Arch GNU/Linux users, Why aren't you using Parabola GNU/Linux?

>>62272491
Fuck off Luke

>>62272491
In other words, all the hardware support is removed and you now have to buy a wi-fi dongle. Your life is also made more difficult in case you ever need to use any non-free software.

Literally no reason to use this autistic piece of shit instead of Arch.

File: lennfart the ugly.jpg (213KB, 1024x1500px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1024x1500px

>>62272491
I use hyperbola because fuck lennfarts aids cancer systemd! Version 0.2, soon the dream comes true!

>>62272491
Why not just use a normal functioning distro and refrain from installing non free software? Even in parabola you could open a browser and use google search, gmail, etc. So what is the point?

>free as in freedom
>use to get your work done (use as in useless)

Because Parabola is a supporter of referring to Linux as "GNU/Linux", when GNU compose less than 10% of an average Linux system. I refuse to disrespect Torvalds' incredible amount of work like that.

>>62272491
>durr why don't you use what i use durrrr

>>62276835
Android is a non GNU Linux. If Torvalds want to get exclusive credit he shouldn't have used the GNU system in the first place. Without GNU there would never be anything Linux. Torvalds would give up and go work for Microsoft or something.

>>62277070
Bullshit, even systemd does as much as GNU (minus compilers which aren't inherent parts of an OS). We don't call it GNU/system/Linux. It's also incredibly arrogant and obviously intentional that they're trying to make it GNU/Linux instead of at least Linux/GNU.

I used Parabola for ~1.5 years and a few months ago migrated to Arch, so I'll give my 2 cents.

- I am ok with 95-99% of my system being free software for now instead of 100%, until some of those free components become more developed. There are a few proprietary programs that I make the conscious, free choice to accept on my machine. Using parabola just put minor, arbitrary barriers on making these exceptions. When installing them I just had to go out of my way to download the pkgbuild from arch website or compile from source, and I thought, why am I not just using arch?

- If I wanted the system to be 100% free, I could still do so on Arch. Just uninstall/replace the nonfree parts. You can check the license of a package before installing it with pacman -Si. Anyone who cares enough to use a fully free distro will know enough to quickly check if a license is free and to search for alternatives.

- The GNU FSDG is specifically designed to prevent uninformed people from accidentally installing nonfree software. This is a key point. If you are an advanced user, you can make your own informed decisions; you will be able to install nonfree software some way or another if that's what you want to do, so the fact that it's a fully free distro out-of-the-box and only offers free software in its default repos BECOMES MEANINGLESS. Free distros are NOT DESIGNED FOR YOU. This does however make them good choices for setting up in certain organizations, e.g. schools or small businesses.

(1/2)

>>62277637

- Some of the swapping out of packages for libre versions was a bit overkill to me. For example, they consider it a freedom issue that firefox takes you to addons.mozilla.org via the browser's menu/settings, since addons.mozilla.org distributes nonfree browser addons. So you have to use Iceweasel in which the menu points to a gnu.org page with shitty out of date addons, and I end up going to addons.mozilla.org anyway, and it just means I have to wait longer to get the new firefox releases because I'm waiting on a single volunteer to fix each new version and release it. (No offense Emulatorman, you do a great job). Again, I am capable of looking at the license on the sidebar of the firefox addon myself before installing. This does not actually help me.

- If you place a high value on 100% purity, too bad, Parabola is actually non-free according to the GNU FSDG, it violates this clause:
>A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that are not committed to only including free software
What's that? You want to install python-pip or npm or whatever other third-party package manager that has its own repos? Turns out they all distribute some nonfree software. No purity for you. Have fun using an OS as a programmer/advanced user without any of those programs ;)


I still support their mission, it is just plainly not necessary for me to use such a distro, and I think there are more pragmatic ways to achieve their goals. Volunteer effort for free software is limited, so it should be allocated as efficiently as possible.