Yes I know that Cuba, the DPRK, and China have their own distros, but they’re pretty specific to the language and networks of those countries. I use linux because it’s free and open source but I use one of those distros that is privately owned and I’m thinking of upgrading to something that is truly communally owned but also has good compatibility with software, especially scientific software. Any good recs please?

Thanks!

  • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Any experience with Fedora? I ask because apparently it’s the one Torvalds uses and because there are a few science-based Fedora variants.

    • Inui [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I use the atomic/immutable community variants of Fedora. Bazzite if you’re a gamer, Bluefin or Aurora if not. Immutable is a whole other workflow, mainly in how you install packages (using flatpaks/brew or distrobox), but the system itself is essentially 0 maintenance because updates are automated and the OS rebuilt on reboot (while keeping your programs and user files). So its more stable than Arch nd you don’t have packages that are 2 years out of date like on Debian. The only downside is updates take a lot of bandwidth if thats a problem for you. But they’re the only distros I recommend to anybody now outside of Debian for servers.

      https://universal-blue.org/

    • tombruzzo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      The makers of Fedora, Red Hat, were acquired by IBM. So whilst there may be nothing wrong with the distro, they are part of your typical evil corpo. And I say this as a Fedora user

    • bumpusoot [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I can’t contradict the fact that Fedora is owned by IBM and used as an upstream for their Red Hat software, it is slightly concerning but not inherently problematic. I’ll at least say I personally have yet to experience any negatives for that fact, and I’ll also add that it does like Debian, and defaults to a “free” software repository, you have to manually enable the non-free ones.

      It probably isn’t the “most socialist”, but it’s open source, absolutely prioritises open source fundamentally, and consequently it’s controllable by the people the second a corp fucks it over (like most Linux distros). I don’t think it’s turned in service of evil (yet).

      • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Do you consider Ubuntu evil, and why? I know it’s owned by a private company (ugh) but searching around apparently it’s still open source

        • bumpusoot [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I don’t think I consider any open-source Linux to be evil. As I say, by being fully and properly open-source, it’s copyable at a moment’s notice. So any of them are inherently held to a much higher standard than any closed ecosystem. It’s like giving people the ability to seize the means of OSing with the click of a button.

      • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I mentioned Torvalds using Fedora not because I idolize him but as the dude who invented the damn thing he’s probably not using a piece of shit distro that doesn’t work well for anything. The DPRK, China, Cuba, and Venezuela for example each have their own Linux distros (Red Star OS, Kylin, Nova, Canaima) so when you say “these software movements would ever be possible in environments like North Korea [sic] or China” that’s demonstrably not correct. Thank you for the Trisquel recommendation though.

          • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I didn’t say Red Star OS was developed entirely in the DPRK, that’s a straw man argument, and you don’t understand the difference between personal property and private property. That the Cuban OS is partially closed source is unsurprising for national security reasons (not for making profit, which is the issue). There’s nothing morally wrong with building off the work of a privately owned company, in fact stealing back from private companies is an incredibly good practice since the labour they use is stolen in the first place. China is currently doing precisely this by allowing foreign capital to access their enormous labour pool in exchange for development of their productive forces (factories, machines, computers, other technology). It’s not a great system but Chinese workers are getting the better end of the deal, and it sets up a future in which more of the economy can be communally owned again. Idk why you’re on hexbear if you disagree with all of this. Hexbear is not a liberal website.

          • sneak100 [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You talk like the only right that matters is the right of individuals to make money off the ideas of individuals. I talked here a bit about how ridiculous it is for anything to be considered a product of one single individual and not that of a society, with it’s own history (in this case, that of empire) and the social web of relations. That doesn’t mean that the individuals in who these ideas emerged shouldn’t be talked about, studied, even revered or whatever, but you’ve got to consider the broader context and stop thinking in terms of copyright law, which is extremely limited and doesn’t reflect on reality (it wasn’t made to, just like any type of property).

            When you talk about how closed source is inherently bad, I want you to consider the wider context of worldwide US hegemony. It helps for me to visualise this relationship through a metaphor of an ethnic minority family, living in the imperial core (US, UK, Europe, etc.) — they have beloved family recipes (intellectual property) of delicious foods that have been passed down for generations. They only share these prized recipes with their closest family and friends. Otherwise — “if you want to try my food, get to know me”. Now, does that make this family stingy or unwelcoming because they don’t give out their favourite recipe to every stranger?

            Oh, look at that some white person with a trust fund just opened a restaurant with an inauthentic take on their family’s food. Someone else just started selling sexualised versions of ethnic minorities’ garb. Wow, this white person just started selling a bad replica of a rug with sacred patterns to a religion of their neighbours. You’ve got to consider that some people live under a white supremacist hegemony that will vacuum up, commodify and sell their cultural products as a matter of inertia. There is a huge difference between open source as in “do whatever you want with this” and “do whatever you want with this, ethically”. For most white people in the imperial core, they wouldn’t know a thing about what it means to be ethical in relation to worldwide US hegemony.

      • hello_hello [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have their way none of this flies because software must never be profitable,

        That’s literally not what he says: (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling)

        “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.

        We want to invite everyone to use the GNU system, including businesses and their workers. That requires allowing commercial use. We hope that free replacement programs will supplant comparable proprietary programs, but they can’t do that if businesses are forbidden to use them. We want commercial products that contain software to include the GNU system, and that would constitute commercial distribution for a price. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. Paid, professional support for free software fills an important need.

        Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its path to success. We must conclude that a program licensed with such restrictions does not qualify as free software.

        Stop lying. You don’t understand what socialism means and you clearly don’t care to learn anything about AES countries judging from this and your other comment. Get your reactionary views away from this site before you misinform more people about free software. You wandered into the wrong part of lemmy with your bs.