Gentoo capitulated to Stallman

:gnujihad:

If the permissive software calls/install/downloads for example a binary blobs the permissive software will be considered as non-free/libre software.

No it won't.
Like The FSF does not approve distros which "encourage the installation of nonfree software,".
No it means that the users must move their ass to get it and install it themselves, it must not be provided directly on the repository or mirror of the distribution.

Actually, the FSF will not recommend any distribution that includes recommendation to install non-free software. If an official Gentoo message merely recommends "try installing the proprietary program Adobe Flash", the FSF will refuse to endorse Gentoo because Gentoo of what they endorse.

...

The FSF is retarded. Their only approved distributions are the ones that go out of their way to make it an annoyance for the user to get the thing working on anything even remotely non-free. Their commie understanding of freedom is making it difficult for people to use non-free software, not telling the user 'here you have all your possible options, choose what you want' like a person without braindamage would. Gentoo is better of not pandering to the FSF niggers.

not necessarily when you install something and it pull's 50 different dependencies all with different licenses.

In this case portage will make you explicitly agree to install software that doesn't respect your freedoms instead of implicitly assume it.

Nobody likes "opt-out" type garbage anywhere else, why is this any different? Non-free software should require an explicit opt-in not an opt-out.

I don't agree with FSF saying it can't be in the repo's at all though.

I wonder what FSF's opinion is on microcode; are they officially suggesting that nobody install microcode ever and accept the security consequences? Do FSF servers run updated microcode that fixes spectre/meltdown vulnerabilities?

who cares about freetards

Americans out.

Attached: portrait_of_the_average_american_family_in_2019_by_elviracheyenne666_dd6zz7q-pre.jpg (774x1032, 95.8K)

This.
FSF can suck tranny dick.

if its possible then someone will do it. humans just are like that.

Freedom doesn't mean having more options to choose. Freedom means having control over oneself without harming others.

...

(checked)
based

Gentoo won't even be FSF-approved even if they removed all the non-free packages from portage. They would have to rename it to Gentoo GNU/Linux.

Not every single thread here needs to be bitching and moaning. Sometimes, we can just share and discuss news.

i dont believe that gentoo requires the gnu to work

"Gentoo GNU/Linux" is wrong because it's possible to run non-GNU Gentoo, by using a non-GNU userland. You can even run it without GCC by using binary packages from a different Gentoo system. Even "Gentoo Linux" is a misnomer, as you can run Gentoo FreeBSD. Just "Gentoo" is the accurate name of the system due to the flexibility of distribution.

Or gentoo openbsd or gentoo mac OSX or gentoo prefix/chroot.
You could have a gentoo plan9/toolbox distro if you so wished. Or a gentoo opensparc/busybox distro, all without any GNU tools.

Gentoo is just a misnomer for a entire distribution built upon libtool. The only single core dependency that is used and required by every gentoo installation is libtool, you can replace everything else including autotools or even the package manager. Someone should audit libtool or write a replacement that is multithreaded. As libtool usage takes more time then compiling, except for gigantic packages like libreoffice. I can build a entire system using pkgcore and an alternative autotools but libtool is still required.

Not really, the FSF isn't the Linux Foundation, which calls every system with the Linux kernel a Linux system.
gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html.en
Replicant isn't a GNU/Linux distribution and it is on the list.
gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html

On Guix all it takes to add a channel with proprietary software is literally four lines of code in a config file.
;; Add my personal packages to those Guix provides.(cons (channel (name 'my-personal-packages) (url "example.org/personal-packages.git")) %default-channels)
gnu.org/software/guix/manual/en/html_node/Channels.html

Isn't there already Ututo?

FSF is the communists of opensource, they want to be "liberators" but if anyone else tries to be free without gnu, they throw a bitch fit.
Why do you think stallmen had that gnu/linux rant? because he couldn't comprehend the idea of using linux without gnu. He wanted to split himself from a generalized term people used when talking about the system, because he felt like he wasn't getting any attention.
Fuck him.

