Yes I know that Cuba, the DPRK, and China have their own distros, but they're pretty specific to the language and networks of those countries. I use linux because it's free and open source but I use one of those distros that is privately owned and I'm thinking of upgrading to something that is truly communally owned but also has good compatibility with software, especially scientific software. Any good recs please?
Thanks!
I think Debian has the best principles out of any distro. Debian follows a list of principles called Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). You can read the principles and see if you like it.
The thing that I like the most about Debian is that the proprietary packages and FOSS packages are on different repositories. You can install Debian with no proprietary software and leave the proprietary repository disabled to have a completely FOSS system.
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines
https://www.debian.org/social_contract
The Free / Non-Free demarcation is fairly well explored territory (and Debian is pretty solid on this front, despite falling short of FSF approval). Another thing that's worth consideration and doesn't get as much discussion is the organizational structure of a distribution.
Organizationally, there are roughly two types of Linux distributions. There are distributions which are created as a product or by-product of some company, who's goal is ultimately to make money (through support contracts or hardware sales typically). These are your Ubuntus, Red Hats, Fedoras, Pop_OSs, SteamOSes, etc. Then there are distributions which are maintained directly by a public collective who's sole purpose and raison d'être is the maintenance of the distribution. These are your Debians, Gentoos, ArchLinuxes, Guixs, etc.
As far as these collective organizations go, they vary a great deal in robustness. You could call a Github repository with a pair of maintainers and a dozen or so people reading the issue tracker an "organization."
On the other end of this spectrum, there are distributions like Debian and Gentoo which have incredibly robust organizations with constitutions, bylaws, committees, elections, referenda, etc. Then there are a lot of distros developed on an ad-hoc basis somewhere in-between these two examples.Having a charter and elections doesn't automatically make an institution good by any means, but governance structures like these have a big impact on the direction these distributions take, and what they are willing to compromise on. The ones which are organized publicly by members of the community rather than by the whims of some software company have done a good job keeping to their principles, and these distributions are among those of the greatest longevity.
Any distro is a socialist distro if a socialist uses it.
Under communism there is only one computer and each family has to share a TTY.
The users should own the means of computing. So choose Debian. The Debian Social Contract states:
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.
Any commercial distros do not do this. I don't know if Arch or Gentoo have a written down charter or whatever, but they seem a lot less principled than Debian usually.
Arch seems fine, same with Debian if you don't want to tinker as much.
Any experience with Fedora? I ask because apparently it's the one Torvalds uses and because there are a few science-based Fedora variants.
I use the atomic/immutable community variants of Fedora. Bazzite if you're a gamer, Bluefin or Aurora if not. Immutable is a whole other workflow, mainly in how you install packages (using flatpaks/brew or distrobox), but the system itself is essentially 0 maintenance because updates are automated and the OS rebuilt on reboot (while keeping your programs and user files). So its more stable than Arch nd you don't have packages that are 2 years out of date like on Debian. The only downside is updates take a lot of bandwidth if thats a problem for you. But they're the only distros I recommend to anybody now outside of Debian for servers.
https://universal-blue.org/
The makers of Fedora, Red Hat, were acquired by IBM. So whilst there may be nothing wrong with the distro, they are part of your typical evil corpo. And I say this as a Fedora user
I can't contradict the fact that Fedora is owned by IBM and used as an upstream for their Red Hat software, it is slightly concerning but not inherently problematic. I'll at least say I personally have yet to experience any negatives for that fact, and I'll also add that it does like Debian, and defaults to a "free" software repository, you have to manually enable the non-free ones.
It probably isn't the "most socialist", but it's open source, absolutely prioritises open source fundamentally, and consequently it's controllable by the people the second a corp fucks it over (like most Linux distros). I don't think it's turned in service of evil (yet).
Do you consider Ubuntu evil, and why? I know it's owned by a private company (ugh) but searching around apparently it's still open source
I don't think I consider any open-source Linux to be evil. As I say, by being fully and properly open-source, it's copyable at a moment's notice. So any of them are inherently held to a much higher standard than any closed ecosystem. It's like giving people the ability to seize the means of OSing with the click of a button.
