Well, since Void is a rolling distribution, there is no real need to put out a release.
That’s both good, because no rush - the current assortment of ‘releases’ are merely starting points; the real action is what goes into the Void repositories.
And it’s bad, because a rolling distribution is continuous. Any problem with management/team is going to be felt by the community almost immediately.
Well, since Void is a rolling distribution, there is no real need to put out a release.
Why incorporate anything. SFC can take donations on behalf of Void Linux.
That sentence perfectly describes RetroShare. And Void should mirror itself to an .onion site.
I hope the .org wasn’t reg’d with GoDaddy or Google, they’re the world’s biggest, and worst, domain registrars.
No, mainly in Germany and USA.
I certainly had that impression (coherent, pragmatic) road-map. I’ve been mostly focused on the browser situation, and ‘configuration chaos’, so I decided to suspend investigating Void in favor of completing those other priorities. I certainly hope you’re right about where Void development is at now. I have no reason to doubt you, other than some of the commentary regarding the loss of the distro leader, which seemed to suggest the sky was falling. If I can compile the distro (something I’ve never done before – and by that I mean, any Linux distro – I’ll have a much greater comfort level that even if the ‘Microsofization of the major Linux distros’ crowd succeeds, we’ll still have Linux original-recipe secured.
I do believe (and have for a long time) we need to find a way to (in some way) compensate/recognize the critical role the authors & maintainers play in keeping the building blocks of the Linux universe intact and viable. The problem is, how to do that without undercutting FOSS. So far, the best idea I’ve come up with is what I call a “zero-load Comitted Donor Coop”, wherein members commit to a fixed level of annual donation to ‘qualified’ open-source projects, 50% of which they get to allocate themselves, with the remainder being allocated by the membership at large. But, obviously, the devil is in the details. For example, the donations have to be in the form of ‘awards’, and the donors cannot be specifically identified, otherwise, the system could be construed as ‘commerce’. Qualifying recipients is another thorny issue. For example, I would disqualify any entity which purports to offer an open-source product, if they also offer one or more ‘pro’ versions of it. (Which is one reason I intend to set this thing up myself ! Then there are source-code security issues which simply can’t be discussed in an open forum.
Not quite sure how to express this, but I believe the Linux community in general needs to be in a consolidation & continuity mode, as opposed to implementing ‘grand schemes’ to solve questionably established ‘major problems’ (the rationale behind systemd for example). I’ve been favoring PaleMoon over Waterfox for the same reason: they’re focused on stabilizing the feature set, and sticking with the previous app-integration framework, rather than joining the headlong rush to expand the definition of a ‘web browser’.
I’m trying to avoid sounding opinionated, or a know-it-all. Its exponentially more complex now than 5 decades ago. However, I believe we need to recognize the necessity of fighting to preserve the Internet culture which evolved early on, enabled it to exist, and flourish.
Generally agree with all your points. I would almost classify go daddy as a criminal enterprise. As for Google, in spite of all the good they did in their first decade, I now hold them in roughly equivalent disregard as I do Microsoft.
Fair warning, what follows is an ‘op-ed’ answer to jacmoe’s suggestion regards the Software Freedom Conservancy !
Thanks for the suggestion regards SFC/FLOSS. Just got through reading the better part of their website. Glad to know this organization exists and what they’re about. Apropos…(If you’re interested…no reply required):
For starters, I’m glad such an organization exists, and found their client-project list impressive for early stages. In no way should my concerns be interpreted as criticisms, but here they are:
Notwithstanding the obviously good intentions, they appear to be wrapped in a package (“by-laws”?) I would describe as riddled with potential for budget-busting litigation. It also implies the need for a full-time “paid administrative staff”, which (IMHO) is antithetical to the problem I’m (“we’re”?) trying to solve.
I also found this reference highly problematic:
“Few contributors are paid to work on free software today, and far fewer are paid by non-profit organizations (or even by small businesses). It is imperative for us to explore how we can sell free software, especially through non-profits and small businesses, so we can bring freedom to more people and, just as importantly, build sustainable futures for our contributors.”
I generally oppose constructs wherein a team of corporate employee programmers create and maintain a package, even if the package is, nominally, open-source. At the risk of being dismissed as an idealist or ‘utopian zealot’, I believe the guarantee, or even the expectation of remuneration, contaminates the creative imperative at the heart of open-source software creation. Thats true for the programmers doing the work, or a corporate entity which expects to generate profits on a “pro-version” of the “open-source teaser” they offer “for free”.
