Or GNU Hurd for example taking part at "Google Summer of Code", another questionable and pragmatic choice. But yeah, in a way somewhat open and whatever kind of free. So free, that users do not really support and the way GNU Hurd gets support is also not really seen from within the community but than Google coming into. Interesting choices, yes ... and the latest stable release is from 2016 with version 0.9. So to underline: That is not working and failure. The FSF is not even really supporting the original kernel mean for a GNU-system therefore. But well, exactly out of that reasoning Hyperbola has NO interest in this. We package and include working, efficient and small oriented parts of GNU-applications. The rest is kept outside and therefore Hyperbola has also no generic interest to work further with or into this. We just call our system HyperbolaBSD out of the reasoning and this is NOT just the kernel but a complete BSD-descendant operating-system. There won't be a GNU-system with HyperBK kernel. This is not the way this was announced and not the way the project is oriented. If others want to use the HyperBK-kernel for a GNU-based system? Their choice as it is free and libre software. But as said: Not here in the context of HyperbolaBSD. HyperbolaBSD will be a non-GNU system! And there is no real other system around besides GNU/Linux as GNU/Hurd is not really there beyond Debian done. And that as said is another illusion: "Linux is just the kernel!" ... yes, but without it GNU never would be  possible then and now. That's part of the story!

Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre is called that way as we include the glibc and GNU/Linux-libre. Hyperbola itself will leave this for sure as HyperbolaBSD is not using glibc and also not GNU/Linux-libre. So this thread is about the reasonings and to make exactly those misunderstanding clear. Again: HyperbolaBSD is HyperbolaBSD and a complete own project with using parts of some GNU-applications we see fitting. The rest is NOT GNU and will stay also that. Repeating the wishful thought that GNU would be different and make it different sounds nice, but does not hit this project and also not the current reality. And no, we are NOT "just the kernel" as this is failing the description of our project. Besides that "Linux is just the / a kernel": Undercomplex answers to complex questions have never really helped anyone and solved nothing. But we can surely repeat that, just this does not get more near the reality then.

And what about the software? Well, when the owning persons and institutions decide the software should be no longer of usage, they just cut off people using it as they do not "own" a license, just the current "right to use" - with the option to loose this at any given time. And then the software itself is forgotten as of no longer usage for earning money. A brave new world!

They oversee here essential points: Sure thing it costs money to develop software, same as here for Hyperbola as we are depending on essential donations. But there is the point: The thought that companies will follow the call, offer software under the GPL or / and comparable licensing and be then offering also their source-code. Has this really worked out? Let's have a look: mariadb is promising to offer their development after an amount of time within the community-edition. Before parts are exclusive only available for paid licensing. A clear commercial usage, no full release. This model of differences between community-edition and paid edition is common as sqlcipher is another example (and a clear reasoning why this was removed from Hyperbola).

The question stays: When some edition is released under free, permissive licensing while another, enhanced edition is not available ... what should the final assumption be alike? The FSF has failed to specify and recognize the unlogical approach within, same way as stating that non-functional data has not be offered under free and permissive licensing. This has ruined over time the impression of free, libre software in a whole and has given the wording "open-source" a viable foundation. The FSF and GNU can state as often as they want that those wordings and comparisons are not working, that "free software is surely NOT open-source". But their own false definition have given approval here that they have given indirect understatement for all what we have now.

People need a base for free information and data. Yes, this base needs a clear funding for the costs of development and the living conditions of developers. But when software is on the one hand only adapted as "gratis" and on the other hand defined as "funded by companies" (because where would we have been without them, with ironic tone meant) ... the outcome is not getting better. On that level someone else take over and has already done this. Congratulations, FSF and GNU: You have ignored the own roots as altruistic movement needs clearly support from its own base. But when people only adapt to the wording "gratis and free" you can underline the difference with "free as in freedom" as often as you want, without doing any further change. Dear FSF: You are not really caring for the systems endorsed: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
You are ignoring the poor state of the Linux-kernel with the dangerous course taken. And you ignore also more monolithic and bloated frameworks. Your choice made as it seems: You have invited other actors to take over and wonder now why you need to defend even more rights being endangered? Think again as you have done this willingly. And after that you call again out being against DRM (https://www.defectivebydesign.org/)? Well, very weird approach: Companies and corporations only understand one point ... the already mentioned capitalistic exploitation logic. Have something? Make the most profit out of it, with even more strict rulesets, laws and more. Use trademarks to defend your "copyrights" and restrict the rights of the users more and more while telling them all of this done for their own good (yes, Rust, I mean you). Okay, as said: Pure unlogic. But that does not stop here as we have then people telling that it is "no problem to rename a complex programming-language with just some console-commands". Really interesting way, but not working out when those companies and organizations take this all vey serious, dear FSF. What then? Telling again this was all a fault? All is going good?

The FSF is listing mariadb as "free software": https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/MariaDB

But while technical correct, there is also an ethical question behind. So let's have a look at the sponsors behind: https://mariadb.org/about/
Oh fine: IBM, Tencent, Amazon and more. So please ask again: Besides technical grounds, what about ethics and moral? Or are those trustworthy partners? I think we should ask again and have severe doubts. Many of them have approved NOT being trustworthy.

