Yep, same!

PS, LibertyBSD is in no way even close to libre, because even the userspace of OpenBSD has a crap ton of non-free stuff.

My point being, LibertyBSD is not free software.  Moreover, they also deblob it very poorly and its done by someone who knows nothing about BSD. Otherwise LibertyBSD would use LibreSSL, Xenocara and Sndio and not replace them with linux counterparts.

So yeah, I am glad someone who is actually serious about software freedom plans to do this.

HyperbolaBSD will be awesome I am sure.

Most linux distros are too lazy or dumb to do anything about openssl, xorg, pulseaudio or system dumb or redhat garbage as a whole...

AlpineLinux made a stupid mistake doing that. LibreSSL is lighter on resources and with much, much less risk to the users.

Just an interesting presentation from the concurrent event 36c3: In this concurrent "talk" OpenBSD itself is the object for more insights and I was suprised having some interesting insights. I think HyperbolaBSD has a good chance being something different and more from the ground up:

• Having tracking for issues here?

• Usage of git as VCS (Version Control System)?

• Documentation within Wiki-system?

And that's just the points I had from the end of the talk.
Here you can find more:

https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10519-a_sys … itigations
https://isopenbsdsecu.re/

Note: I have no further favor for those meme-like phrasing and usage of domains. But hey: Information for further collection and evaluation.

The reasoning itself sounds good: The landscape of "free, libre software" had some major issues and if you want to build the system away from some serious issues like for example enforced integration of Java or Rust you will sooner or later bow or more even just give up. The question is: Fixing the current version of Hyperbola GNU/Linux, but what about the point the current libre-kernel reaches its end of life? Adapt another one? And what about the future? So from that point I think this is a question we should discuss while I understand also the side you mentioned, aether.

But after all: Being onto freedom, security and privacy means also being reasonable and believable. And some projects lost that from my point of view. Java is not free as in freedom. And so it is about much more within the landscape of "Linux" in general - naming flatpak being more and more used without questioning (and there is no further libre repository ahead just some tricks with keysigning of trustful sources), Rust being integrated, Mono the same and so on (Mono has problems with patents and Rust is far away from being free and libre). Long story short: Speaking just about "Linux" I think this is a dead end - just my point of view - as even security-projects are no longer or just for payment developed. No real good future at all and we are not even talking now about the desaster about systemd itself and the vendor lock-ins upcoming. Fixing all those points would be far ahead and too much for this community. So I understand this step getting away from "Linux" and therefore trying to establish something different being more compliant in regards to freedom and security at all.

As the development-team also give insights: They even get not much help as most people seem to focus just on "progress" - whatever this means when ignoring flaws and failures as mentioned within the announcement about HyperbolaBSD.

Port is available: http://openports.se/games/hedgewars
You can therefore compile it also by yourself as HyperBK is using OpenBSD!

I don't think that all packages will be going to dismissed or thrown away. And therefore Iceweasel-UXP or Icedove-UXP could be made ABI-compatible. But that's to be done in the future. Same with Hedgewars and while we are talking: The link is referencing to the concurrent situation, HyperbolaBSD won't be ready tomorrow.

And regarding the "transformation": Yes, I think a complete installation will be necessary. You just can't exchange the kernel and be ready because of the ABI is not compatible. Meaning also: Packages built onto Linux don't run under BSD from startup. You have a chance running them with another compilation, but there is no further guarantee. But there are many sources for help after all. And from my point of view: The ecosystem of Linux (without GNU) has got irreversible damages within the last five years throughout the inclusion of companies for example. And the free, libre software was too silent while "Open-Source" (buzzzword) took over. Nowadays there is no further point of return: Container-nonsense, systemd-integration and much more shown the way and trying to keep a distribution clean, free and secure will become even more complicate, in the future even impossible.

And there is also the possibility to keep Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre as installation besides HyperbolaBSD. Just with running both systems. That would be my plan for example as some software I'm using will be not ported. For example Wine is not running under OpenBSD. So I'd keep my installation in combination with saved ISO-images and local mirrors. If there is interest I could write down how to create a local repository-mirror in the future. After all we just don't know if HyperbolaBSD will be also including compability for Wine (example) as they want to use more from different BSD-implementations and not only OpenBSD itself. It is just too early and everything else is based on assumptions not facts!