Base System disscussion

The Linux “Distribution”, such disgusting Linuxism, called debian has been found to be very woke(The delusions of Debian).

And have been found to behave fraudulently, claiming security, when there is no security (also The delusions of Debian), enter other technical problems.

Other problem with going being a derivative of Debian, and also being a “distribution” of any kind of “distribution”, is that you get all the problematic nonsense of having both system components and application components sharing space, which is problematic as for multiple motives between, it is included the following:

  1. I’ll Use Mine, You Use Yours
    In many other systems, there is a single version of a given library or language runtime that is used both by components of the system itself and by users of the system for their own applications. On the kind of time scales that enterprise OS support covers, large changes can occur in a given piece of software. A new library version might come out that offers desirable features not available in the version shipped with the OS. The new version may also break backward compatibility with existing applications. If that application happens to be a core component of the OS, then upgrading the library becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.
    KYSTY is, above all else, about separating as much as possible the spheres of responsibility for the OS itself and the application environment. The two necessarily have very different goals and development timelines. -https://omnios.org/about/kysty.html

  2. Having security issues like those that debian claims, as the upstream security problems become part of our own system. As well as outdated software.

  3. Impossibility of guarantee quality in the end product. Or give support the the end users.

Those problems could be solved being not a “distribution”, but in this case if Linux is maintained as the kernel of the product, this would force the Lunduke Computer Operating System to be a GPL product, which is always unacceptable. Therefore the only option is using another Kernel, preferably FreeBSD or DragonFlyBSD.

lcos deserves to be its own distribution, regardless of how minimal. But minimal would be the way to go, no? Assuming one would start by forking an decent bsd or mit license codebase.

(1) “Distribution” is a Linuxism, the term for a BSD is a derivate/fork.
(2) Some BSD had more work to do, others less.

Although it may not even matter… The wokeness doesn’t come from what is written in these licenses.

The most “woke” example, or at least an example of a license that dictates moral conduct would be sqlite, which, if not for 2.1. Scope of Application, would signal the end of all IT as we know it, whenever they decide to begin enforcing it.

https://www.sqlite.org/codeofethics.html

(edit: although it isn’t really a license per se, one must still “check the box”, so same difference)

(1) GPL, and other copyleft, licenses attract marxists.
(2) SQLite is not woke

  1. Yes, but those communities and leadership in some cases were not infiltrated because of their licenses.
  2. Sure, but only because they don’t go around policing code of ethics violations.

(1) They weren’t infiltrated, they were radicalized as their owners are with a certainly of 99% already left leaning.
(2) SQLite would not be woke even if they tried to enforce their “Code of Ethics”.