It also flouts an important tenet of natural-law as to the assertion of ownership over property, which is rightfully part of the intellectual commons. This is the cardinal obscenity at the core of the entire debate. I suspect there’s no industry in the history of civilization more dependent upon the hard work of innumerable anonymous progenitors than ours.
But to cite a completely separate example, one need look no further than the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 for a demonstration of the negative consequences, of allowing government to assert eminent domain over the common property of mankind. (In that case, centuries of crucial, publicly funded medical research upon which our modern world depends.)
That said, I firmly believe there are reasonable ways to create cost-effective “escrow organizations”, capable of delivering well-deserved financial recognition to the tens of thousands of authors/maintainers responsible for the invaluable body of work upon which the Unix-Universe depends. As an independent software-developer and systems consultant (since 1984), I have no doubt whatsoever as to the general outline of how it can be done, without having to create yet another ponderous so-called “non-profit” corporation. And more to the point, without contaminating the intangible motivations which drive problem solvers to translate their experience into usable code.
(Very much apologize for the length of the reply, but I attach great importance to this issue.)
Ted in Portland
GO team Void!!
is it safe to donate some money, for pizza and joltcola, to the team?
rememberd there be a button for this somewhere, but i cant find it anymore…
The button got removed. There should be soon some new way to donate. Just stay tuned and read the news.
I changed from Gentoo over a year, and don’t want another serious hopping. I never look back because Void is great for me. Please not let die this fantastic distribution.
I stick with Void, and I’m really sorry. From these options, I’d go with GitLab, probably, or maybe selfhost if you have the resources and time. Let us know if we can help in any way!
I’ve said it already on reddit, I’m willing to help out with time and knowledge and also financial support to ensure this distribution will stay alive.
@Admins: Please talk together, set up a team, make sure everyone (!) in this team has access to the central resources and let us know how the community can help.
I don’t care switching mirrors, having old packages for weeks or alike until the issue is resolved. Just let us fix the remaining issues so we can move on.
I think this is an underestimated crisis and those handling it should be aware of the caution they need to proceed.
Personally I couldn’t care less if void was headed by a person, an NGO, Non-profit, corporation, or other form. Behind the name of Void there were some stated values and principles and for some of us it was the reason to use void and to support it, at least in spirit and as a community.
Now this entity of Void is presented as someone’s keychain, who through it stated the values and principles of the distribution. This “someone” seems to have vanished, how, when, and why we don’t know. Those who will inherit the keychain are they in full agreement in the values and principles of Void? We can’t be for sure, even though we take it for granted that they are, maybe more than their predecessor.
Tomorrow this new entity (a collective entity) that calls themselves void, says we met and decided we will no longer be restricted by “libre” guidelines. We may decide to not publish our code, it will be all binary blobs from now on and whoever trusts us they can continue. We also got sick and tired of runit, and it will be much easier for all of us to use systemd.
And from now on you have to pay $50/iso copy, and $10//month for unlimited use of the repositories.
Then we discover that Juan opened up a new shop, is even more committed to the previous principles, and will even drop any upstream pkg for having libsystemd/systemd/etc. dependencies even though it may be easy to circumnavigate around them. And the new distro is called librovoido …
Will you go with void or the new project? The name of a distro means nothing without commitment to certain values and principles that it shares with users.
PS On a different and unrelated note, Artix is now using runit as an init system, while they have been gradually replacing arch for their own mirrors of built pkgs.
Dang. that’s a lot of ifs and whens for stuff that barely happens anywhere
An old motto which sometimes still manages to perfectly suite situations like this: don’t worry about having to fix something before it’s broken.
I wish someone had told me that back when I was using Gentoo and the urge to modify a USE flag was strong
So I guess this is really neither here nor there, but - I downloaded and started using Void just yesterday. I did this after reading about the absence of the lead dev/founder person. It seemed like the rest of the devs were moving on and taking steps to avoid similar issues in the future, and I liked the distro. Still do!
It’s FOSS article about the situation. Nothing new, but leaving it here for reference, https://itsfoss.com/void-linux-crisis/
What a bullshit clickbait title. Also nothing new mentioned in the article.
Actually it would have been great if they left out names. This isn’t acceptable for a news site. We avoided mentioning anyone on purpose.