I didn't see the fans mentioned once in the article. I think that it is time for the fans to boycott the "big companies". They sell our music by our leave, and we decide if they stay in business.
I love perl, and I want perl, so I go to the ports.
cd/usr/ports/lang/perl5/
make install
There is a vast number of perl related apps and modules that can be install automatically with the ports system.
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/perl5.html
It should be noted that for most *nix users, perl comes pre-installed, but the ports system would be a great way to quickly get alot of perl functionality onto a new platform.
The first question is why Windows. If you can make a plausible case that such an innovation would lead users to freedom, as we do at GNU-Darwin, then port the system. Otherwise, don't. Maybe someone should give a tip to the guys at GnuWin32, but not me;-}. Simply making free software available is not good enough.
The ports ideal is that you change the desired ports directory and type "make install", no fuss, no problems, done. Most of the BSD distributions meet the ideal so that users can have fresh compiled binaries without any fuss. The GNU-Darwin system does not meet this ideal yet, but that is our goal, and we will accomplish it.
Now imagine such a system, but coupled to a friendly GUI, that even auntie jane could love. You get all of this greatness with a click of a button.
Plus, it's FREE. That ought to appeal to uncle joe's pocketbook, and his sense of independence as well;-}.
I think that this initiative might help to alleviate this porting trees problem. As was said in the paper, the same porting system has been brought over to a number of different architectures in order to harmonize free software development across platforms.
"Is there an issue with verifying the servers connected to, incase they have been hacked and trojans installed?"
Every port that is downloaded is checksumed with MD5 before it is unpacked, so the user is protected. Since you are downloading source and not binaries, the chance of virus problems is greatly reduced.
My apologies, that last post of mine lacked a little in accuracy, but the fact remains that Darwin is not free software until this problem with the APSL is fixed.
BTW, I have really enjoyed our discussion here. Thank you for your excellent questions, Arandir.
Nope these three problems have not been fixed. APSL is OSI approved, but it is not a free software license. You say that RMS approves of APSL now, but that is incorrect. Read the FSF website.
GNU-Darwin is Darwin itself, but overlayed with free software. Mac OSX is Darwin itself, but overlayed with a proprietary interface. We are using the ports system to bring free software to the platform as quickly as possible.
Now that we have all of this free software for Darwin, you can use GNU-Darwin as a stand-alone Unix distribution without Apple's proprietary parts. Most interestingly, all of our contributions are 100% compatible with MacOSX.
It appears that you are speaking as someone who is satisfied with a finished distribution. In that situation, you might scan the ports for software that you would be interested in and build those individual ports. That's fine, and that is our goal with the ports system, but at present, we are doing something quite different from that.
We are building a new distribution. We want every single port to build as soon as possible. That means modifying and optimizing the ports system towards a new purpose. We must consider the ports as a whole and take into account all of the dependencies of all the ports together.
Using the ports system we are building our distribution quickly, and since it's Darwin, we can introduce many OSX users to free software in the process.
There is no "muddlethink" involved here. We are moving from virtually zero free software availability for Apple users to 100%. We are not using the ports for selectively getting the software we want, but rather, we are using it to bring a whole world of software to a new platform. Since the ports is a distributed system, we have a de facto world of collaborators.
It is no leap to see how this frees users in contrast to.NET, which would have nothing to do with free software.
The Distribution has ported free software to Darwin in order to build a stand alone Unix distribution, and at the same time, to expose Apple users to free software. GNU-Darwin is free software running on Darwin. Mac OSX is proprietary software running on the very same Darwin. All of the GNU-Darwin offering run unmodified on Mac OSX.
Although APSL is OSI approved, and Darwin is undeniably open source, it is not yet truly free. The Distribution is unsatisfied with the current state of the APSL, and we are advocating to FREE Darwin according to the FSF definition.
GNU-Darwin aims to be the most free Darwin-based Unix distribution. Our mission is two-fold: Focus on new projects that leverage the unique capabilities of Darwin/Mach and help Apple users to enjoy the benefits of free software.
I'm not saying that the ports is an all encompassing
substitute for.NET, but rather, I see some development potential where
the ports system might stand in for.NET-style service applications, but
free. I don't want to use Word for the rest of my life, and I
especially don't want to pay subscription fees for it. I see M$ trying
to kill free software with.NET, and we need a response. I'm arguing
that the ports could be a crucial part of that response, which could
render.NET valueless.
A response is better than carping about M$, or cowtowing with open source support for an initiative that could potentially damage the free software movement.
Let's Share our software! I'm going to Share my source code with
you=). You can't use it or change it. You can only look at it. Look,
but don't touch. That's _Sharing_. Everybody Share now. Share and
Share alike.
One wonders what Apple's distribution partnership will look like. There will certainly be alternatives out there there though. For example, check this out;
GNU-Darwin Distribution
Slashdot Mirror
Sign if you agree.
Signed,
a fan
Regards,
proclus
GNU-Darwin.org
These are not extrodinary claims at all considering M$ history. Just check his references, if you are not satisfied.
Regards,
proclus
I think that the cited books should suffice for such common knowledge. How about if you prove the guy wrong?
Regards,
proclus
You might want to double check how these manuals appear in xpdf. Kudos and Many Thanks!
Regards,
proclus
Here is the solution: Turn them off.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
I love perl, and I want perl, so I go to the ports.
/usr/ports/lang/perl5/
cd
make install
There is a vast number of perl related apps and modules that can be install automatically with the ports system.
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/perl5.html
It should be noted that for most *nix users, perl comes pre-installed, but the ports system would be a great way to quickly get alot of perl functionality onto a new platform.
