More to read about the mentioned issue as F-Droid and its stock repositories being NOT compliant to the GNU FSDG: https://redmine.replicant.us/issues/1878

Another example about Android and its problems with false compromises: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.git … yalpstore/
Also an example about "Open-Source" and the difference being free software.

Draco Desktop is another option actually, only thing is, for the time being to use certian features it still requires dbus. 

But I suppose if you can convince the author of this repo:

https://github.com/rodlie/draco

to make it usable without dbus...

PS btw, he says he might be willing, but its not on his immediate agenda.

But yeah, he might be willing later on.

That being said, I would love it if he would make this usable without dbus:

https://github.com/rodlie/powerkit

Aka, so it could work with HyperbolaBSD.

Anywho I was getting off track,

LXDE, XFCE, Draco Desktop,

Those desktops are decent.

LXQT kind of sucks to be honest though, for a few reasons, one of which being, its ugly.

Of course that's just my opinion, but yeah...

I dislike bloatware myself.  I detest gnome3 kde and cinnamon and even mate is kind of meh...

Of course, more or less this is better. But when having strict rules this would be not necessary. Same with snap or flatpak: All of them may be some kind of "free", but more an illusion of freedom itself. That's a pity!

And another insight as even more distributions get lost more and more over time: Either they're loosing focus or they get lost because of interest. Staying into for now are just Hyperbola, Dragora, GuixSD, Parabola and Trisquel. The ones with closest principles are just Hyperbola and Dragora as even GuixSD accepts way too much of everything else, even Rust, Mono and Java. Well if this is the future of "libre software" I'd just stay here. And even if this got lost, I'd rather host own mirrors and getting more into development above time.

Free software getting more and more on sideways: Of course fixing problems and security issues is at hand one major goal. But when looking after some newer projects, their dependencies and their development cycle we should having a more clear discussions if this represents "freedom, security and privacy". The problem itself? Well, being more and more dependent on frameworks with absolute versioning on the edge. Meaning after even some months libraries are just too old to build and therefore resulting applications and projects are impossible for further access. The result are even faster development cycles overall: Either only bigger distributions getting into this or the model "rolling release" comes at hand with more or less doubtful privacy as enough projects include proprietary services like Discord and more.

Seriously, is this the so-called vision of the future? Just "some kind of free" is not "free as in freedom" as this includes also freedom of choice. Where is it? Can I choose not to install some package because I don't want to use it? Where is the GNU-mentalitiy, having everything optional to compile and run? More or less the GNU-stack is becoming more and more dependant on frameworks and false languages like Rust or node.js. Reading here for esample the problems with Rust: https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id … edom_flaws

Full with freedom flaws and nevertheless there are thoughts building onto this more and more. Tryout to compile IceCat without Rust: Impossible! So this is not being believable and more about big flaws being just accepted. What's next? Java is full with freedom issues, Rust is the same, node.js got more into Github and Mono is a bad joke. They all are not "free as in freedom" and we want to build more onto this base? Stop this and think about it.

Thanks for your thoughts, but the idea behind the call to delete github is just to build a more decentalized web and infrastructure. I don't think this is extreme as it is the basic idea of freedom itself and I don't get it why so many projects jump on this train as it is driving in the complete wrong direction. Software itself may be libre for now, but what about the future? And that's the point counting as Microsoft just pretends to "love open-source". They just do the opposite. There are small steps right done!

Yes, I don't think Microsoft itself is doing all of this intentional or there is some "evil masterplan behind". But it is about money and the good people there have no further chance when it comes to this point. And we also don't have any further chance when it comes to this point as the projects itself. So better getting away from centralized infrastructure and some kind of cloud-services. Better getting away from some false illusions. You may disagree me here and I don't want to be agreed here. Perhaps I'm completely wrong in my thoughts? Just have to look at Gnome for now. They host their own infrastructure, good thing. But they already make false compromises and that's the point I'm talking about. An example as picture below:

Same with the examples regarding F-Droid I have given above and the reasoning why exactly Replicant had given up to distribute the application as integral component. Same with all the flaws given in the wiki like emulators, Chrome / Chromium and Rust!

