1. 35
  1.  

    1. 4

      The goal is definitely GNU-free, but yea, it still depends on gmake to build some packages. It’s the only GNU dependency, too. A gmake replacement would finish the job.

      1. 4

        Seems that you would have to replace freetype as well.

        Curious to read a little bit more about the rationale though. What’s so wrong about GNU software?

        1. 20

          I think one advantage is that GNU has had something of a “monopoly” in a few areas, which hasn’t really improved the general state of things. The classic example of this is gcc; everyone had been complaining about its cryptic error messages for years and nothing was done. Clang enters the scene and lo an behold, suddenly it all could be improved.

          Some more diversity isn’t a bad thing; generally speaking I don’t think most GNU projects are of especially high quality, just “good enough” to replace Unix anno 1984 for their “free operating system”. There is very little innovation or new stuff.

          Personally I wouldn’t go so far so make a “GNU free Linux”, but in almost every case where a mature alternative to a GNU project exists, the alternative almost always is clearly the better choice. Sometimes these better alternatives have existed for years or decades, yet for some reason there’s a lot of inertia to get some of these GNU things replaced, and some effort to show “hey, X is actually a lot better than GNU X” isn’t a bad thing.

          1. 8

            A LOT of people have soured on GNU/FSF as a result of the politics around RMS and the positions he holds.

            1. 3

              A lot of people were soured on them long before that; the whole GPL3 debacle set a lot of bad blood, the entire Open Source movement was pretty much because people had soured on Stallman and the FSF, the relentless pedantry on al sorts of issues, etc. Of course, even more people soured on them after this, but it was just the last in a long line of souring incidents.

              Was (re)watching some old episodes of The Thick of It yesterday; this classic Tucker quote pretty much sums up my feelings: “You are a fucking omnishambles, that’s what you are. You’re like that coffee machine, from bean to cup, you fuck up.”

              1. 1

                For sure. Never seen The Thick Of It but I love Britcoms and it’s on my list :)

                I’ve always leaned towards more permissive licenses. We techies love to act as if money isn’t a thing and that striving to make a living off our software is a filthy dirty thing that only uncool people do.

                And, I mean, I get it! I would love NOTHING more than to reach a point in my life where I can forget about the almighty $ once and for all and hack on whatever I want whenever I want for as long as I want! :)

            2. 4

              Yeah, when I hear “GNU” I think cruft. And this is from someone who uses emacs! (I guess you could argue it’s the exception that proves the rule, since the best thing about emacs is the third-party ecosystem).

              And this is only about GNU as an organization, to be clear. I have no particular opinions on the GPL as a license.

              1. 2

                Even Emacs is, unfortunately, being hampered by GNU and Stallman, like how Stallman flat-out refused to make gcc print more detailed AST info for use in Emacs “because it might be abused by evil capitalists”, and the repeated drama over the years surrounding MELPA over various very small issues (or sometimes: non-issues).

                1. 2

                  Yeah, it’s really unfortunate :/

            3. 12

              From the site:

              Why
              • Improve portability of open source software
              • Reduce requirements on GNU packages
              • Prove the “It’s not Linux it’s GNU/Linux …” copypasta wrong
              1. 2

                Why not? (I’m not affiliated with the project, you’d have to ask the people maintaining it)

                1. 6

                  Yeah, “why not?” is a valid reason imvho. I would like to know which one it theirs in actuality. I often find that the rationale behind a project is a good way to learn things.

                  And fair enough, I assumed you were affiliated. FWIW, Freetype is not a GNU project, but it is indeed fetched from savannah in their repos, which I found slightly funny.

                  ETA: it also seems to be a big endeavor so the rationale becomes even more interesting to me.

                  1. 1

                    My rationale was partially to learn things, partially for the memez and partially as an opportunity to do things the way I want (all these people arguing about init systems, iglunix barely has one and I don’t really need anything more). I wanted to do Linux from scratch to learn more about Linux but failed at that and somehow this ended up being easier for me. I think I definitely learnt more trying to work out what was needed for myself rather than blindly following LFS.

                2. 1

                  There is nothing inherently wrong with gnu software; I just like to have choice.

                  1. 1

                    Freetype is available under its own permissive license.

                    1. 1

                      That’s correct! I downloaded https://download-mirror.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freetype/freetype-2.11.0.tar.xz just to double check, and here is the license:

                      FREETYPE LICENSES
                      -----------------
                      
                      The FreeType  2 font  engine is  copyrighted work  and cannot  be used
                      legally without  a software  license.  In order  to make  this project
                      usable to  a vast majority of  developers, we distribute it  under two
                      mutually exclusive open-source licenses.
                      
                      This means that *you* must choose  *one* of the two licenses described
                      below, then obey all its terms and conditions when using FreeType 2 in
                      any of your projects or products.
                      
                        - The FreeType License,  found in the file  `docs/FTL.TXT`, which is
                          similar to the  original BSD license *with*  an advertising clause
                          that forces  you to explicitly  cite the FreeType project  in your
                          product's  documentation.  All  details are  in the  license file.
                          This license is suited to products which don't use the GNU General
                          Public License.
                      
                          Note that  this license  is compatible to  the GNU  General Public
                          License version 3, but not version 2.
                      
