Are you more of a UNIX or a GNU guy?

Are you more of a UNIX or a GNU guy?

As you probably know, Richard Stallman has said many times in the past that he does not care much about the UNIX philosophy, and that he chose UNIX as the base of his project just because it was "portable and good enough". As long as a program is free, he does not care, so things like systemd and pulseaudio are totally fine.

Are you like Stallman? What do you value more? The UNIX design philosophy, or the free software philosophy?

Attached: unix-linux1.jpg (1006x507, 39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I would combine them both to form NIGG-UX, a combination of UNIX and GNU with the letters rearranged. Every program should do one thing well (unlike pulse or systemd) with no scope creep, following the Unix philosophy yet be gnu-like with no proprietary code.

The real nigger user experience™.

Attached: Chad_Dive.webm (390x214, 2.18M)

>Every program should do one thing well
Yeah... That one thing being that it must work.

I'm 100% a stallman guy.
Non-free software is literally an ethical issue around monopolies over ideas maintained with sheer violence from a state.
Unix shit is pseudo-minimalism and non efficient, and is purely about technology efficience.
the modularity part is ok. The idea that having less features and less lines of code is good is stupid.
> Sacrificing readability for less lines of code is stupid.
> Sacrificing Hardware acceleration and optimization (which require MORE lines of code to use more threads and gpu. Imagemagick does that, for instance) for less lines of code is stupid.
> less LOC doesn't mean it's better to maintain. That depends way more on proper documentation and readable code
Portability is a good goal, but sometimes suckshits and similars use arguments like "you should use sh instead of bash because then it runs on bsd and shit".
> GNU has a shell with better features for scripting ("bashisms")
> BSDtards use featureless, lean shells that are just inferior for scripts
> GNU users are supposed to use inferior shells instead of bash and it's features to appeal to retards that don't want to use better shells
no.

Stallman's also not a fan of systemd too.

I use Linux and I've never used BSD/UNIX but recently I've become interested. I'm not a huge fan of stallman's sjw/political side or the fact that the GPL forces modifications to also be gpl but I do agree with a lot of his ideas on freedom and software. I feel like I prefer a permissive "do whatever" license, though.
And on philosophy – I think I prefer Unix. I dislike bloat and value software that does its purpose well while a lot of gnu software (gimp, emacs) are quite bloated and some (gimp, particularly) don't even fulfill their job very well.

There are many libertarian perspectives on whether non free software is ethical/legal or not:
1. It's ethical as long as there is no coercion and people know the terms of contract clearly before agreeing to it.
2. There's a lack of crucial information in non free software (the source code), and deception is a form of coercion; therefore non free software requires coercion in it's contract.
etc. It can go on and on.
I personally agree with the second position, but the whole thing is a lot more nuanced than just having source code available. I didn't even touch the "other freedoms" that could be restricted by consensual contract and whether or not that's ethical or not.

emacs is anything but bloat. It is a lisp interpreter for which people have built software, being that most of the software is text productivity related (mail, coding etc).
a default emacs install offers A LOT for a really small disk space usage. it's really light on resources and performs well. You can have really lean emacs installs, and modularly built whatever you want on top of it.
Gimp is pretty great as long as you treat it as gimp, and not photoshop. You take the most of it when you learn to do stuff the gimp way, use gmic and script-fu.
I do most of my image manipulation with gimp and emacs (using blimp, a frontend for imagemagick), for drawing i use krita.

Licenses as they are nowadays aren't legitimate forms of contract, as they are written in a way that most people can't easily understand (and that's on purpose). I can't make you sign a contract in mandarin and expect you to follow it.
also:
>freedom 0: if you have a program in your own computer, it's the same as knowing a song and having it on your mind. You must be allowed to think/sing that song in any way you want
>freedom 1: if you have access to the source code, you are free to read and change it, same way you are to change the lyrics of a song
>freedom 2: redistribution is the base of ideas. Ideas are infinite and can be multiplied. To stop me from reproducing ideas isn't to protect your "intelectual property", but to invade my private property. Property can only exist over things that are not infinite, in order to resolve conflicts over more than one person using the same thing.
>freedom 3: same as 2 with your modified version

the source code itself doesn't need to be shared if you aren't distributing the software, you can keep secrets. If you are distributing it, it's almost a kind of fraud, just like selling food without telling the ingredients, because you are selling something saying it does X, but hiding everything else it does (Including methods to do X).