It's not that Microsoft / Github will took all free, libre projects overnight, it's about getting dependent on centralized infrastructure more and more overtime. It's a long run! And same with projects on Qt as the company behind is also defined over income and money, not about principles and ideals. Where is the fork? And what bout the future itself? Is it extreme having thoughts about this? Well, there are enough warnings. And I don't tend to listen / follow some conspiracy theories. But being dependent on centralized infrastructure can't be good. Nobody needs to agree with me here at this point, but I think it is just to simple at all describing this as "extreme". We could "remove" those freedom-flaws, but being honest: How long would this be possible? And is it really worth the time to do it again and again with every new version of Gnome and KDE Plasma for example? How many people have interest in doing this and what about people just giving up? The (peer)group gets smaller afterwards. So yes: Projects like Draco Linux and OpenRC are "free as in freedom" and I don't think this will ever change. But their (peer)group is not that kind of big and what about the point where Microsoft have some more requirements to the users, changing the way to address and use Github? When the projects mentioned just quit, because first their usergroup is not that kind of big and their developer(s) don't have the possibility to host a complete own infrastructure? There are enough examples about those abandoned projects, even when searching through the AUR some of them are easy to be found and the PKGBUILD is just malfunctional because there is no further source-code to load, nothing to modify. The reasoning: The project died, a very silent death. Comparing this to systemd: It is also hosted on Github, but there is enough interest behind and also enough financial interest itself to build own repositories and infrastructure or just staying there with renewed requirements from Microsoft.

It is the same with hardware and in fact all starts here with the basic problem: If there is not enough interest, free and libre hardware is only done afterwards by enthusiasts. Most people don't even think about this, using UEFI and every modern machine with the promise of even more "power to compute". While producing even more garbage, we have already knowledge that Linux (without GNU) is following also this course overtime and the kernel itself is implementing just more and more proprietary definitions and blobs. That's the point: Pragmatism is the wrong way and it is also done just because we are too convenient (talking about the free software-community in a whole) accepting those minor flaws. But a minor flaw as problem can become to a major flaw overtime. We have enough mentions within the wiki and just to point at Mozilla Firefox itself as a project: Pretending to protect freedom and awareness of security and privacy, but just doing the opposite. Minor flaws can be technical faults overtime in regard to freedom and privacy: Removing Zeitgeist and geoclue for example (Gnome), but what about the point where those optional dependencies become essentials? Afterwards another search has to start how to get rid of freedom flaws. Getting back to Firefox there is even nothing left because Rust is essential to compile newer versions.

The point is very clear: In a long run, the "freedom of choice" could disappear more and more. Only some bigger projects are left and that's completely inacceptable for me. So I write down thoughts and warnings! I will never enforce anyone to agree with me, even better to disagree and in the end being on the wrong way as it is not that kind of sinister. But until today we just can see the opposite, with all of this and I fear this is just the beginning as the concepts of "free, libre software" and "free, libre hardware" is so marginalized to this point, that is just summarized with some kind of open-source. Projects like Libreboot or Replicant are just a good demonstration and it is better for them having their own place as it is here the same with Hyperbola. So "we" can have the chance being small but interested and focussed. The warnings are the same because we are on little islands. And as much F-Droid started being some good alternative, as much they've failed this point with pragmatism in regard to applications in the repositories with access to proprietary services, proprietary resources and even though no source-code at all. We have also to think about ethics - meaning "we" as global community into "free, libre software" - and not only some kind of following the common sentenced "free as in freedom".

And when looking for the next years to come: Linux (without GNU) could vanish into the "cloud". You can rely on technology moving in the direction of capital and when much of the capital is distributed to / through the military it's not surprising that UEFI restricted boot is becoming the norm, DRM is becoming an integral part of the web, and "free, libre software" is being described as "piracy" in a common sense. If we stay passive, make some pragmatic choices, we (talking about all of us) could have to pay a very high price for this. And again: I hope I'm just wrong about it. I hope this is just some sinister picture out of my mind and I can lay down this one as some dystopian imagery! The "free, libre soft- and hardware" have got no further lobby and when trying to get this, sooner or later the project will get onto catastrophic sideways or just become more or less the opposite of free. It is all about capital, money and profit to get some kind of "lobby" and I think calling the warnings about this "extreme" is just wrong because it marginalize the positioning as it also helps to support simplified views about hosting-platforms like Github - not even speaking about the criticism regarding Github long before bought through Microsoft as this was also ignored by many. Github is not the friendly supporter of "open-source" or "free software", it is about a complete business-model and making money out of the data hosted itself. Getting into this cannot end good as we all know enough others in the web / Internet itself.

