly

>>55967216
>nothing says freedom like limiting peoples options
Let me guess, you are American?
I assume that because that's the kind of argument that is used to legalize guns, the death penalty, or police men shooting criminals on sight.

>>55967216
You're as free to install proprietary software as Red Hat is free to provide you with proprietary software in their repos, as in they don't have to. They are not "limiting" you, they just won't host proprietary you want (and that you should avoid).

>>55967312
This, my friends, is the ideology at its purest.

>>55964888
NO FONTS

>>55967312
>comparing software freedom to fucking murder
wow

Philanthropy != Freedom

Copyleft licenses are more philanthropic at the cost of freedom. Permissive licenses are the opposite.

>>55967402
yeah i guess if you're not a GPL cultist then you're a misanthrope

>>55967402
why should you have the ability to deny freedom to others?

>>55967441
Exactly, why should someone be able to force another to use a specific license?

>>55967418
Philanthropy is not binary. 99% of humans aren't misanthropes just because bill gates gives the most money to charity.

>>55967470
>>Exactly, why should someone be able to force another to use a specific license?
Because doing that ensures that they will have to respect the freedoms of others, just like you respected theirs. The only "freedom" copyleft licenses take away is the ability to deny freedoms to others.

>>55967545
and that's one too many

>>55967545
Publishing something under a proprietary license doesn't take away any freedoms. You are free to refuse to use the product at all. From your perspective, it will be just as if it was never published.

>>55967589
if they don't want to distribute source code and respect the freedoms of others, then they are free to not distribute their modified version and just keep it for themselves.

facebook icon & autist name

if they'd change it, it'd be perfect

>>55967312

>shooting criminals on sight

Nevermind most of the criminals were reaching for a weapon when they were shot.

>>55967632
You are not explaining how freedoms aren't being respected. If I, right now, write an implementation of hello world and distribute the executable online under a proprietary license, are you then less free then you were if I hadn't done nothing in the first place?

>>55967216
>have to add one repo
>as hard as possible
They sure put a lot of effort into it

>>55967688
If I were to use your proprietary implementation of hello world in my life then yes, I would be less free for depending on a program I have no control over.
In real life people are in fact slaved by programs they have no control over, such as MS windows and flash. By using a copyleft license I can be safe in the knowledge that my code will remain freedom respecting and not used to enslave anybody. If you really want to understand it, I recommend giving this a read: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html.en

Now that Fedora is split into "products", my biggest hate is that if the managers decide package X should now be part of default install in the product, it will get installed when you update.
Other than that, everything's a-okay. Been using it for the last 6 years and I'm satisfied.

>>55967216
You do realize immediately after installing fedora you can open firefox, go to rpmfusion, and install those repos with a few clicks and 30 seconds

It hurts so much, soo much work

>>55967688
Well that wouldn't be very nice of you, but there's nothing wrong with it, since you wrote the thing yourself.

The problem comes in when you want to take code that was given to the world, and then take it and lock it up behind a proprietary license. Winston Churchill once said "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage". You're acting the same way. The "right" to deny rights to others isn't a right at all.

and as mentioned, you aren't obligated to distribute. If you want to make and use your own private modifications, go ahead, nobody will (or can) stop you. But if you want to take advantage of your rights you have to extend the same rights to others.

>>55967819
It seems that your "loss" of freedom comes from your freedom to choose to depend on my proprietary software, not my freedom to publish it as proprietary software. Why should my freedom be restricted to prevent you from making decisions that restrict your own freedom?

>>55964888
Resource usage is disgusting. This is my main beef. Beyond that, the installer is a little annoying I guess. Other than that it's fine.

>>55967937
I think we've lost the original topic of the conversation: why should the GPL force you to stick to it when using software under it.
As I stated before, the GPL's purpose is to guarantee that any software under it remains free, even if someone else decides to modify it and redistribute it. If you write some software yourself, your free to license however you want (and I'm free to use it or not). But if you want to modify and redistribute software under the GPL, it is unreasonable for you to expect to be able to enslave other people with GPL licensed code.

>>55968109
I don't think the GPL shouldn't be allowed to have those terms, but to call it "free" or "freedom" is misleading, as it is actually less free than permissive licenses.

>>55967949
that's more a GNOME thing, I think. I use LXDE and after boot I'm at ~300MiB memory usage.

It's shit.

>>55968159
What you're mistaking is who the GPL is trying to, for a lack of better word, protect.
GPL is not about the developer, but about the user.

The BSD licenses focus on the developer, granting them the freedom to do pretty much fuck-all with the code, including making a proprietary version.
The GPL focuses on the user. Because any developer using GPL code has to release their changes under GPL, the user is guaranteed they won't suddenly find themselves in a situation where the developer closes the source and now they have to pay more shekels / accept ads / whatever.

>>55964888
>What's wrong with this?

they split main development up into workstation (i.e., desktop) and server/cloud (essentially the same thing, essentially for people too incompetent to run a netinst or to use centos (especially since centos is now part of rhel)) while non-gnome spins (kde, mate, lxde, etc) have been broken and severely unpolished for a good 5-6+ years, very likely longer (however gnome was usable back then so I was still on the main release), presumably all to compete with ubuntu but leaving the non-gnome fedora spins in the dirt (anyone remember the kde spin project leader leaving because of how awful fedora 23's kde spin was?)