UNIX is proprietary malware.

If the contract is in clear words and you agree to it I don't see why you shouldn't be able to consent to not modifying/distributing the software/source code, the same way an NDA works.

in a valid contract, maybe. but then if someone gets a hold of the software without signing that contract, they are not bound to the contract.
you can, for instance, get a book and agree in not sharing it. If you lose that book somewhere, the one who finds it in the ground can share it, as he didn't agree. dunno how that would work with software.

I do agree with that though.

I think UNIX philosophy is usefull in context of mainframes and serevers and dosen't really holds up in context of desctops.

yep

Now, outside of being valid, that's where free software comes. If the only software you have available is proprietary, you are bound to give away your 4 freedoms to be a part of the contract. To write free software is to make sure you won't find yourself compelled to accept a license for the lack of alternative, because there will be software that respects your freedoms.

I value both, though like Stallman I value free software more. I would prefer to use software that was free but didn't follow the UNIX philosophy than any kind of proprietary software. But I do care about the UNIX philosophy, and my own free software project I'm working on now focuses on many simple programs that combine together to do complex things, rather than a single complex program.

im more a guy that fucks

I also agree with that completely. It's all a part of the balancing act between the consumer and the producers greed. Let people self regulate - and that includes people having the freedom to write FOSS when they get tired of proprietary bullshit or just because of they want to. The way I see it closed source software in it's current implementation is largely unethical - but that doesn't mean that it's always going to be that way.

Fuck the UNIX philosophy
Fuck GNU
Systemd / Linux for life

also, we mostly talked about ethical validity. On a moral standpoint, it's hard to defend contracts that make you give up freedoms.

kek

I like both the "unix philosophy" and the FSF worldview. But if you pushed me, I'd be much more willing to compromise on the former.

For example, systemd is not at all "unixy". But I'm willing to accept Lennart's argument that a modern init system is expected to do lots of things and that therefore systemd's complexity is necessary, to do a complex thing comprehensively, rather than gratuitous. And even if it irritates me sometimes, I'm not really willing to go out of my way to remove it. I am willing to go out of my way to remove nonfree software though, when I have some even vaguely reasonable path to doing so. I've bought hardware specifically so I could get rid of or reduce my need for proprietary drivers or blobs, for instance. (Though a Talos II is, unfortunately, a bit out of my budget)

If there's no coercion I don't see why someone should have the right to give up some freedoms. Suicide is arguably the biggest way you can give up all your freedoms, do you think people shouldn't have the right to end their own lives? Remember that we're talking about a practical world, not an ideal world where suicide would obviously never happen in the first place.

*...why someone shouldn't have the right...
is what I meant

I mean in a Moral way. Although not an ethical crime, requesting people to give away a freedom as basic as reproducing ideas is not really moral (not good, positive, effective at bringing happiness). Probably fails the categorical imperative too (so does suicide). After you pass the Ethical filter to know if something is right, checking the morals of it is a must.
Something immoral isn't instantly ruled out of an ideal world (unethical things are), but not being moral is a sign that it shouldn't be ideally practiced, even if it's not a crime.

That doesn't make any sense. Freedom means not being subject to the will of someone else. By that definition, suicide does not mean you give up your freedom.

No, freedom is being able to pursuit happiness without being stopped by third parties, as long as your acts don't interfere with other people's freedom. If you die, you aren't able to act or pursuit happiness, you are not free anymore.

Who cares about some licenses lmao just do whatever you want with everything. There is nobody to enforce it, once i have code or some program in my pc its my stuff and i own it

Do you think giving up your freedom is a freedom? This quickly turns into a version of Russell's paradox depending on how you define freedoms as a set.
Oh then in that sense I would agree with you. I wasn't aware of the distinction, now I know.

You also aren't restricted anymore because you're dead. So like I said, suicide (which is voluntary) doesn't have much to do with freedom.

>Do you think giving up your freedom is a freedom?
No, that shouldn't be allowed in a free society.

