GNOME OS Is Taking Shape But Its To Serve For Testing The Desktop

[Giovanni Fabbro]

Flathub does have a copy of everything online.

https://github.com/flathub/linux-store-frontend

https://github.com/flathub

And no, Red Hatters have never said "just trust us". Provide some references to back up your claims here

It's on FedoraMagazine.org. These are "Fedora people" that are Red Hat employees working on open source projects, advocating for trust of back-end services from distro maintainers. Go search for it yourself. Many people were involved in the discussion in the comments about it.

[RahulSundaram]

Not to sound argumentative, but does Flathub have a Git copy of their website and build service code too? I mean, it's a pretty loose argument you're reaching for there.

Even Redhatters from the Fedora Project has been caught a couple times saying "we don't need to release the source code for some server stuff - just trust us". There was a big statement on fedoramagazine.org about that a while back signalling people to "[you have to] put some trust in your distro to deliver binary packages". I mean, sure. I think I can confidently say that a good chunk, if not the majority of Linux desktop users only touch pre-compiled binary packages from their distro repos and never self-compile. Who knows what happens in between the public source code documentation and the final product? Google won't document everything that happens between Chromium and their final Google Chrome product and/or AOSP->Android. And is that really any different than just dealing with closed-source software?

*shrug*

Flathub does have a copy of everything online.

https://github.com/flathub/linux-store-frontend

https://github.com/flathub

And no, Red Hatters have never said "just trust us". Provide some references to back up your claims here

[RahulSundaram]

RHEL isn't available as full GPL source code. CentOS is just the open-source packages, but even the CentOS packagers say that they strip out non-free software from RHEL.

Again, this isn't specific. Name a single non-free software from RHEL

[Giovanni Fabbro]

Which commercial software? You have to be a lot more specific about what you are talking about

RHEL isn't available as full GPL source code. CentOS is just the open-source packages, but even the CentOS packagers say that they strip out non-free software from RHEL.

[Giovanni Fabbro]

Ah, great!

Can you point me to the Snap Store server-side source code? I'd love to get a GPLv3 copy!

Thanks in advance!

Not to sound argumentative, but does Flathub have a Git copy of their website and build service code too? I mean, it's a pretty loose argument you're reaching for there.

Even Redhatters from the Fedora Project has been caught a couple times saying "we don't need to release the source code for some server stuff - just trust us". There was a big statement on fedoramagazine.org about that a while back signalling people to "[you have to] put some trust in your distro to deliver binary packages". I mean, sure. I think I can confidently say that a good chunk, if not the majority of Linux desktop users only touch pre-compiled binary packages from their distro repos and never self-compile. Who knows what happens in between the public source code documentation and the final product? Google won't document everything that happens between Chromium and their final Google Chrome product and/or AOSP->Android. And is that really any different than just dealing with closed-source software?

*shrug*

[RahulSundaram]

Then why is their commercial software not licensed under GPL? From what I understood, there's some deployment bits and other stuff added into RHEL that doesn't exist in CentOS.

Which commercial software? You have to be a lot more specific about what you are talking about

[Giovanni Fabbro]

If systemd-boot supported BIOS systems they probably would be already. Just too many "legacy" systems still in use for distributions to consider changing from GRUB2 to something else.

There is a way to use systemd-boot on BIOS systems by using Clover to emulate an UEFI and that method is something I'm starting to look into since I like using ZFS on Root and I don't like dealing with the ZFS/GRUB2 limitations.

UEFI has been standard on desktop systems since Windows 8 shipped 8 years ago because Microsoft mandated it as part of their OEM logo certification program. That was UEFI 2.3.1, or "Class 3+" meaning (native) UEFI (no CSM) with Secure Boot enabled, the current classification. The version of UEFI has been incremented to 2.5 since then but the classification remains the same.

Intel ended support for the CSM for systems shipping as of this year. They announced 3 years ago that they would do this in 2020 and followed through on it.

If you're a developer and working on desktop applications built on modern GTK technologies for GNOME, you really should have a dev computer that's newer than 8 years old.

[higgslagrangian]

When I was at Canonical we had to make everything GPLv3,

Ah, great!

Can you point me to the Snap Store server-side source code? I'd love to get a GPLv3 copy!

Thanks in advance!

[Giovanni Fabbro]

No. They generally do not

Then why is their commercial software not licensed under GPL? From what I understood, there's some deployment bits and other stuff added into RHEL that doesn't exist in CentOS.

[skeevy420]

Wish more distros would make use of systemd-boot over grub

If systemd-boot supported BIOS systems they probably would be already. Just too many "legacy" systems still in use for distributions to consider changing from GRUB2 to something else.

There is a way to use systemd-boot on BIOS systems by using Clover to emulate an UEFI and that method is something I'm starting to look into since I like using ZFS on Root and I don't like dealing with the ZFS/GRUB2 limitations.