I mentioned Torvalds using Fedora not because I idolize him but as the dude who invented the damn thing he's probably not using a piece of shit distro that doesn't work well for anything. The DPRK, China, Cuba, and Venezuela for example each have their own Linux distros (Red Star OS, Kylin, Nova, Canaima) so when you say "these software movements would ever be possible in environments like North Korea [sic] or China" that's demonstrably not correct. Thank you for the Trisquel recommendation though.
I didn't say Red Star OS was developed entirely in the DPRK, that's a straw man argument, and you don't understand the difference between personal property and private property. That the Cuban OS is partially closed source is unsurprising for national security reasons (not for making profit, which is the issue). There's nothing morally wrong with building off the work of a privately owned company, in fact stealing back from private companies is an incredibly good practice since the labour they use is stolen in the first place. China is currently doing precisely this by allowing foreign capital to access their enormous labour pool in exchange for development of their productive forces (factories, machines, computers, other technology). It's not a great system but Chinese workers are getting the better end of the deal, and it sets up a future in which more of the economy can be communally owned again. Idk why you're on hexbear if you disagree with all of this. Hexbear is not a liberal website.
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have their way none of this flies because software must never be profitable,
That's literally not what he says: (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling)
“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.
We want to invite everyone to use the GNU system, including businesses and their workers. That requires allowing commercial use. We hope that free replacement programs will supplant comparable proprietary programs, but they can't do that if businesses are forbidden to use them. We want commercial products that contain software to include the GNU system, and that would constitute commercial distribution for a price. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. Paid, professional support for free software fills an important need.
Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its path to success. We must conclude that a program licensed with such restrictions does not qualify as free software.
Stop lying. You don't understand what socialism means and you clearly don't care to learn anything about AES countries judging from this and your other comment. Get your reactionary views away from this site before you misinform more people about free software. You wandered into the wrong part of lemmy with your bs.
I'll second Debian, but with the caveat that I don't deal much with scientific software. I'm assuming it should be fine given how prevalent Debian is. But I'd love to hear others speak to that for my own education as well.
I think Debian is "standard" enough to be a good choice for scientific applications. Debian was an early advocate of Reproducable Builds and has waged an arduous campaign towards ensuring as many of its packages are in compliance as possible. Determinism is a very appealing characteristic for scientists. There also is a Debian Science initiative with subgroups focused on maintaining packages for various disciplines. I haven't used Debian for anything really sciency, but it's renowned stability, long release cycle, and aforementioned initiatives make it a pretty good choice.
Another distribution which is worth consideration is Guix. Guix is quite a bit more complex to get started with, but it extends the idea of reproducible builds beyond individual packages, to encompass installation and configuration of all software on the system. The idea with Guix is that you put together a recipe for what software goes in your system and how it's configured, and from that recipe it will produce an identical system each time. This allows you to build up and tear down environments at will in a completely deterministic and automated fashion, rather than manually installing, configuring, and updating software as a sequence of manual, potentially error-prone actions. Guix is very similar to the (more popular) NixOS distribution, which would be a good choice for the same reasons, but for whatever reason I've seen a higher concentration of science people around Guix.
Personally I use Gentoo. Gentoo is probably not a great choice for scientific applications due to the sheer amount of variables introduced by Portage. None the less, it packages a number of nice programs for things like CAD, Finite Element Method, Computational Fluid Analysis, Astronomy, GIS, amateur radio, etc. So, you should be able to get going on just about any mature distribution. You just might take particular interest in Debian or Guix if you are primarily using your machine for scientific applications.
antix is the only one i know that says that it's proudly antifascist, so it should be represented here probably.
Socialist regimes tend to be on the authoritarian side hence my confusion in this context.
well i think they mean something like this
If you want projects that are "communally owned", just avoid Ubuntu, SUSE, and RedHat distributions. Basically all other large distributions have a number of people working on them, and often even projects mostly run by one guy are happy to let others contribute.
Arch, Debian, Linux Mint, or anything recommended by the FSF.
GNU Guix seems to be your best bet if you're interested in software preservation and scientific development. It's written entirely in the GNU Guile language which is a dialect of Scheme, meaning that the project is easily portable to other operating systems. It also allows for the most freedom in distributing packages and maintaining reproducibility.
Arch on my laptop, debian on my VPS, openBSD on my router and file server. My TRS-80 I just scored at the thrift store will be running CP/M.