I would like to interject and simply call it undefined. There is nothing to have freedom with, so the state of death can neither have or not have freedom.
Do you believe in positive rights, as opposed to believing only in negative rights that protect you only from not being done "x"?

Freedom is the most important philosophy, and UNIX is non-free proprietary malware. Luckily UNIX is a dead meme.

Attached: 1538679972492.png (800x480, 26K)

I plan on writing a few articles on ethics and morality, some regarding software, licensing and intelectual property. wanna get in touch and share more ideas on the topic later?
[email protected] is my mail address

Thanks, I'm down whenever I have free time.

Stallman emphasizes a few things in a rough order:
>freedom
>usefulness
>correctness
For him, software should be free, useful or otherwise. After that, it's intended to be useful, even if it's not quite correct and isn't simple (because computing is a means to an end, although Stallman still puts freedom above that).
He chose Unix because it was popular. He wasn't really a Unix hacker, but his favored platforms were going the way of the dodo and he hopped ship.

I like the GNU tools a fair bit. I like the bit of the Unix philosophy where programs are reusable components you can put together, but I like the extra features, better documentation, and (often) higher performance of the GNU tools. Cloning and then expanding on the tools was a good decision, providing the power and expressive capabilities of Unix but with loads of little quality-of-life improvements.

Like, fuck: up into the early-90s, a lot of real AT&T-derived Unix utilities had line length limits, something which the GNU tools made a conscious decision to avoid.

This. Gnu software is really top notch quality, and i'm really proud of being a dev for it, even if i still can't so much.

Just because these two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, doesn't mean you necessarily have to make a comparison between the two. You can have both. Given the choice (which makes no sense) I would go with the UNIX philosophy, because I'd prefer to have working standards and less chances of kike/tranny induced vulnerabilities. Source code should be relatively easy to audit.

> omitting os x

What's most important about Unix is basically the same core principle that powers successful software development - utilizing clear separation of concerns. It's not so much about minimalism or suckless, more about modularity.

Emacs is only ok if you consider it _either_ a text editor _or_ an interpreter platform. Using it as your text editor, windowing system and a platform all at the same time clearly leads into a weird mish-mash of different concerns.

The Mac section of the graph is on there.

Free software, of course.
Far too many people unironically believe RMS choose to clone Unix just because. Not so.
Unix was a popular OS at the time, and making GNU functionally similar to Unix would have made it easier to switch. The goal of the GNU project and the FSF is, and has always been, spreading free software and eventuallly eradicating proprietary software.
That's why arguments against GNU such as
>hurr durr not unix-like
>hurr durr not the unix philosophy
>hurr bloat
are meaningless. Being Unix-like was never the goal, rather, just a means to the real goal.
Besides, from a purely technical point of view, Unix itself did have many glaring issues not present in other OSes, even at the time, some of which unfortunately have persisted in modern Unix-like OSes, especially security issues.
There are some projects out there whose goal instead is seemingly just cloning a '70s OS and using "security features" to hopelessly try to patch the broken Unix foundation, and being used for free labor, but that's another story.

Attached: reading1.jpg (600x510, 480K)

Agreed.
>Portability is a good goal
It certainly is, but the Unix idea of "portability" is making everything look like one machine, the PDP-11.
The mess that is the Unix Filesystem Hierarchy, in fact, is just modeled after physical disks the PDP had (/usr was born simply because they ran out of space).
Hell, even C's virtual machine resembles it.

Is free software compatible with national socialism?

Suicide is the strongest act of will there is.

Attached: schopenhauer.jpg (1147x1600, 567K)

of course it is just look this website

unix is an operating system, linux is a kernel

> design philosophy
> software philosophy
Not mutually exclusive, false dichotomy.

>a permissive "do whatever" license
it's called a cuck license

How is it cuck if the user can do more and there's no commie bs forced on you?

he's like 14 and doesn't even know what the word 'cuck' means beyond 'bad'

It implies that freedom also means you are free to interfere with freedom. Also, BSD cucks only hate GNU, they love proprietary licensers and don't feel as offended about proprietary as they feel about the GPL

But it's the GPL that takes away your freedom to do whatever the shit you want.

The permissive licenses do not take anything away from anyone, you share your shit if you want, you're not forced to do it.

