Why does the nVidia work well on FreeBSD but not Linux? Are you fully confident that the problem is only nVidia if the driver works fine on FreeBSD?

Navi has a built-in download manager, it is not a standalone download manager. I use Navi as a light web browser for websites in case I never a browser on phone.

I do not compile IceCat, it’s available in different repositories.

I am using Graphene abd I disabled Vanadium due to it being Chromium essentially. I use Navi or Download Navi from F-Droid. It does not have as much web functionality as Vanadium, but I don’t use phone for websites, I read websites on computer or laptop, but occassionally something might need a browser momentarily so that’s what Navi for.

If you want a web browser for privacy, I would suggest use F-Droid and in Settings under Anti-features, turn off every option in there, do a search for browser and see what you think of the options. It’s either cheap development or old. A mobile web browser that protects privacy doesn’t seem to exist with the capabilitied of a Firefox.

I’m a strong believer that there is no such thing as a privacy respecting browser that is closed source. For that reason, I use IceCat on computer.

Nothing can touch Photoshop. They pay developers good salaries to implemend new features. For people who do media prouction and photography for $150,000, they only care about time, nothing else. I will always tell them to use Mac or Windows and Photoshop to get work done in a hurry and get paid.

GIMP does not exist or is s laughing joke for people who work full time in graphic design and photo production.

It was last month

https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/celebrating-30-years-of-freebsd-30th-anniversary-merchandise/

Born one month after FreeBSD

Until someone gives legal notice to IBM lawyers forcing Red Hat source code to be released pulicly, all of this debating over it means jack nothing.

If nobody takes IBM to court, the matter is settled and all developers must accept Red Hat’s choices.

If they dismiss the online talk, ignore all criticisms, and nobody pays for a lawsuit, the case is done and finished.

I’m not trying skip over your points, as I said from my first first, everybody can talk all they want, who has the power of persuasion or legal force to change IBM’s decision?

I may be wrong, but I believe only the Linux Foundation is a position to call IBM CTO, President, whoever, and say “We heard about the changes to with holding Red Hat’s source code, you will not be doing that, it shall remain public. If you want to discuss this further, please send your most expensive lawyers to our offices and we will explain in detail why you won’t be doing that.”

The GNU/Linux GPLv2 does not apply to any software developed and owned by Red Hat like all of the Red Hat security programs, that is not covered by the Linux license. If Red Hat never modifies or changes a single line of code in GNU/Linux, they are free to run closed source programs on top of it. They own .rpm file format so they have the legal freedom to make the system and all RH software proprietary.

That’s how Rocky and Alma are now permanently locked out from accessing the code.

Is there a reason that Alma and/or Rocky shouldn’t try to release their own version of SLES and SLED?

That’s exactly what’s already happened. Rocky and Alma are already no longer an option for a free version of Red Hat since Red Hat code is not allowed to be shared, it can only be viewed. Read their own words from Alma and Rocky, what they themself said about oing forward.

Red Hat can also change the license agreement further to include anyone proven to have published source code of Red Hat branded material agrees to pay a fee to Red Hat of no less than $10 million, or whatever price they want to put on it.

Everyone can scream about Red Hat, all they have to have to do is change some wording in agreement that includes fees(fines) for multi millions of dollars, BOOM! Red Hat becomes a proprietary system built on open source software.

SUSE says they will fork RHEL, but Alma and Rocky are over in terms of being a clone. People have asked for years why there is no free 1 to 1 clone of SLES and SLED. IBM is free to choose to turn all of RHEL in a proprietary development and lock it down, unless you can get a court order that says Red Hate’s code must be made public, but I don’t dare test IBM lawyers over any code that is not released under AGPLv3, only then I would.

I really don’t care about RHEL. Unless companies want to buy their services to be allowed access to the software it, everyone should forget about Red Hat. It’s done, it’s gone. And there will never be a free version of Red Hat, so look at other long term alternatives.

Services like TCP/IP are daemons, they use Kb, it can be used as a very basic simple web server with only a shell to configure everything.

I am talking about on 32bit hardware, install a new release of any open source operating system, try using the latest release of a GUI web brwser Firefox or Chromium and see how well it runs, compared to even a dual core with 8GB 64bit OS.

How much would that lighten the kernel load, and potentially speed it up, doing a simple delete of all 32-bit code?

Given that 32bit has a hard limit of 4GB of RAM, it can’t run anything that requires more than a terminal shell to run and none of the security protections like memory address randomization.

Copy and send the 32bit code to someone for archive and historical purposes, then do a Select All and push delete, erase the code fron the kernel file.

Everyone is going to have to accept that RHEL is over and done. Since paying customers are not allow to release the code publicly, overtime it could turn into its own ooerating system that happens to use the Linux kernel, similar to Android.

Forget about Red Hat, they’re gone, they’re not an option for any small company. Individuals should never have been using Red Hat, but companies are going to have to find something else like Debian/Devuan, FreeBSD, something with a stable branch that gets 3 to 4 years of updates.

I see all of you believe what’s proper for a man is to be a coward, weak, and run away from words so that men are broken, insecure, and subervient.

You have fun with that when a couple’s life is threatened and the man runs away screaming leaving the woman’s life in danger.

I like Pine64 because they running any operating system that runs on ARM and has an open bootloader. The Pi has a proprietary booloader so they don’t work as well for BSD.

For OpenBSD firmware? They are not blobs but are binary installs as there is no such thing as a source installation, everything has to be compiled and build before it can be installed.

I believe OpenBSD firmware has an ISC license attached to them, but since OpenBSD developers develop the firmware, they don’t have legal license from Intel to distribute in base, but I’m pretty sure that OpenBSD firmware has an ISC license for freedom.

No. OpenBSD develops their own drivers fot Intel iGPU l, 2.5Gb ethernet, and wi-fi. They don’t have.license to include them in base, they download the firmware after first reboot if there’s a basic ethernet connection.

The source code is publicly available from OpenBSD firmware folder on server, but cannot be included in the base installation.

Test it with OpenBSD and with a Linux-libre distribution to verify how open the hardware is.

Yes, I know there is a market, as tiny as it is. Imagine how much further along corporate software for Linux would be if there was a single format for installing all software in a default configuration for a fresh Linux install.

I genuinelly don’t understand why Linus never develeped a universal installer like .dmg, .msi, .exe, for Linux.