EU OS: A Fedora-based distro 'for the public sector'
-
Fedora is not that detached from IBM.They dictate it's development hence the removal of codecs. If it was a community addition why would it matter? And why would they remove the codecs. After that it was obvious fedora was not a community dustro but driven by Redhat.
If it was a community addition why would it matter? And why would they remove the codecs.
You don't have to be a corporation to be held liable for legal issues with hosting codecs. Just need to be big enough for lawyers to see you as an attractive target and in a country where codec patent issues apply. There's a very good reason why the servers for deb-multimedia.org (Debian's multimedia repo), rpmfusion.org (Fedora's multimedia repo), videolan.org (VLC's site), and others are all hosted in France and do not offer US-based mirrors. France is a safe haven for foss media codecs because its law does not consider software patentable, unlike the US and even most other EU nations.
Fedora's main repos are hosted in the US. Even if they weren't, the ability for any normal user around the world to host and use mirrors is a very important part of an open community-friendly distro, and the existence of patented codecs in that repo would open any mirrors up to liability. Debian has the same exact issue, and both distros settled on the same solution: point users to a separate repo that is hosted in France which contains extra packages for patent-encumbered codecs.
-
There has been a will towards more independence for a long time though, Trump is just an extra push towards it.
I don't think it about anti-americanism, but we do need to cultivate local products and services more. Europe has for a while been falling behind in a lot of areas, combined with an aging population and an energy crisis, we really need to try and develop internally if we want to keep ourselves afloat, otherwise I'm not sure we can sustain our current quality of life.
Nah, just going along with Ukraine war and letting it get to and pushing to the point of war is a testament that Washington and Brussels are a foreign policy monolith. That finally sold it for me. EU is ready to sacrifice it's interests to drive their perceived transatlantic interests that the two political classes mostly share. EU political elite and media mainly hate Trump because he showed that EU capitals and Brussels are bunch of losers with no real political agency, who got conned into supporting and prolonging this unwinnable war to the hilt and are now being left to hold the bag.
First concrete move towards EU independence would be to stop this war and normalize with Russia, but in this fucked up world Trump wants both and EU wants neither. That is the fucked up world we live in. EU wants further conflict on it's continent and US doesn't want a war in Europe.
I do personally want European independence, but I see that EU in it's current state is not a force for it, nor is it good for Europeans.
-
Nah, just going along with Ukraine war and letting it get to and pushing to the point of war is a testament that Washington and Brussels are a foreign policy monolith. That finally sold it for me. EU is ready to sacrifice it's interests to drive their perceived transatlantic interests that the two political classes mostly share. EU political elite and media mainly hate Trump because he showed that EU capitals and Brussels are bunch of losers with no real political agency, who got conned into supporting and prolonging this unwinnable war to the hilt and are now being left to hold the bag.
First concrete move towards EU independence would be to stop this war and normalize with Russia, but in this fucked up world Trump wants both and EU wants neither. That is the fucked up world we live in. EU wants further conflict on it's continent and US doesn't want a war in Europe.
I do personally want European independence, but I see that EU in it's current state is not a force for it, nor is it good for Europeans.
I largely agree, that's why I was saying that I'm skeptical that all this will amount to anything substantial.
The will for independence exists in the EU, the problem is that the politicians don't have the balls for it and they would rather push to maintain the status Quo in all the things that would bring real change.. and instead focus on small things that appear good on paper but don't really amount to anything. See for example the DMA and all it's promises of forcing big corporations to bend the knee on stopping monopolies.. even when a policy like that is written, it is hardly ever properly enforced. Has any company gotten any serious trouble for not implementing GDPR properly since it was introduced?
-
Why Fedora?
Sorry, but there are so many European options, it makes no sense to build a European house on an American basement.It's still open source
-
Why Fedora?
Sorry, but there are so many European options, it makes no sense to build a European house on an American basement.Probably since it's the main redhat upstream and they want the advantage of already widespread usage.
Although at that point why not OpenSUSE for the same reason you mentioned.
-
Debian is open source though. So unless they make it closed source we can keep using it.
