Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | novafunc's commentslogin

There's a project called "anylinux appimages" that aims to make the most compatible appimages. They also use DwarFS for faster opening and smaller file sizes.

See: https://pkgforge-dev.github.io/Anylinux-AppImages/


He has a bunch of projects. Most notable being:

- Bottles (Wine/Proton runner)

- cpak

- Atoms (container manager)

- VanillaOS (atomic OS with bespoke tooling)

- Sinty OS (another atomic OS with bespoke tooling)

- Sinty DE (desktop environement + apps)

It's fair to say most of them are AI generated nowadays.


At least Bottles is really good and not just slop

(edit: removed because I was confusing Bottles and Boxes, no need to leak wrong ideas)

Bottles is a wine/proton runner, not a VM manager. I think you might be mixing it up with Boxes?

Yes! I am indeed, thank you! Bottles has been useful, though I haven't used it in years.

I don't know how this happens to me but i always have trouble with Bottles. And not just the slightly bad UI, but like today, i have an installer that i can run directly with Steam that i cannot get to run in Bottles. When i last used it a couple years ago i did get what i needed working successfully but i remember it being a struggle.

They mentioned you can use the Alpha from their app installer.

Good to know! For others: You open their app store, go into messaging, hamburger menu, select release channel, and choose alpha.

That's exactly what's happening to the Linux git repository. The server constantly has mutltiple CPU cores dedicated to rendering git of various old, dead branches in html for scrapers.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean?

Ubuntu does not aim to be a permissively-licensed system. It can include copyleft (e.g. GPL) and permissive (e.g. MIT) without issue.

Permissively-licensed systems like FreeBSD and GrapheneOS cannot include GPL code if they want to remain permissive.


GrapheneOS does include GPLv2 code both via AOSP and our own but not GPLv3. We want GrapheneOS to have no additional restrictions beyond AOSP. AOSP uses GPLv2 but not GPLv3.

We do need to be careful with GPLv2 due to license incompatibilities. For example, GPLv2-only licensing such as the Linux kernel is incompatible with Apache 2 and GPLv3. GPLv3 is compatible with Apache 2 so GPLv2-or-later can be compatible but only by using it as GPLv3 with the extra restrictions too.


It seems like you have more freedom than you think you do. See this comment <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49594824> Packaging software shouldn't change the license of GOS as such. If you haven't had already, maybe the free software foundation could provide you with assurance?

I guess it will make your life much easier if you wouldn't have to restrict yourself that much.


No, we're not talking about packaging software in our app repository (App Store) but rather software being included in GrapheneOS. If any GPLv3 software is included in GrapheneOS then that places more restrictions on how it can be used as a whole.

> GrapheneOS cannot include GPL code if they want to remain permissive

It's hard to take this seriously when the entire kernel is GPL.


Apple made some changes specifically for Asahi Linux to make it more robust.

I believe it was Hector Martin who discussed it on Mastodon a while ago.



Discussed there, but shame the original linked tweet is deleted

Would you happen to have a link to this? I would like to learn about this but unfortunately treehouse.systems doesn't seem to be very well indexed by search engines, and Mastodon's search is failing me.

Source? It's a welcome thing but very much not like Apple.

Apple has a long long history of supporting open source.

can you please tell us what have they done for open source except LLVM.

Probably took me less time to search “Apple open source” and click the first link than it did to type your question:

https://opensource.apple.com/


Basically nothing except swift and llvm.

They are able to rebrand other peoples stuff!

I mean, if you can’t read I could see how one might walk away with that impression.

My argument was apple is doing nothing much for open source, then you suddenly come with link that shows Apple has done nothing for open source compared to other company like Microsoft or Google or even Meta.

…compared to other company like Microsoft or Google or even Meta.

So you can read, you just moved the goalposts when you were shown to be mistaken.


mistaken? Looks like you can't comprehend goalposts with common sense. Apple isn't random acme company we are comparing here.

Swift, WebKit, Darwin/XNU, MLX, FoundationDB, Container, Pkl, libdispatch (GCD), CUPS, CareKit, ResearchKit, Kubernetes, Cassandra, Spark, Netty, Solr…

Sure, but other then language tools, databases, printing, container orchestration, what have the Roman’s ever done for us?

~85% of the things they mentioned were Mac-exclusive software, so that's more of a question for yourself than the greater FOSS community.

If you have the will, and the knowledge all of those tools can be used to your advantage but no one has for the most part they want someone else to do it for them for free.

If you see google and microsoft contribution to OSS, apple contribution to OSS is basically nothing.

LLVM / Swift / Webkit & XNU (I don’t really know of anything using Xnu up stream but the others are large open source projects?)

Clang, OpenCL, MLX

Don't they ship a propetietary clang variant with weirdass version numbers? That was true at least at some point. Fortunately most Mac users on my experiments have given up attempting to compile any code in their Macs after SIP etc made it too annoying so rarely have to support them anymore.

> "What has Apple ever done for Open Source?"

> proceeds to name three of the worst-managed projects in the history of FOSS software


and CUPS

I believe the main things are that block lists have to be updated through the Chrome Web Store and there is an upper limit for things that can be blocked.


Any user process can append anything they want to your shell rc (.bashrc, .zshrc). In this case, they added a bash function for a fake sudo prompt. It then uses the password the user entered to run a malicious payload as root.


If you're running a malicious user process with write (or read) access to your files, you are arguably already compromised.


The freaking point is that basically anything worth running will have that amount of access, even Flatpaks. And you don't freaking know what's malicious before hand.


I think that depends on your point of view. I wouldn't run a program on my computer unless I were sure that it's not malicious. And if you mean that some program I already trust could be exploited, that's true even for the Linux kernel or any sandbox / security solution you would come up with. I'm not denying that there's always a risk, but there's nothing good in running arbitrary code that you can't trust.


Exactly the point. You are already fully compromised, sudo adds no security.


Just billionaires giving money to a friend's project.


While I do love Fedora, I Wouldn't call it a "Snow Leopard". Around August 5th, there's been numerous regressions when it comes to AMD graphics. First a kernel regression that resulting in artifacts on the desktop. Then a linux-firmware regression with decoding AV1 videos that resulting in 4 prominent columns and constant major color shifts.

Its update policy can result in this sort of regressions in a middle of a release. One thing that's nicer thing about macOS is that a released version doesn't regress as much (even if they are buggier at release; but in that case you can just wait until a later point release to upgrade).


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: