Topic: Unneeded discussions regarding Hyperbola
Well, it seems some people just tend to disagree and play their own "campaign" against Hyperbola. Instead of the wording Live and let live! it is just again more of the same reading: Accusations for having Hyperbola taking a snapshot from Arch Linux and enforcing their software onto users. And I find this very disrespectful, a subjective view from my side:
Hyperbola took just one snapshot back in 2017 nothing more nothing less and other distributions do this also taking from Debian or Ubuntu. What message is this? Just some kind of paraphrasing strawman because comparing those distributions is a big fail about the different approaches.
Exactly where is the way to enforce anything? Hyperbola is using OpenRC for now and there are plans to integrate more INIT-systems in the upcoming version 0.4 - looking here for s6 and here for shepherd. And this discussion is absolutely nonsense, even those INIT-systems are not integrated with version 0.4. By the way: Does anybody enforce the usage of Hyperbola? No, but it is just ONE distribution besides Parabola and Dragora onto the FSF-endorsed distributions using another INIT-system - having gnewsense outside because of unknown state and further planning.
The team behind is doing a very good job with own visions and there is nothing wrong to remove identified packages or integrate alternatives like LibreSSL, Xenocara and sndio. Even this is one outstanding position when looking after most other distributions just using the known framework consisting of systemd, dbus and pulseaudio. So what's the problem about having an own vision? Remembering even here: This was just one, initial snapshot and since this point many things were changed.
Freedom and privacy are not just a playground and a little game where to decide what is fitting and what is not. Many projects tend more and more just into the direction of being generic "open-source" which is the opposite free software and when this is named attacks will emerge immediately. What kind of childish game is this? Having problems or criticism with Hyperbola? Name it here for discussion and feedback instead doing it from comments and postings under articles and forum-threads elsewhere. Gnome is integrating proprietary services for example. That's no theory it is reality! Or is it about giveaway of freedom regarding the pragmatic approach and pricing?
In the end those criticicism or better to call attacks are just not needed. I've got it so far: Some people just don't want to hear and read about alternatives, getting really personal instead of being most objective about it. And this cannot be the way about software-freedom, acting like there cannot be alternatives, reducing the works of others, of even whole communities. Where is the problem? Just follow Live and let live! instead those harsh attacks and simplifications. There are people here not willing to follow the major way of systemd and corporations behind the generic Linux-kernel. You don't want to hear about this? Fine, ignoring is okay but the reduction of outstanding work being done is just impolite.
Free culture is about acceptance and not some agenda regarding pragmatism: Mozilla has more than just one problem regarding privacy? Red Hat has another own vision about GNU/Linux? And we should not forget about Oracle or Microsoft doing the same. Yes, removing Java, removing Mono is needed because they are not independent and ignoring all those first named issues is a leftover for further questions. Just talking about free culture is therefore all around this: Being mostly objective, reading through information given and then talk about.
Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!