Making it closed source would probably kill it and a fork would take its place.
Well, all the distros being discussed are open source - it's kind of a requirement when making a linux distro because the licences require it and you wouldn't be able to make it closed source. (Unless there's a huge shift in the law)
And being open source doesn't necessarily prevent it falling under sanctions legislation. I have seen a linux distro being legally required to "take reasonable steps" to geo-block Russian access to its repos, and I've personally read disclaimers when installing linux that "This software is not allowed to be used in Russia". (That distro is 'owned' by an organisation that was controlled by a single person, so it's probably not comparable to Debian)
We're all technical people so we can all probably think of half a dozen ways around that, but it was still ordered by the US Government (even before the current government)And you may be right in that it would be excempt. Debian isn't owned by anyone, but its trademark is(Software in the Public Interest), and it feels possible that those who help distribute foss (by mirroring repos for example) may be restricted if they fall under US jurisdiction. I don't know for certain - and unless someone here is a qualified lawyer specialising in software licences as well as how software rooted in the US relates to sanctions - we're all probably guessing.
Three months ago any of this would have felt ridiculous - who would want to stop free software? But now? In this era of the ridiculous? I certainly feel unsure about predicting anything.
-
And fedora is controlled by IBM. What's your point.
Point? I was replying about Mint and Ubuntu - what has Fedora got to do with them?
-
Why Fedora?
Sorry, but there are so many European options, it makes no sense to build a European house on an American basement.if you're not paying it doesn't really matter. open source belongs to everyone; it's a disservice to put it in the same bag as, say, a Microsoft or Apple OS.
plus how far removed is enough? are we going to scrutinize what programming languages were used and where they originated as well?
-
I found that a weird statement too. It's literally based on a rapidly moving community distribution.
Sorry, it is very poorly worded. English isn't my primarily language. What I intend to say is that government would benefit for picking a community distro instead of a company driven one like Valve did.
-
It's only a proof of concept at the moment and I don't know if it will see mass adoption but it's a step in the right direction to ending reliance on US-based Big Tech.
-
if you're not paying it doesn't really matter. open source belongs to everyone; it's a disservice to put it in the same bag as, say, a Microsoft or Apple OS.
plus how far removed is enough? are we going to scrutinize what programming languages were used and where they originated as well?
Open source is free for everyone, I think the objection is more about an american company being able to directly influence the decisions, operating under US jurisdiction, etc.
-
Probably since it's the main redhat upstream and they want the advantage of already widespread usage.
Although at that point why not OpenSUSE for the same reason you mentioned.
Suse is the first thing that came to mind
-
I'm sure Fedora is full of binary blobs and not-so-free software
fedora is staunchly opposed to non-free software in their default distro … that spat a few weeks ago with OBS was related to that AFAIK
unsure about like signed blobs for “security” services but i imagine they’d be very limited, and optional
rather than sticking a white label on Fedora and call it something else
but for what benefit? no matter what’s trying to be achieved, starting with a very full-featured, robust OS that’s widely used is going to serve you very well… not just technically (less work for the same outcome), but for human reasons
there are loads of guides out there for how to fix fedora issues, few for guix… loads of RPMs that are compatible with fedora, and i can only imagine fewer packages for guix
and then if you’re talking about server OSes - and actually workstations too - managing them with tools like ansible etc… fedora is going to have off the shelf solutions
just Fedora with different theme
well, the actual software and configuration i’d argue aren’t the important part - owning the infrastructure is the important part… package mirrors, distribution methods (eg a website), being able to veto or replace certain packages, and the branding (or regulation) that draws people to it… being able to roll out a security patch to every installation without a 3rd party okaying it, for example
I don't think there are many distributions that are truly free. At least not in the eyes of the FSF.