Dear FSF and contributors: The package and project mariadb is technical speaking perhaps fitting somewhat "open". But it is neither free nor it is libre defined from the moral and ethical standpoint. They offer the "community-edition" and state clearly:

"We ensure the MariaDB Server code base remains open for usage and contributions on technical merits. [...] We provide continuity to the MariaDB Server ecosystem, independent of any commercial entities."

But in fact the way is not good forward: An investor like K1 would do the opposite as there is no interest in moral and ethics, in free information. Why? Because this is no selling-point. Money is made with information and most the time with it behind walls and barriers, not with free and libre defined information for all beings the same. That's the reasoning for Hyperbola to remove mariadb and with it all dependencies. We make no differences between "community edition" and "enterprise edition", we do not want to tolerate such. Especially also: Getting in touch throughout "slack" is not the way to go directly towards the community of MariaDB. As "slack" is not free, libre software and nevertheless ... seems not to matter. Neither for many people outside assuming something "open" nor for the FSF itself. Think again as all of this is a damaged approach.

Yes, FSF: You can list mariadb as free, permissive licensed. Technical speaking this is correct. If this is all what matters, sure. But for a movement forward, a movement with a history to look on ethics and moral in the past, this is a poor result. And this won't get any better. Yes, sure: Many projects only support this one DBMS, no other. But do we really want to tolerate more illusions instead of clear facts? Yes, all of them can be forked: mysql, mariadb and others ... but there are no forks complete managed by the community. It is just that: The generic statement that this is "theoretically" possible. If that's all? Poor result.

Now what? Nevertheless people in free software use those terms and phrases, nevertheless "open-source" is used to describe free and libre software.

But people nevertheless make partwise a cult around persons instead of looking what all the work would mean for themself and how they can be technical emancipated. Imagine this: What happens around when persons are more important than ideas? Yes, no doubt: Persons are surely important for beloved ones and that is clearly no doubt on. Nevertheless the FSF has failed to name the points in the last years. The GNU-project is also distributing more and more problematic packages, being full with enforced dependencies (one possible example is gettext and the reasoning for Hyperbola using a different way).

Yes, Hyperbola is always oriented on free, libre software. But to underline again: The idea is important, the personal conclusions resulting are important. When the whole idea of free, libre software is bound to persons and people following them alone, the question is in the room: Is free, libre software possible to survive further? And what happens when those people oversee fallacies? What happens then with the idea? We have seen that with Rust, Java and PHP. The FSF has tried to implement an alternative to Java. And what happened? The GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java) was ended in 2009 and never started again ever since. And GNU Classpath? Make your own picture, stopped in 2012: https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/

So the FSF has accepted in that way Java nevertheless without ever doing more. Sure it is not the fault of just one person, that is too easy and surely wrong. But it is clear to see how free, libre software is more and more hollowed out. We need more retrospective instead of pragmatism.

To summarize: As KeePassXC offers further options the package-maintainer on Debian removed them in the generic package and created another one named keepassxc-full for Debian Unstable. We are talking here about a state being not released as "stable". And what to read? While the thread started it was a bit heated but not too much. And the more it went forward the more unfriendly it gets, to quote:

I have removed the strong language and phrase in respect of our social contract. But all in all this shows quite good: Upstream and maintainers only want the system-distributions to ship what they conclude and release. The point is going worse and worse the more it gets discussed. Why then releasing software as free, permissive and libre licensed, when you are not okay when others modify the code to ship a different one? Yes, people will create issues. But there are multiple problems:

- Why is it seen like people can demand 24/7-support every time? Free software includes also the Do It Yourself-point for sure.
- Why even more going on trademarks instead to ask what is most important? Working software for sure, but also working together on working software.
- Why people think all has to be "gratis" and demand so-called "modern solution"? The wording "modern solution" is a vague term, same as "modern hardware". It is individual seen and therefore no generic definition.

As long as this is not reflected more in depth this problem will grow even more. And it is clearly wrong: Why should system-projects not have the same rights to modify code and maintain their own? Under that point free, libre software was even made possible. And with this arrogance and ignorance growing now we risk the whole sphere. As Hyperbola had also comparable problems with minetest-maintainers stating we should not remove essential "features". Therefore we have removed minetest as package finally. Yes, that kind of discussion was not even near that heated. But it is a question to be seen and the reasoning for Hyperbola also to reduce more and more, likewise modify what we can and no: We do not care about asking upstream with endless discussions. When a package is not working or failing in newer releases, we will go for removal.

