448
I like both, but usually prefer Ubuntu
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
448 points (87.3% liked)
linuxmemes
21280 readers
552 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ubuntu had (I don't know if it still has) an additional contrib section in the
sources.listfor binary packages from "partners" without source code available, like e.g. Spotify.So does Debian
Sorry, I mixed that up. It was named Canonical partner or something like that and contained only binary packages. Debian
contribare free packages with dependencies innon-free. Whilenon-freeare packages with not DFSG compliant source code (but with source code).That is not correct. Nonfree has software that is proprietary but jot firmware. Nonfree-firmware has the proprietary firmware.
Yes, since Bookworm, there is also
non-free-firmwarewhich before was located innon-free. I've skipped that for simplicity, as both follow the same rules andnon-free-firmwarewas introduced basically for convenience.Do you know if either of the
non-freerepos contain binary files without having the source available?They do
OK, TY. I've thought, there were just downloader packages, containing scripts to download the firmware binary from the device manufacturer and install it on the system, like e.g. the one for the Broadcom wireless driver.
That would be contrib - free software that downloads or relies on non-free software. non-free and non-free-firmware just contain straight up non-free (but redistributable) binaries.