Being free with own decisions and thereofre making modifications to the hardware you own:

Perhaps installing OpenWRT or LibreCMC on your router?
Perhaps flash Replicant on your mobile device?
Perhaps flash Core- or even better Libreboot on your computer's mainboard?

Afterwards trying different operating-systems being free and open for your own modifications. The contrary is also your own decision, but why using insults for people doing this? I read every day the same: Mean words about being "extreme" or "radicale", not those words itself but in the end it is all about throwing beings out of something, excluding them and not because they have said something disgusting about others. Just because they want to do different with their hardware. And time is showing: It is getting more and more compilcated to do so. Being believable means the opposite: Look after others, ask them questions and show empathy. Discussing like here in the thread, so thanks to everyone reading and writing down the personal point of view. It's not about acceptance without questioning!

The thing about "being believable" is also being NOT missionary. Yes, free software is one idealistic picture. But the thing is: Idealism should never lead to any blind fanatic picture as ignoring the will and thoughts of others is NOT the way to go at all. So how to walk forward? Stay clear for your own principles and do as you wish with respecting others and their own ways. When somebody don't want to use free, libre soft- and hardware there is nothing to do, nothing to speak about it and nothing to convince. Being just convinced for own decisions and therefore being straight forward for own principles. Never trying to be some kind missionary as this is nothing more than "marketing".

And we should be also honest: There are enough mean stories out there being written as some kind of proof that pragmatic views are just better and "free, libre software", the GPL and more are just a blind ideology. Don't give those stories more evidence! Just give them the reality and be not part of the problem.

Being believable and why exactly the FSFE for example just fails in being honest and strict bound onto principles. You want some examples?

Here is the first one. While I don't really like (anti-)social networks - and in my personal opinion they have done more damage than everything else - using more centralized, proprietary services just helps who? And what kind of signal should this be? Twitter? YouTube? Oh okay, some kind of Mastodon, but well where is the difference when doing such foul compromises? Just for the search of "likes" and making much more noise? When somebody is interested in "free software" there is no need to carry everything back into proprietary services because this is a complete false signal for everyone as those are in some way "okay". No, they are not okay. But well coming back onto the next and second one: The so-called donors. Is this a community-driven project or just more of being somewhat of an echochamber of other interests? I had those discussions back the days when using GNU-Social with some people being officials of the FSFE and they answered always on two ways: Either I never got any kind of feedback about the question being financed throughout Google and therefore being in some way dependent or the other way around rejecting any kind of context as this won't have any kind of influence.

Well? Maybe no direct influence, nevertheless this is a foul compromise and just being more pragmatic. Where is the reality of freedom? No criticism back about Microsoft being more and more into the development of the Linux-kernel? No mentioning about "the Hurd" as alternative? No criticism towards Mozilla and their own failures? No criticism back about missed out init-freedom and I'm not even mentioning the fifth freedom: Not to use some package and make it your own way. It seems the battle is lost as Linux (without GNU) is just heading towards more and more container-nonsense, pragmatic choices and no strict principles. Ah and we should also take into account all of those bloatware running around: dbus, avahi, pulseaudio ... those false pragmatic languages being some high promises and nevertheless full with patents and licensing being the opposite of "open" like Rust, Mono and of course Java. Thanks for nothing, FSFE! Ask yourself: Who owns your "computer" and your "data"? And why do you exactly use some kind of service? Because everyone is using it? Because friends and family are using it? Are there really no alternatives? I've said earlier: Being believable means being not missionary. And here is the point being: We can show what software following strict principles can be up to, exactly at this point. But it won't get easier with all those proprietary services around and just small steps forward. It's just everone's personal decision: No offense when using otherwise proprietary services, but the problem is not any kind of evil plan (there is none), it is just the shortening and so-called "standardization" while the mass of people is deciding and fails in having multiple possibilities being kept alive. Our world is complex and not deterministic at once!

Being believable means also being against anti-emancipatory services like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp and so many more. Building own, decentralized infrastructure and start handle with strict principle and in respect for each other, in respect for empathy and humaneness. Just don't following some straight capitalistic thoughts and motivations, no companies at all and stop seeing some leadership in some "big" names. Yes, people giving ideas. But this doesn't mean that those people are seen free from any kind of criticism. We have enough problems with meritocratic procedures and way of behaving in so many groups into free, libre software and projects itself.

You don't know what this means? Speaking out simple: Only ones doing something for the project have the right to speak and the more you do, the more rights you could get. Sounds unfair? Well, yes it is completely unfair and also inhumane. Because people are declacred as "untouchable", so they can do everything, also harassing, bullying and insulting others without any consequences. They do it because they are declared "untouchable" and "sensitive" for further progress. You think the deletion of hatred from centralized (anti-)social networks help? No, it doesn't. In fact there is no difference within centralized or decentralized platforms. What can help? It is up to you and it is up to me to speak up! And that's another point of being believable. Seeing inhumane hatred, seeing all the kind of prejudices and the problems also we've got today. Speak up against meritocracies and give everyone the same right. There is no difference and stop following wordings of others just because they've done some ideas or deeds. Do it for your own, hear for the ones being silent and thrown out of society, because they are declared "not fitting" or "being weak". That's disgusting what our global society is capable like all the people dying of arrogance, ignorance and hatred! And ask questions as even behind some masquerade of "peace" more hatred could come up. Be always critical, starting with yourself.

Being believable means also being into the respect of freedom for everyone (who is in respect for living in peace and empathy) and not only the respect of the mass. Individuality is one thing, the reasoning for building software for own needs is the other. Yes, one argument being used is: You are not the only person of the world and so there are others and their favors to respect.

Yes, that's a good and valid point. But most time used other way around making questionsable decisions and ethics within development irrelevant. So overloaded interfaces and monolithic projects like systemd are made valid throughout this argumentation. Those projects made even with others respecting those freedom of choice and being built with different options onto different environments, based on the needs of the users. The argumentation of pragmatism is the vague pointout of security of the mass. Browsers based on XUL are in the minority and therefore more questionable than those used by the majority. Well, could be and of course having more people into testing is absolutely needed. But as mentioned before: Vague argumentation as those "majority" and used browsers for example implement enough anti-features. Where is the difference? Where to begin with trust? And why always using this "principle" of the so-called majority, of the masses?

Yes, we are not "alone" and people using Hyperbola have other interests as people using Arch Linux for example. Well? And what next? There are enough projects like systemd, pulseaudio and more ignoring the freedom of choice, as they are also included into the distributions as the only reliable option. Where is the so-called "freedom" now? And besides: XUL-based browsers had a long time to be tested as Mozilla dropped this out with versions after 52. So either helping out with testing as possibility or just stop with those argumentations as "bloatware" is clear defined - argumentation for "bloat" being vague and subjective, this is not true at all. And in the end the discussion slip away from the ground we need: Information is one thing. But do we need all those websites with videos, animations and interactive JavaScript executed directly? Where is the information? Hidden in all those blinking animations? And just because the "mass" (whatever this means in the end), the "majority" mean to have this as absolute base: Is this the base for reasonable decisions? I don't think so.

Annotation: And yes, guess what ... there is NO unlimited freedom as pointed out in earlier posts. Technology cannot be viewed from a neutral point and is therefore always following some ideology. And we cannot use our "own personal freedom" to bring up restrictions for others, for their dignity or even for their lifes. Hatred is disgusting and a dangerous path. So keep this in mind when writing about "freedom", because this has also restrictions for everyone's good. Personal decisions have consequences: Do you try using real free, libre soft- and hardware? Do you try making more pragmatic choices? Or do you completely ignore idealism? All of this is a personal choice and all of this can lead to consequences. Use your freedom wisely to protect others, their life and their dignity. A living without fear and not being insulted for sexual orientation, skin colour, origin and religion one human being has got! A free culture on a global level to be formed.