                        - The   GNU   General   Public   License   version   2,   found   in
                          `docs/GPLv2.TXT`  (any  later  version  can  be  used  also),  for
                          programs  which  already  use  the  GPL.  Note  that  the  FTL  is
                          incompatible with GPLv2 due to its advertisement clause.
                      
                      The contributed  BDF and PCF  drivers come  with a license  similar to
                      that  of the  X Window  System.   It is  compatible to  the above  two
                      licenses (see files `src/bdf/README`  and `src/pcf/README`).  The same
                      holds   for   the   source    code   files   `src/base/fthash.c`   and
                      `include/freetype/internal/fthash.h`; they wer part  of the BDF driver
                      in earlier FreeType versions.
                      
                      The gzip  module uses the  zlib license (see  `src/gzip/zlib.h`) which
                      too is compatible to the above two licenses.
                      
                      The  MD5 checksum  support  (only used  for  debugging in  development
                      builds) is in the public domain.
                      
                      --- end of LICENSE.TXT ---
                      
                  2. 4

                    Why would anyone want to write a GNU make replacement when GNU make exists?

                    1. 3

                      Having it under a more permissive license is a very valid reason though. Guess why FreeBSD is writing their own git implementation…

                      If the only tool for a task is closed-source then there is a project trying to make an open-source one. If the only open-source tool for a task is under a copyleft license then there is a project trying to make a non-copyleft one. Once a project is BSD, MIT or public domain we can finally stop rewriting it.

                      1. 2

                        If avoiding copyleft is the goal then the Linux kernel is a weird choice. And important parts of the FreeBSD kernel (zfs) are under a copyleft license too (CDDL).

                        1. 1

                          I find OpenBSD to be one of the best choices as far as license goes. I’ve been slowly moving all my Debian machines to OpenBSD in the past year (not only because of the license, but because it’s an awesome OS).

                          1. 1

                            I haven’t tried using OpenBSD in earnest since are around 1998. I prefer a copyleft to a BSD style license personally but maybe I’ll take another look. And I hear that tar xzf blah.tar.gz might even work these days.

                            1. 1

                              It gets improved with every new major release, I’ve used it consistently for the past 3 or 4 releases and there’s always noticeable improvement in performance, user-land tools, drivers, arch support, etc. I’d definitely give it a try again!

                        2. 1

                          This is fine reasoning but relativized. After all, I could just as easily say that if the only tool for a task is under a non-copyleft license, then there is a project trying to make a GNU/FSF version; once GNU has a version of a utility, we can stop rewriting it.

                        3. 2

                          They don’t want to do that. They want a non-GNU replacement for GNU make

                          1. 1

                            They could just fork GNU make. That would work right?

                            1. 4

                              Or use bsdmake.

                              1. 2

                                bsdmake is in fact included, but it can’t build all gmake makefiles unfortunately.

                                1. 3

                                  I used to do a fair bit of packaging on FreeBSD, and avoiding things like GNU make, autotools, libtool, bash, etc. will be hard and a lot of effort. You’ll essentially have to rewrite a lot of project’s build systems.

                                  Also GTK is GNU, and that’ll just outright exclude whole swaths of software, although it’s really just “GNU in name only” as far as I know.

                                2. 1

                                  No bmake isn’t enough to build the Linux kernel

                                3. 1

                                  Depends on their goals. Some people don’t like GNU or GPL projects. If that’s the case then probably not.

                                  1. 4

                                    If they don’t like GPL projects then using the Linux kernel is a weird choice.

                                  2. 1

                                    The entire point here is to not contain any GNU code, so no.

                                    1. 5

                                      zlib is derived from GNU code (gzip) so anything that includes zlib or libpng etc will “contain GNU code”. This includes for example the Linux kernel.

                                      1. 6

                                        He didn’t say they’ve achieved their goal. It’s still a goal.

                                        Why does it seem like you’re trying to “gotcha” on any detail you can refute?

                                        It’s just someone’s project.

                                        1. 3

                                          I’m trying to understand the goal. If the goal is avoiding software that originated from the GNU project that is probably futile. The GNU project has been a huge, positive influence on software in general.

                                          1. 5

                                            You know the goal. They stated it. The parent comment to you stated it again.

                                            It might be futile, but luckily we don’t control other peoples free time and hobbies, so they get to try if they want. You seem to be taking personal offense at the goal.

                                4. 1

                                  For fun

                              2. 3

                                From the site:

                                Iglunix is a Linux distribution but, unlike almost all other Linux distributions, it has no GNU software¹

                                ¹With the exception of GNU make for now

                                1. 1

                                  Yes I still haven’t been able to replace a couple projets. For self hosting gnu make is all that’s left, for chromium bison (and by extension gnu m4) and gperf are all that’s left.

                                2. 4
                                  1. 2

                                    How does it compare to Chimera Linux, featured here recently? Aren’t both projects trying to do the same thing (and hitting the same issue?)

                                    1. 3

                                      Iglunix uses a custom, hacked together, package manager written in pure POSIX shell

                                      This would be a big one, chimera use alpine’s very good apk. I think that says a lot about the philosophies of the two projects.

                                      1. 1

                                        Yes iglunix currently is a very hacky project to see if things are possible, but I am now daily driving it so I will eventually get annoyed enough to fix these rough edges.