Yes, the current discussion could have been done quite different, from all sides. But insulting the package-maintainer? Demanding indirect his removal from the team or at minimum from the position to maintain keepassxc (some users did in that debate)? To quote:

Sorry, that is not working. And yes, maintainers of packages have also the right for their own perspective. They are not machines and robots, only there to follow commands from users and upstream. Really no! At a point that debate was closed before it got even more worse. But the damage is already done: Do you really think people will package software when they are at risk being harassed that open? Free software is working only with handshake, but not with this harsh driven course. This is a toxic course for sure. And dear maintainers from KeePassXC: You have a responsibility to protect every individual, also the criticized maintainer from Debian. Just because of the criticism this is not a carte blanche to reduce that to some "individual messages" or even later on state:

Healthy discourse? There was no excuse given for the insults, the harassment and the harsh language noted. And this is "healthy"? Wow, just ... wow - and not the amused or fluffy one. And yes: The word "crap" is also not the best choice in the end, because that got the discussion further heated. Sure thing, that users should choose. But when a package wants exactly that one way and has no intentions for others, it should be better users compile it always on their own. And coming back to the handshake: Package-maintainers are not better than everyone else, so why not going into a direct discussion and support? Demanding the so-called "status quo" and going enraged, harassing a person finally and insulting? Really: Why? The initial answer from the package-maintainer was same not perfect as "crap" is surely a very harsh description. But there is always a story and yes: I also call some parts of software "crap" myself, because they are going into a direction I do not see without risks. But while we have for sure serious issues with harsh wordings, the description "crap" is nearly not that dramatic as others being used in that long discussion.

I still try not to put in the same box Systemd and Rust with other FOSS software like Chromium and Azure Linux (for example). I dislike them differently. But I feel those days of code-exchange between all the descendants of Unix are getting over, at least for software around the Linux kernel.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/21/redis … y-database
https://fossforce.com/2024/03/redis-goe … y-started/

We will for sure see forks incoming, but all of them do not solve the elemental problem free, libre culture and software is within. The complete misunderstanding about misusage from companies, including for sure now Redis but also all the rest.

Interesting sidenote here is also that exactly FOSS Force - pretending for "Keeping tech free" - has clearly ruined free, libre software and culture over a long period of time. How this come? Well, clear to see within articles for example like "Keep Linux just Linux" and using vague terminology for "open-source". So exactly here is one (but not the only one) point: No further work of analysis how free software work and why it should be even kept more like that way based on altruism as everything is political. We can see more and more how "open-source" as vague term is ruining all.

And on behalf of that: Linux (with or without GNU-components) has abandoned those concepts for a longer time ago. The more packages, the better. This is the outcome and it can't be more worse. Packaging is nothing to be done in the hot air. Patching the same. There is development-experience needed. And we have enough actors and acting persons stating to do "something for free software" but in fact they have really no clue what they are doing or claim that it would be enough when "some developers sit together and do something". That is not working, planning is needed more than before.

Also: Free, libre software is political and NOT neutral. Sound like a nice wish, but this is not working like peoples wish. So stating to be "neutral" is not working here. The actors in this latest attack were surely political motivated and they would have had success. It was just a little bit of luck and examination this would not be more dramatic. Linux is a damaged sphere, not more secure than others. Sure thing: It is always what you make out of it. Nevertheless it is time to leave all this behind. Time for the niche.

This taken a follow-up came afterwards from Ariadne Conill, including to call different other implementations "pet init system". Annotation from me in this: Please do not jump into those discussion-spaces and harass others or spread insults on whatever base.

This brings several conclusions:

- As mentioned the big desktop-environments like KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Mate and others are not oriented to offer any other interface for different and smaller implementations. They just do not work without systemd.
- System-maintainers like Ariadne Conill and the team behind PostmarketOS react here as they have a hard decision to make: Either leaving the big desktop-environments full behind or take the bitter pill.

In general it is the same as the debates before about OpenSSL and LibreSSL. At one point people take much ahead, really want to create an alternative. After a period of time it is clear to see that Linux and the corporate implementations have the longer hand. systemd is one corporate implementations and it is just seen as "mature" without seeing also the social and ethical components and issues coming with. Linux is not oriented to be a partner for technical emancipation and for people in favor of small and minimalistic implementations. Yes sure thing: It is not that corporations and companies are funding much into the development, but this makes the outcome even more worse. All the work is misused even more and nevertheless people cheer up for all so-called progress.

To recall Hyperbolas position: It is just quite simple as we do not want to use systemd as a de-facto declared, so-called standard. We want a simple but yet open designed system, including also a corresponding service-management after initialization. We dislike bloated, over-engineered implementations like systemd. Yes, over time projects change, get their problems away and more. This does not make our essential points about systemd going away: We just do not want to use it. But the essential point here also in the debates show up again: People do not see that the de-facto declaration as "standard" gives systemd too much power on behalf of its structure. It is not a common project like the others in comparison, it is not possible to compare smaller init-implementations or service-managements towards systemd as it has grown beyond. This is a danger and high risk. And towards the bigger systems: The bigger it gets the sooner the decisions are no longer oriented towards free and libre software and community projects. It is a point only to give awaitings and here are more people responsible, also the free and libre community awaiting "more convinience". And most of the Linux-only frameworks are only consisting the so-called "bitter pill". This means everyone is left with only the choice done by others.