WTF I HATE PIRACY NOW!

Stallman calls for the GNU/Linux name because GNU is an operating system and GNU is not a Linux project. People are attributing confusing language to Linux that are outright false as a direct consequence of conflating things that are not Linux to be Linux.

except thats fucking wrong.
Gnu isn't an operating system. It's a set of utitlites.

There is both a technicall and techlit sort of distinction when it comes to what an operating system is.
The techlit apprach would consider the whole package as the operating system. I.E windows. So the linux equivilant would be a distrobution.
The technical approach would be from wince all software is built and handled. THAT WOULD BE LINUX.
Linux is monolithic by design so it handles a lot more then what most poeple think it does.
GNU does what?
grub: boots the system and is ran once, alternatives include lilo and fucking efi.
GCC: it's a fucking compiler
bash: a shell and a shitty one at that
(coreutils)ls, cd, cp, mv, grep, etc...: easily replaceable small and basically just communicates with the kernel.

I would like to know of what this mythicall "gnu" operating system oh which you speak is exactly?
Because as far as i see the only fucking thing you could call an operating system that the fsf has made completely on it's own would be fucking emacs.
All that fsf did was make a compiler and a bunch of easily replaced utils, the easiest fucking thing from unix that you could make.

There are more applications on linux that use fucking python and perl then fucking gnu.
I use Xorg more then fucking gnu.
why do we need to name shit after gnu?!

Oh, because of the compiler i should? well.. it is their biggest contribution. But that doesn't give it permission to agressivly claim anything that uses it should be named after it.
That is like naming all of windows visualstudio/windows because pajeets.

Compared to windows, linux is fucked confused off it's own ass. Everything is upside down on linux.
but then again, windows was named after their desktop enviroment not the kernel.
To what attribution does a "OS" make? how much of a single system does it need to take up to be attributed all the glory?
Linux was given that because of how much it does compared to gnu.
Take this: gnu, a small group of scruffy toe jam eating hackers who made a handfull of utils in userland and are paid with goyboy points from their mothers vs linux a highly cordinated set of maintainers from a billion dollar foundation working together independently on a single system that communicated directly with hardware and makes it avaible to the wider userland.

Is it any wonder why no one gives a shit about the fsf and they are activly mocked even in opensource circle which they claim to "help".
It's because they're insufferable, overbearing, and have never ever shown good leadership or cordination like linus did with his project.
You all remember libreboot right? leah is still fucking there despite sperging so much in his position to gain shekles for his "gender reasignment".
That kind of thing would never happen with the linux foundation, but yet it happens all the time in the fsf.

I call the system linux because i'd rather not give FSF any credit for the literally nothing that they've done.

This is the list of software that make up the entirety of the GNU operating system. This is unlike the Linux kernel program that isn't an operating system by its own self.

gnu.org/software/

as long as Gentoo doesn't stop adding useful non-free software to their repository, I don't mind the change. editing the make.conf is to my liking is the first thing I do after stage3 anyway.

>gnu.org/software/
LMAO did you even read the link you posted.

HOLY SHIT!! I FOUND IT! THE GNU OPERATING SYSTEM! gnu.org/software/gnudos/

Of course I did. That is the GNU operating system.

Nice, my respect for Gentoo increases.

GuixSD is probably the closest we have to a full "GNU OS" right now.

Emacs is an OS by itself so you're plain wrong.

GNU OS is definitely the full GNU OS we have right now. It's been that way since 1984.

hmmm...
Just wanted to point that out, don't have anything of value to say.

Retarded as fuck, what is Replicant?
gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
They created the term "free software" and made the FSDG and according to this they say what's free and what's not, but no one forces you to use what they propose. You could for example think that OSX is a free operating system, because after paying for an Apple computer, you don't have to buy the OS.

No dude. GNU was started before Linux in 1984, and the plan was to create a fully free operating system. Then in 1991 when they didn't have only a kernel, but they started developing one - the Hurd, Linus Torvalds started Linux as a Minix clone, but at the time he had just a kernel. Devs of Debian merged GNU with Linux and called it GNU/Linux. GNU guys didn't tell Debian devs to call it GNU, because they respected the input of Linux devs. But guess what, now they call all the work GNU developers did "Linux OS", while Linux is nothing more than a kernel, because they never completed the OS.
Writing a compiler, coreutils, findutils, libc, bash, etc. wasn't an easy task and without these things you can't even use the system as you would use UNIX. Running the NT kernel alone without the text and graphical shell, without basic programs, etc. isn't the same as running Windows.

Read the FAQ: gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.en

It's not freesoftware, it's opensource.
Freesoftware was always a confusing and retarded term for the idea as it was never truely understood properly by the average man.
It's even more confusing when you realise that software before such a point was seens as commerical, so free in that context would instantly make people think of it was "free bear"
Open source is more direct in that it goes clear to the point. Additonally, the people who coined the definition opensource weren't absolute spergs about it.
FSF is a fucking joke.

Alright, so what utilities would gnu be in that situation?
The breaks? the lights? The air conditioner? A fucking chair?
My argument isn't that gnu aren't useful and have provided parts to the system.
My argument is that gnu has overstepped it's overall importance to the system, what gives gnu a higher right to the spotlight then everything else on a linux desktop?
Unix was made first, gnu was just running off of it's success.
Key word "would" all of these systems have replacements and some are even better at performance then gnu.
Like libc, musl has it's own libc that manages to have way less overhead then gnu.
Coreutils, you can run basically any *nix like coreutil package in place of gnu and have it basically work the same as coreutils are pretty much just standard.
boy.. don't go digging holes for yourself. Bash is a bloated and terrible mess that they still package the old unix shell with every distro because it's just that inconsistent.

The point isn't to say gnu isn't necessary, but more to say that calling the ecosystem "gnu/linux" is retarded because gnu is mostly riding on standardization anyway and has a plethora of drop in replacements.
I often see niggers calling *nix like systems gnu/linux when gnu isn't even involved.
What's even more funny is how many people discredit linux devs for their contributions when they talk about gnu/hurd or other systems like freebsd.
Which, last i checked. STILL USE LINUX MODULES FOR DRIVER SUPPORT.
But yet linux is never mentioned on those systems. It's rather funny when i think about it.
GNU sperges all over the fact they made some simple replacements/opensourced from unix and demand recognition, but at the same time when they decide to package a system using hurd, they forget to mention the use and re-purposing of linux kernel modules...
If linux devs snooped half as low as fsf have there would be massive uproar, but there isn't because linux devs aren't petty autismos.

Free software is only confusing for people who do not understand freedom. For people who believe that authoritarianism is a virtue, software that promotes freedom is meaningless. For people who believe individual freedom is a virtue, the idea of free software is easy to distinguish with gratis software.

Windows is a suite that comprises not just a few shell utilties, but an entire graphics renderer, audio system, Desktop enviroment, and so on.
Comparing GNU's contributions to the scope of windows running on NT is laughable.

Alright but instead of sperging maybe you should realise that communication and being clear to the point matters more in this world where time = money.
Being round about on something that can be made more general and clearer is a shit practice that only causes unneeded confusion.

GNOME is a GNU package.

GNU is the idea of a complete and free operating system (a car). At the time (before adding Linux) GNU lacked only a kernel, so following a car analogy - everything but the engine.
Unix was made first, linux was just running off of it's success!
GNU (Gnu is Not Unix) Unix was a proprietary operating system, none of its code was used in GNU, everything was rewritten.
Linux could be easily replaced by any *nix kernel, for example the GNU Hurd or kernel of FreeBSD, so following your logic, that fact gives me right to call the Linux kernel and the kernel of FreeBSD - the GNU kernel. Also the fact tires and chairs in a car are easily replaceable, doesn't let me call tires and chairs an engine. Or putting an engine from, let me say Toyota to a bus, doesn't magically make my bus a Toyota car.
So why everyone uses it and call it "Linux bash", "Linux terminal", "Linux console"? Being bloated and shit doesn't change anything, it's still a GNU package. Linux is a monolithic and bloated shit too, and it isn't GNU because of that. As far as an OS uses the core components of GNU, it is unjust to call the system only "Linux".
Lol are we living in different dimensions or what? Linux takes all credits for the system, they never completed. They even lie on their website
linuxfoundation.org/projects/linux/
What system? GNU and Debian jump-started Linux. Where's the init made by linux devs? GNU has its own init - Shepherd. Where's their package manager? Oh they don't have one, but GNU has Guix. Where's official Linux distribution? GNU has Guix System. Where's libc made by linux devs? GNU has one. Where's the shell of Linux? GNU has GNOME and bash. GNU has also own kernel - the Hurd in development. GNU also has a compiler - a first thing needed to create free software programs and a free system, Stallman didn't started writing a kernel, because GNU needed a free compiler. Guess Linus compiled Linux with GCC. GNU has implementations of few programming languages - everything GCC compiles, Guile, GNU Kawa, GNU R. Linux Foundation has just nodejs. I would like to see a Linux distribution made with everything Linux Foundation supports - Linux, Git, NodeJS a great system! Linux is overrated. It is a component of many operating systems, and GNU devs understand it, so they call the system GNU/Linux, not just Linux. It is also a component of Android and many small embedded systems, but that's it. It's not fair to call the whole system just after its kernel.
Most distributions call itself Linux, not GNU/Linux so that's not Linux what is "discredited" by people but GNU. And Linux devs discredit GNU by not mentioning it at all on the website.

That's for compatibility reasons, that's a feature. The Hurd is so modular you can easily add support for different drivers. And that's a small part of the Hurd. But when "Linux" uses the entire set of GNU components, that's ok?
Browse the code and check what exactly was taken from Linux, and I'm sure there's a comment line for that in the source code.
As far as I know linux modules are some kind of extension, not a kernel itself. Everyone can write a module. It's like you would bitch around because someone would use a firefox extension inside chrome. Oh no, poor firefox devs (extension devs actually) are discredited!

Nigger, i'm talking about what is widely used across distrobutions and what is commonly attributed as the ecosystem. not ur bullshit historical shit. I know the history, i know it well.
I'm talking about what is gnu doing in the present, now here, currently.
And the answer is quite literally, not much.

It's amazing how easily you can understand the other side of the argument! Good job!

Guix System 1.0.1 released, Shepherd, GNU Jami, rump kernel in the Hurd, Guile 4 times faster thanks to new JIT compiler, binary bootstrapping for GNU/Linux distributions, GIMP having more and more features, etc.
GNU was in a coma for way too long thanks to giving all credits to Linux. It's the of awakening. Now we have our own distribution, then we'll have our kernel too.

There is nothing round about freedom (free) software. If you look in the dictionary for the word "free" you'll find the vast majority of the references refer to liberty and only one reference to "zero payment". People are confused because they are taught only one way. We clear the confusion by clearly establishing the context of freedom being the virtue in question.

...

double based

based

Literally all developers in opensource use other programs and libraries and extend them with their own code.
You have to be fucking retarded to not understand that this is one the most basic principles of computer science.

I'll admit, guix is a more competely gnu operating system. but it isn't the operating system i'm talking about.
I am simple refering to the usage of linux and gnu TOGETHER and what the distrobuters of such setups.
How much gnu are they actually using?
Previously you stated that gnu had it's own init, no fucking distro these days uses init, they use a pid 1 that manages services on top of init. Openrc/systemd/etc
Once again, i am not refering to what gnu has made or contributed as a whole BUT WHAT IS BEING USED AND WHY IS IT WORTHY OF HAVING THE ECO SYSTEM NAMED AFTER THEM? WHY DO WE CALL IT GNU/LINUX IF A DISTRO BARELY USES GNU?!?!
SIMPLY PUT, YOU CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANT THAT"S GIVING CREDIT TO SOMETHING THAT ISN"T BEING USED.
When you refer to guix, you're refering to by gnu that is using gnu! but if i mention something like gentoo or arch how much gnu is being used there?
You also misunderstood me in Where you started using an example i was never refering to: using "linux" infront of normal independent applications like a terminal or shell utilities as a whole.
Doing this you completely misunderstood my argument which was:
1) gnu/linux is a dumb name for an ecosystem as it refers to two sets of replaceable software not a standard
The argument is by talking about gnu and linux you bring up the question of how much of a influence does a simple piece of software need to be included in that name
i.e: gnu/linux/system/...
I used examples of systems that don't use gnu because i simply find it funny how gnu thinks it's the only one who can play that card
2) gnu sperges when ever something doesn't want to be called gnu just like how it sperges when people call gnu linux
3) gnu lacks a clear message, despite catching on with the autismo crowd the wider world sitll doesn't understand exactly what they do
4) EXAMPLE ARGUMENT!: "how much gnu anyway?"
WHAT THE ARGUMENT WASN'T ABOUT:
1) everyone should just call gnu linux
2) every application must be called linux before it
3) long long ago in a not so unix system far away...

"gnu/linux" is retarded for the very reason it exists and having the separation only causes further confusion
In my prevous posts i lead mention to bsd systems which manage to be complete, different and at the same time not separated by what is running.
BSD and the many other *BSD systems (freebsd,openbsd....) manage to seperate themselves because they make a clear distincution that they are different projects working as a difference complete and provided system.
You don't get that with gnu/linux. a normal gnu/linux distro can use any number of gnu utilities or even none. Like a example: gentoo.
GENTOO isn't a linux or gnu distrobution, it is a set of tools a toolkit that provides a ports like system.
It can be used with any number of packages and with any sort of kernel.
It that since, going back to the topic.. Gentoo is not a gnu/linux distrobution.

unbased

that's retarded you don't get to name something simply because it uses your libs

That's exactly my point too.
except i disagree with calling it "Gnu/linux" because they are separate.
It should be named based on the distro or the standard. Gnu/linux is just dumb.
Using the firefox and extension Analogy. We'd be calling it something like... xul, or webextensions. the standard that the addons are built, rather then the program itself.

Show me a Linux library, GNU is based on so it could be called an extension of Linux.

Well, I'm not a big fan of calling it "GNU/Linux" too, but this autism is used thanks to Debian devs. Should it be called just GNU? Giving any credit to Linux made a lot harm in the free software community, because people didn't even know what's the purpose of the system. Systemd is going to change a lot, there will be no GNU/Linux besides Guix, there will be only systemd/linux. I think it's the perfect moment to get the Hurd ready and leave behind people saying "Linux OS" behind...

Wrong logic, the annoyance is rooted on your hardware which the manufacturers make it an 'annoyance' for free open source code. Well it's a given as they want their device protected by patents unless this scheme changes completely, what I am saying is free hardware. You can have free software run in proprietary hardware but even if you do get the source somewhere the hardware can still act on its own like how google services still run when the device is turned off. Heck they even implemented waking up device through voice activation and you can guess how that works.

If you don't want such annoyances, just get yourself a RYF (respect your freedom) certified device. It means your keyboard special keys, backlight/acpi, peripherals such as wifi card would work properly on GNU/Linux FSF distros + RYF device. From what I heard, the only usable processor chipset would be intel as the reverse-engineered and optimized xfree86 graphics driver just works, now the same nvidia or amd chipset won't or at least it can do with open source drivers BUT the motherboard would be blob-infested (open source drivers aren't foss which means it has blobs).
The shit is the proprietary blobs. If you want this to change then be the change. Many attempts had been done to disclose arm phones source code and some out there are free except the baseband which I think will never be free. Maybe actually "hack" the device and wipe it clean and reverse engineer each instructions until you get a desired output "hello world" that's how you do it but the cost is usually the graphics is shit as blobs of obscurity are always required for it to work. Well there's plenty out there whose source are free or partial if not like vivante/etnaviv.

Ok it's not an init init actually, it's a process supervisor
gnu.org/software/shepherd/

Android is a good example of what i mean when i say gnu/Linux is a retarded name schema.
Android uses it's own tools as well as Linux. But it doesn't put Linux or it's tools side by side in it's unifying name, it's just Android.
Much like how when you use a BSD system like OpenBSD, it is OpenBSD same with things like FreeBSD.
They are their own but will use sets of software and are made to describe what can be ran, a standard.
The downstream method for "gnu/Linux" is distributions but distributions are typically retarded. while they use gnu and Linux they have full right over their redistributed name scheme and often also have their own separate development. But despite this, gnu and Linux both wish to hold monopoly over them.

The gnu/Linux name is retarded because they are just sets of software, gnu and Linux aren't an operating system and together they are just barely an operating system.
A real operating system consists of much more (depending on the task).
Typically speaking for desktops one normally expects graphics to be on the system (something like xfce and Xorg).
And for a server moderation tools are required (a good init, service manager, logger and sudo)
These are all separate components packaged by a distribution. The distribution is the naming authority not the software they package.
A distro can make way for listing what they package, but at the end the distribution does it themselves.
What argument there is for a whole gnu system would come from a downstream gnu owned distribution. Like guix.
Openbsd is a project and it's own distribution likewise freebsd.
Linux isn't, because Linux never made their own distribution.
Gnu/Linux is a term that came because Gnu a separate project from Linux at the time saw it's software being used with Linux and at the time had no real downstream distribution of their own.
You are 100% right in saying that Linux is not an operating system. But I'm going to extend that in saying neither is GNU. Because they both lack core components on their own. The reason gnu and Linux are in this issue is indirectly caused by distributions not providing good downstream and upstream communication. OpenBSD never had this issue. Plan9 never had this issue. fucking macos never had this issue. Android doesn't have this issue.
It's only the half baked crossing lines of gnu and Linux that have this unique issue. Because neither of them want to accept the current state of distributions and the fact they've been jumped by a thousand amatures in the distrobution bandwangon. Linux especially.
At least gnu has come to terms and are making their own system finally with guix. but for as long as i see, Linux will just be a kernel. And distributions are still plagued by the spook of needing to brand themselves "gnu/linux" for no reason other then to yell at newcomers.
so basically:
No, your distribution does. So what if they decide to not use gnu and use something else instead? it's their choice.
The attribution to name systems can be generalized like "terminal"(standalone) just fine without going all autismo and placing Linux or gnu in front of it.
I mean the common tongue that these programs communicate with each other. It's not gnu/Linux, obviously.
*nix isn't like windows, you don't need to specify it directly because it should be universal. Most applications that can be compiled for something like Debian can also be compiled on something like OpenBSD. Firefox is a universal application that works wherever it goes (mostly) Just like how you can get bash on OpenBSD, because the way it communicates is standard and doesn't require Linux or GNU as a whole.
Like i said, it's a toolkit. Not owned or ran by any predetermined borders because it's actually sane.
It's probably the best and worst example of "gnu and Linux" because it makes clear the distinction and why GNU/Linux is silly. Because it gives you the power that the distribution had, you get to decide what software runs and what doesn't, and this could be anything so long as it works together.
I could gut the kernel from macos "xnu" and use that if i wanted it'd probably run like shit
Yeah, pretty much.