Regards,
proclus
The first question is why Windows. If you can make a plausible case that such an innovation would lead users to freedom, as we do at GNU-Darwin, then port the system. Otherwise, don't. Maybe someone should give a tip to the guys at GnuWin32, but not me ;-}. Simply making free software available is not good enough.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuwin32/
Regards,
proclus
The ports ideal is that you change the desired ports directory and type "make install", no fuss, no problems, done. Most of the BSD distributions meet the ideal so that users can have fresh compiled binaries without any fuss. The GNU-Darwin system does not meet this ideal yet, but that is our goal, and we will accomplish it.
;-}.
Now imagine such a system, but coupled to a friendly GUI, that even auntie jane could love. You get all of this greatness with a click of a button.
Plus, it's FREE. That ought to appeal to uncle joe's pocketbook, and his sense of independence as well
Regards,
proclus
I think that this initiative might help to alleviate this porting trees problem. As was said in the paper, the same porting system has been brought over to a number of different architectures in order to harmonize free software development across platforms.
Regards,
proclus
"Is there an issue with verifying the servers connected to, incase they have been hacked and trojans installed?"
Every port that is downloaded is checksumed with MD5 before it is unpacked, so the user is protected. Since you are downloading source and not binaries, the chance of virus problems is greatly reduced.
Regards,
proclus
My apologies, that last post of mine lacked a little in accuracy, but the fact remains that Darwin is not free software until this problem with the APSL is fixed.
BTW, I have really enjoyed our discussion here. Thank you for your excellent questions, Arandir.
Regards,
proclus
Nope these three problems have not been fixed. APSL is OSI approved, but it is not a free software license. You say that RMS approves of APSL now, but that is incorrect. Read the FSF website.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html
Regards,
proclus
GNU-Darwin is Darwin itself, but overlayed with free software. Mac OSX is Darwin itself, but overlayed with a proprietary interface. We are using the ports system to bring free software to the platform as quickly as possible.
Now that we have all of this free software for Darwin, you can use GNU-Darwin as a stand-alone Unix distribution without Apple's proprietary parts. Most interestingly, all of our contributions are 100% compatible with MacOSX.
Regards,
proclus
> However it still meets every definition of Free Software.
APSL is not a free software licence.
1. APSL requires reporting to Apple.
2. APSL does not respect privacy
3. Apple has too much revocation power under APSL.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html
For these reasons, The GNU-Darwin Distribution has not made any contributions to APSL covered code, and we are advocating for greater freedom.
Regards,
proclus
It appears that you are speaking as someone who is satisfied with a finished distribution. In that situation, you might scan the ports for software that you would be interested in and build those individual ports. That's fine, and that is our goal with the ports system, but at present, we are doing something quite different from that.
.NET, which would have nothing to do with free software.
We are building a new distribution. We want every single port to build as soon as possible. That means modifying and optimizing the ports system towards a new purpose. We must consider the ports as a whole and take into account all of the dependencies of all the ports together.
Using the ports system we are building our distribution quickly, and since it's Darwin, we can introduce many OSX users to free software in the process.
There is no "muddlethink" involved here. We are moving from virtually zero free software availability for Apple users to 100%. We are not using the ports for selectively getting the software we want, but rather, we are using it to bring a whole world of software to a new platform. Since the ports is a distributed system, we have a de facto world of collaborators.
It is no leap to see how this frees users in contrast to
Regards,
proclus
The Distribution has ported free software to Darwin in order to build a stand alone Unix distribution, and at the same time, to expose Apple users to free software. GNU-Darwin is free software running on Darwin. Mac OSX is proprietary software running on the very same Darwin. All of the GNU-Darwin offering run unmodified on Mac OSX.
Although APSL is OSI approved, and Darwin is undeniably open source, it is not yet truly free. The Distribution is unsatisfied with the current state of the APSL, and we are advocating to FREE Darwin according to the FSF definition.
Regards,
proclus
Thank you for this helpful criticism, and in the next paper, I will modify the presentation accordingly.
Regards,
proclus
From the GNU-Darwin masthead:
GNU-Darwin aims to be the most free Darwin-based Unix distribution. Our mission is two-fold: Focus on new projects that leverage the unique capabilities of Darwin/Mach and help Apple users to enjoy the benefits of free software.
I'm not saying that the ports is an all encompassing .NET, but rather, I see some development potential where
.NET-style service applications, but
.NET, and we need a response. I'm arguing
.NET valueless.
substitute for
the ports system might stand in for
free. I don't want to use Word for the rest of my life, and I
especially don't want to pay subscription fees for it. I see M$ trying
to kill free software with
that the ports could be a crucial part of that response, which could
render
A response is better than carping about M$, or cowtowing with open source support for an initiative that could potentially damage the free software movement.
Regards,
proclus
http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/
Go port Open Office to Darwin and Mac OSX.
proclus
Let's Share our software! I'm going to Share my source code with
you=). You can't use it or change it. You can only look at it. Look,
but don't touch. That's _Sharing_. Everybody Share now. Share and
Share alike.
proclus
--
Visit GNU-Darwin! http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O
M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++
h--- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>Most of us are hoping for OSX, including Aqua, on Intel-based architecture, not the other way around.
If that is true, I'm afraid that most of you will have a very long wait indeed!
proclus
Check out http://mrcla.com/XonX/.
At GNU-Darwin, we are busily porting GNOME to Darwin X11. There are currently some problems with gnomelibs. You can check the progress here.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnu-darwin/
proclus
One wonders what Apple's distribution partnership will look like. There will certainly be alternatives out there there though. For example, check this out; GNU-Darwin Distribution
proclus
I've ported gtk-gnutella to darwin. Here is the link.
Darwin Gnutella
Regards,
proclus