Now, listen up here pal... I want my software light and minimal, and FREE, because FREEDOM is inegotiable, and you'll NEVER BE ABLE TO TAKE OUR DESIGN PATTERNS AND OUR 4 ESSENTIAL FREEDOMS!!!!!1!!!

the gpl prohibits taking away freedom with proprietary shit. It doesn't take away freedom to take away freedom because taking away freedom isn't freedom. BSD licenses allow you to take away freedom with proprietary licenses on top of it.
if anything, BSD are relativist commies who think it's ok to take away freedom because ethics is for capitalists.

And yeah, bsd allows for proprietary relicensing. The original copy is still free, but the software has been copied and relicensed, which means the NEW copy isn't. They can now modify the software and keep it proprietary.

>this fag again
UNIX the OS and UNIX the design philosophy are two different things.

At first I would think no, because the FSF types are all super liberal, but then again it could be argued that proprietary software that restricts users' freedoms is a part of le jewish conspiracy.
based.

GPL prohibits enslavement.

Which is what GPL tries to fight against. To the GPL, Stallman, and the Free Software movement, proprietary software is inherently unethical.

This user knows.

Unix philosophy is EXCELLENT, however, Unix the operating system and many of its clones are not designed in a way that makes sense within this guiding philosophy. You say you want little programs that each do one thing and come together to make a bigger whole. That's cool. That's comfy.
However, if that's the goal, why is the kernel one giant several-million-line fuckoff binary? To me, the truest realization of the Unix philosophy would be a system with a microkernel, but sadly trends and developments over the years did not result in such systems becoming dominant. Maybe SeL4/Genode, Redox, or Google Fuchsia will have more success.
Unix was also designed around a time when security research was still, comparatively to today, in its infancy. The standard model for permissions is a simple DAC system with rwx on owner, group, and others. There's been some modernizations such as MAC with SELinux, but perhaps a more efficient modern solution would be implementing something that strictly and transparently implements least privilege, such as Capability-based security, which theoretically would do away with ACLs altogether. I think some of the systems listed above implement such features.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security
I just want a microkernel *nix OS usable as a daily driver, damn it!

>But it's the GPL that takes away your freedom to do whatever the shit you want.

Being able to add extra license terms is a power, not a freedom. I could buy the argument that another copyleft license such as CDDL or MPL better defends freedoms for various reasons, but it is FUD to claim to non-copyleft lets you do whatever you want.

>The permissive licenses do not take anything away from anyone, you share your shit if you want, you're not forced to do it.

You aren't forced to do that with GPL either. Only if you give someone a binary are you required to disclose source code, and that is so the user can exercise their own right to study, modify, and distribute the program, in the same way that you have.

guix might help with the development of hurd for everyday use, so that might be an option in some time

Good point.

even if intelectual property should not exist. and it should not.
i should not be forced to give away the source code if i want to redistribuite it. that giving away my work. and i an not preventing you from copy pasting my binary anyway.
or trying to reproduce the code on your own
just because you should not be punished for having the same idea as i have does not means i should be forced to explain how my idea works

there is an issue of fraud in that tho. the same way hiding what you put on the food being sold is deceiving.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but neither does one imply the other.
Just as it's possible to support both ideologies, it's perfectly possible to approve of one and oppose the other, and that's what this thread is about.
In fact, this is a simple, yet refreshing thread, as far too often people think free software = Unix stuff (which is ironic, since the original Unix was proprietary).

>Unix philosophy is EXCELLENT

Attached: 1550586791692.png (800x600, 220K)

Are you the user or the writer? If you're the user, BSD is fine. If you're the writer, BSD means users can fuck you over. Hence cuck.

Example, FreeBSD has no market share or funding, meanwhile Apple took the code and are printing money with it. Great if you're Apple, but FreeBSD is a cuck.

>does not means i should be forced to explain how my idea works
That's literally what patents do

>Are you the user or the writer? If you're the user, BSD is fine. If you're the writer, BSD means users can fuck you over. Hence cuck.
You summed it up well. This is exactly the reason why, while I have no problem using it, I do not contribute to BSD/MIT-style licensed software.
Merely using it does not harm my freedom as a user, or anyone else's, but by contributing to it, I could potentially enable someone else to take freedom away from others.