GNU is an operating system and has been an operating system since 1984. This is because it was intentionally designed to be an operating system from the very beginning and it hasn't stopped being an operating system since the very beginning.

A real operating system doesn't require a system for graphics because there are plenty of operating systems that operate without graphics.

GNU is a distribution by virtue that people are distributing it. No distribution would exist as a GNU/Linux distribution if GNU did not exist! By definition, they would be a different kind of distribution if GNU did not exist.

Except by that logic Linux is also an operating system.
You can't have it one way, it's a two way system.
No.
There a server operating systems and then there are desktop operating systems.
The difference being the targeted audience.
A server operating system can be that like ubuntu home server, where as a desktop could be xubuntu.
The distro still holds charge even here.
A operating system by todays expected standards would be a complete system.
Gnu's operating system is guix. Not gnu.

I have a huge problem with this.
For instance, i'll take a common dialog that is often used for opensource vs proprietary: "cathedral vs bazaar". except with a few differences.
From what i see. A distribution is like a bazaar. There are hundreds of bazaars and they all have their own stalls that may seem similar across the whole. But often have differences like where it's position, location, sale, price, etc.
What i see the term "gnu/linux" and the ideal that gnu is a operating system by merit is something more akin to a chain restaurant. Mcdonalds are all different but they each are chained to the specifications of their masters.
Gnu and Linux however is special kind of chain because they want to claim ownership over the bazaar. Which is a massive problem because the other parts of the bazaar aren't included in this chain and are shafted despite being core components.
This being that, they, the "upstream" want ownership and recognition for, them, the "downstream".

An operating system is the fundamental software foundation upon which the application software requires to exist. A server operating system is a case of operating system targeted for providing services to the computer network and a desktop operating system is a different case of operating system. It is trivial to reconfigure one into the other; I could run a Windows 10 home edition system as a server and a barebones Linux+GNU Bash system as a desktop system by operating it as such. A full featured desktop operating system isn't the only case of operating system, it is simply the case in which most people have direct exposure to.

GNU's operating system is GNU because it was designed to be an operating system - the fundamental base upon which applications build upon. Guix is a tool that forms a part of the GNU OS. GuixSD is one expression of an operation system that is based upon the fundamental GNU OS and Linux kernel program.

Linux is a kernel program that doesn't function as an operating system in itself. This is the reason why people build operating systems together with the kernel program at kernel of the system.

Every new user needs to do extra step(s), not documented in the handbook, to get their system working correctly. No changes to old farts who had already had the ACCEPT_LICENSE set, but those that didn't need to revert back to previous behaviour. I think it's quite telling that gentoo's own release team is not going to be using this new default either.

just configure your system like you want then. it wont overwrite anything if you have modified it.

unbased
stop screeching btw

based

based

tl;dr

based

unbased

based

unbased.

I'm not defending braindamage. Fuck off.
unbased btw

I don't think it's valid to claim that GNU or Linux are replacable in practice.
Would you say for example, if something breaks on Debian/kFreeBSD that it doesn't matter if you include the fact you're running kFreeBSD and not Linux in the report?
If a package fails to compile on your musl flavored Gentoo, I'm pretty sure you have to include the fact that you're using musl when asking for help.
Why? Because GNU/Linux is not the same as GNU/kFreeBSD or a GNU free Gentoo and software generally cannot be expected to run the same.
It wouldn't make sense to treat distros without GNU (or Linux) as the same operating system as distros that use both GNU and Linux in practice.
Therefore both GNU and Linux together are required components of the operating system made up of GNU and Linux.
And since they're the only components required for a functioning system, it is appropriate to call it GNU/Linux.
If a distro is using both GNU and Linux and wants to include one of them in the title, it should include both.