Most versions of the kernel are full of blobs and obfuscated code.but for what benefit? [...] fedora is going to have off the shelf solutions
Yes, but that's my point: fedora is ALREADY full featured.. the work needed is trivial, to the point that directly using an installation of fedora by itself (along with ansible) wouldn't be very different from doing he same with EU OS... at that point you don't need EU OS, you just need Fedora.
well, the actual software and configuration i’d argue aren’t the important part - owning the infrastructure is the important part…
I repeat (the full sentence): "I guess we’ll have to see how much they customize it, but in my experience with previous attempts, I’m expecting just a re-skin, just Fedora with different theme"
Maybe you have a different experience with government-managed distros. But there have been some attempts at that in my (European) country that were definitely not much more than a reskinned "Ubuntu" from back in the day. Using Ubuntu infrastructure, Ubuntu repositories.. and the only little bit of infrastructure they added was an extra repo, not for mirroring, but for providing the few packages that were actually responsible for the theming, reskining and defaults.
Also you did not address the other point (which was the initial main point): do you really think that Fedora and Red Hat would not benefit from it?
-
It's only a proof of concept at the moment and I don't know if it will see mass adoption but it's a step in the right direction to ending reliance on US-based Big Tech.
In my opinion, If sovereignty is the goal i think GTK based DE will be safer than QT based DE.
I am aware of The Free QT foundation
And its relation to KDE
but in a long term there is possibility of things might get complicated if there is change in policy . And even the QT trademark is not totally free. I'm not trying to start DE war, i love both KDE and GNOME. -
It's only a proof of concept at the moment and I don't know if it will see mass adoption but it's a step in the right direction to ending reliance on US-based Big Tech.
-
Open source is free for everyone, I think the objection is more about an american company being able to directly influence the decisions, operating under US jurisdiction, etc.
-
In my opinion, If sovereignty is the goal i think GTK based DE will be safer than QT based DE.
I am aware of The Free QT foundation
And its relation to KDE
but in a long term there is possibility of things might get complicated if there is change in policy . And even the QT trademark is not totally free. I'm not trying to start DE war, i love both KDE and GNOME.The Qt foundation tried to get fucky once already, and KDE and some other major companies that rely on it were about ready to fork it if they persisted, and Qt seemed to calm down after that.
Not a great relationship to be in though, constantly suspecting that your toolkit might do a rugpull at some point if the shareholders demand it. But I think they could pull off a fork if they ever did.
-
I'm sure Fedora is full of binary blobs and not-so-free software
fedora is staunchly opposed to non-free software in their default distro … that spat a few weeks ago with OBS was related to that AFAIK
unsure about like signed blobs for “security” services but i imagine they’d be very limited, and optional
rather than sticking a white label on Fedora and call it something else
but for what benefit? no matter what’s trying to be achieved, starting with a very full-featured, robust OS that’s widely used is going to serve you very well… not just technically (less work for the same outcome), but for human reasons
there are loads of guides out there for how to fix fedora issues, few for guix… loads of RPMs that are compatible with fedora, and i can only imagine fewer packages for guix
and then if you’re talking about server OSes - and actually workstations too - managing them with tools like ansible etc… fedora is going to have off the shelf solutions
just Fedora with different theme
well, the actual software and configuration i’d argue aren’t the important part - owning the infrastructure is the important part… package mirrors, distribution methods (eg a website), being able to veto or replace certain packages, and the branding (or regulation) that draws people to it… being able to roll out a security patch to every installation without a 3rd party okaying it, for example
The spat with the OBS devs was due to a fedora package maintainer refusing to package OBS with an older library for their own Fedora Flatpak repo, despite the newer library causing severe breakage with OBS (which is why the OBS devs held it back in the flathub release).
-
Having seen SuSE destroy collaborators like OL, CNC and probably Turbo, I'm okay never even working with them as a customer. I intend to avoid them until death.
SuSE destroy collaborators like OL, CNC and probably Turbo
I'm very new with this and have no idea what OL, CNC and Turbo is. Could you please elaborate?
-
It's only a proof of concept at the moment and I don't know if it will see mass adoption but it's a step in the right direction to ending reliance on US-based Big Tech.
"Made with
️ in Brussels by Robert Riemann"
Clicked his URL…
"physicist and computer scientist…passionate about open source and free software, cryptography…"
Whew, almost read crypto"currency"…
"…and peer-to-peer technology such as BitTorrent or Blockchain/Bitcoin.
Goddammit.--
︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.