while I don't mind them taking this route (but honestly, what's wrong with dnf groups for this sort of thing exactly?) they could have taken the opportunity to do something fairly unique and offer a rolling release (would be rawhide), regular desktop and a lts/server variant (would be centos/rhel) under the same distro family tree - almost no other distro family does this (except opensuse with evergreen and tumbleweed (but evergreen is a community effort), and debian with testing/unstable (generally not recommended for regular use))

while the main spin is generally usable, it's only a nice experience if you subscribe to the gnome/gtk design philosophy which is pretty cancerous at the minute (i.e., you use what the devs push out or you fork the project because they absolutely do not care that they're ruining linux on the desktop), other than that, I use the kde spin and it's almost bad enough to make me not bother with a full fledged de and just use a light window manager or something and at which point there'd be almost nothing left keeping me to fedora

>>55967216

hey look it's one of those tards that can't into rpmfusion or doesn't understand how restrictive software licences actually are when it comes to exporting software

>>55967470
>Exactly, why should someone be able to force another to use a specific license?

no one is forcing you to use the gpl licence unless you use gpl licenced code in your project, in which case you're not being forced to use the code but are instead using it willingly

here's a novel idea, if you don't want to licence your project under the gpl or a gpl compatible licence then don't use gpl code, or do what every other entitled faggot does and use it in your shitty proprietary program anyway

File: enterprise_quality.jpg (62KB, 360x396px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 360x396px

>force all your desktop users to install shitty third-party repositories to make your distribution usable on the desktop
>don't do anything about that for over a decade now

>>55968265
The user isn't any less free for choosing to use proprietary software. The consequences of it being proprietary is something that should be accounted for in the choice to use it.

>>55968573
> No one is forcing you unless you are doing [x], in which case you're not being forced.
So am I being forced or not?
If I'm not being forced, then I can choose to publish my modifications under any license I choose.
If I am being forced, then I am not free.

>>55968667
Then use proprietary software and get out of the thread that is for a free(!) operating system

>>55968763
I'm only trying to explain why the GPL is not truly "free" in a thread where the topic came up without my involvement. My choices in the software that I use are completely irrelevant in this conversation.

>>55968595
>usable
The only things I have installed from RPM Fusion are VLC and FFMPEG

>>55966938
As of August 2016, it's now in the repos.

>>55968721
>So am I being forced or not?

are you being forced to use gpl code? absolutely fucking not

>If I'm not being forced, then I can choose to publish my modifications under any license I choose.

the gpl does not care what you do with your code however it does care what you do with other people's code ergo you cannot *release/distribute* binaries that use gpl code under a non-gpl compatible licence as that would be relicencing other people's code and infringing upon their copyright (however if you seek permission from the relevant authors/copyright holders they can relicence their code in a licence you would want to distribute your project as, however this is infeasible)

as far as the gpl is concerned however it only cares if you *release/distribute* binaries of your program, if your project is only running as a web service (think github) and not something an end-user runs on their machine you are free to do what you want with gpl code because you don't have to release the source (such as how github does not release the source for their backend)

if you want to argue the semantics of "free" and who it's applicable to, you're free to, however I'll reiterate my point again:

e n t i t l e m e n t
n
t
i
t
l
e
d

>>55969026
How is entitlement your point? The GPL is all about entitlement to the code written by others.

I'm also not discussing the freedom to use GPL code, but the freedom to modify and publish modifications.

>>55967183
m'distro

>>55969196
>The GPL is all about entitlement to the code written by others.

the entitlement part comes from my assumption (and I'll completely concede my point if I'm wrong) that the opinion is gpl is bad (compared to bsd at any rate) because you have to use the gpl if you integrate gpl licenced code into your project and then distribute that and the preferred option is to be able to use the code without giving anything back, I base this assumption on the fact that the reply chain mentions being "forced" into the gpl and how the gpl isn't free because of it (not to mention it being the general consensus on this board by people who want to use gpl software in proprietary software...and end up doing so anyway)

>but the freedom to modify and publish modifications.

which you're absolutely free to do under the assumption you'll licence your code under a gpl compatible licence similar to the gpl code you'd be integrating to continue the chain of free software as opposed to having the chain stopped when using something like bsd licenced code (which isn't an inherently bad licence by any means)

if you want to view using the gpl as freedom restricting because you can't use it in proprietary programs that's your prerogative however you still maintain copyright of your code and can still relicence it to a more restrictive licence if you choose to (and replace the gpl libraries or code you did not write, naturally), that doesn't seem like a restriction to me

>>55964888
It dosent fucking niggering work

I installed the KDE version and it couldn't do shit out of the box. I dont even think it had any way of dealing with double clicking an RPM file. I might as well have just installed centos.

And dont tell me to use gnome. Ill use fucking windows 10 before I use that piece of shit desktop environment again.

fuckitbacktomint

>>55967312
I've never been more satisfied reading about Europeans being raped and butchered in their own countries until now. You pathetic pacifist faggots are a stain on humanity.

>>55970036
The GPL isn't "bad". It's just not "free". The GPL is good because of what it sacrifices that freedom for. I liken it to taxes. Being forced to pay taxes isn't freedom, but I believe the utility gained from government programs paid for with taxes is worth the sacrifice.

>>55968186
LXDE should be at 200 or less. GNOME should be well under 1 GiB. Fedora is a memory hog.

>>55964888
Nothing but I'm not gonna qa for a company without being paid

>>55964888
too much shit to upgrade every 6 months
rolling release is smoother

>no ffmpeg
>no mpv
For what purpose

>>55970344
install opensuse or neon and not some abandoned spin

>>55971429
fedora's packagekit consumes ~200mb constantly, it's better than 23 but still shit

>>55971429
I've done a comparison, on my turion x2 laptop, ddr2, igpu, Fedora 23 with mate uses ~350MB on boot.

My d2500, ddr3, hd5450, uses ~300MB on boot in Ubuntu mate.

>>55968860
Well sure, just like a person might live in a "free" society that has laws that protect an individual's freedoms.

>>55970907
nice assumption, americunt. i'm from Singapore