Aren't they just BSD distributions? That's an example of devs actually respecting someones work.
Do they? I think it depends on how how many things they changed, but the problem is that distributors mainly call their distribution "Foobar Linux", instead of just "Foobar", and that's misinforming. They shouldn't do such a thing, because it makes people think Linux is the main and the most important component of the system.
gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.en#distronames
For example look at this schema - Debian developers named their system GNU/Linux, Canonical names their distribution, Ubuntu, a Linux distribution, while they just use Debian unstable (or testing, don't remember) modified a bit, Mint devs call their system a Linux, but they just modified a bit Ubuntu.
They barely modified Debian and does it give them the right to call the system whatever they want? So if Mint developers named their system "Mint BSD" or "Mint ReactOS", would that be ok? I don't think so. There are a lot of distributions just modifying Debian, through changing the logo and installing a different DE. In my opinion it doesn't give them the right, to change the name GNU/Linux, Debian uses. It is easy to take the work of someones life and say it's yours or it's Torvalds' by using only "Linux".
Formally GNOME is a GNU package, but GNOME devs probably joined the systemd and RedHat forces.

...

Distros can name themselves whatever they like, but we need a common name for them to represent the platform.
Think of it this way: What do all GNU/Linux distros have in common? That's rigth, GNU and Linux.
Calling them GNU/Linux is quite reasonable and makes sense.
What standard lol.

Literally nothing wrong with this. You will now get a completely free system by default.
Whether Stallman approves of Gentoo or not, this is a step in the right direction. Free software should be the default, and proprietary stuff should be an occasional annoyance at most.

I can't be bothered to read those walls of text from you autists anymore.
So event though your post might be based I have to unbased you.

Everyone who posts beyond this point is unbased

Authoritarianism and free software are both virtues.

free from working correctly? free to do extra work to get things functioning? stupid change for the worse for purely political reasons

...

What do they say, for example, and where?

The thing about binary blobs is that we cannot make things work correctly when they fail. This is because unauthorized developers (pretty much everybody in the world) are forbidden to access the code to those binary blobs.

Here, they lie about Linux:
linuxfoundation.org/projects/linux/
Linux is nothing more than a kernel that was started in 1991. GNU was started in 1984. If something "jumpstarted Linux" (GNU/Linux), it was the effort to create a fully free operating system - GNU. Actually he even mentions GNU in his mail.
groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/comp.os.minix/dlNtH7RRrGA/SwRavCzVE7gJ

You know.. it's possible that GNU was stagnet even then. basically no devs and everyone gave up making the kernel
RMS himself said they had lots of issues making the hurd because of the intentionally chaotic way they decided to structure it.
Linux took over development because it was retarded and actually worked.

The Hurd is a different thing and I'm not talking about it in this case. I'm talking about all components that had been ready - libc, bash, gcc, etc. Still talking about jumpstarting Linux as the whole OS, by the kernel is a lie.

Thank you for actually answering my retarded question, as I asked before even finishing your post (you already mentioned it right after that).
Yes, I agree. Saying that the development of the Linux kernel "jump-started" whatever the fuck they mean as "Linux as a whole" is just flat out false. Most of the other components already existed long before Linux was even started.

This is fucking cancer. I see this shit everytime I do anything whatsofuckingever. I don't give a fuck what the licenses are. Linux is so cucked they care about some made up rules in some random country. Yes, I give a fuck about having blobs installed, but UNIX is such braindamaged shit that I will never get around to addressing that issue among the 20 layers of other issues.

!!! The following installed packages are masked:- sys-kernel/linux-firmware-20190313::gentoo (masked by: linux-firmware no-source-code license(s))A copy of the 'linux-firmware' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/linux-firmware'.A copy of the 'no-source-code' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/no-source-code'.- app-arch/unrar-5.7.4::gentoo (masked by: unRAR license(s))A copy of the 'unRAR' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/unRAR'.- app-text/dictd-1.12.1-r2::gentoo (masked by: ISOC-rfc license(s))A copy of the 'ISOC-rfc' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/ISOC-rfc'.For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emergeman page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

I see a PEBCAK issue here.