Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I tried to add to "Wikipedia:[[]\ List of Distros" and their spam bot immediately deleted it and IP BANNED me for reposting it after deletion. I only added a small paragraph among 100 such: ip banned for life for doing it. Maintained by anti-competition Inc.
What are some ways to get the word out about a Linux Distro?
Already done: it is on Sourceforge, searchable that way, that I know.
I am aware of "distro watch". They charge money and has no good way to find unices by category. (it was cool in the 90's, begging to be un-useful as a tool - otherwise I might pay it).
I tried to add to "Wikipedia:[[]\ List of Distros" and their spam bot immediately deleted it and IP BANNED me for reposting it after deletion. I only added a small paragraph among 100 such: ip banned for life for doing it.
Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion, and has rules about what information it contains, primarily that it must have proof of notability (which very few new distros have).
Wikipedia also has public edit histories, so anyone can see what happened: you were told why your addition was reverted (entries in the list must have an existing Wikipedia article), you re-added it twice before you were given a final warning. It was when you subsequently re-added the link for the fourth time that your IP was blocked from editing for two years.
The talk-page responses made after that point... well, wouldn't surprise me if those resulted in a further ban.
Post the name here in this thread. I think that is allowed. Then people can start randomly looking at it. If I knew where it was I'd take a look.
Gotta start small. You won't find a place that will make big announcement unless you really have a golden nugget of a distro. No offense but that is hard to pull off these days as most everything has been done in some way already.
Last edited by jmgibson1981; 12-14-2022 at 09:00 AM.
Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion, and has rules about what information it contains, primarily that it must have proof of notability (which very few new distros have).
That's disinformation #1. They promote themselves continually, use gov money, and Distros they are tied to. The fact they maintian a list means I would want to be on it.
If they didn't have allot of government money and didn't offer a partial list I wouldn't be asking.
I hope you are learning I'm not so easily inflenced by mind bending talk.
I really don't want to talk politics. Please do not post anymore "truth about big tech". That's off topic.
[QUOTE=jmgibson1981;6397834]Post the name here in this thread. I think that is allowed. Then people can start randomly looking at it. If I knew where it was I'd take a look.
thank you. i already posted the name in another thread. i must not do so continually.
That's disinformation #1. They promote themselves continually, use gov money, and Distros they are tied to. The fact they maintian a list means I would want to be on it.
If they didn't have allot of government money and didn't offer a partial list I wouldn't be asking.
I hope you are learning I'm not so easily inflenced by mind bending talk.
I really don't want to talk politics. Please do not post anymore "truth about big tech". That's off topic.
Not at all disinformation. Requiring PROOF of existence is quite the opposite as disinformation. The notices you received the first few times you edited it I'm sure mentioned this, and probably even gave links to what types of proof are required. This is, by definition, the prevention of disinformation, and why wikipedia is generally regarded as a trustworthy source of accurate information.
That's disinformation #1. They promote themselves continually, use gov money, and Distros they are tied to. The fact they maintian a list means I would want to be on it. If they didn't have allot of government money and didn't offer a partial list I wouldn't be asking. I hope you are learning I'm not so easily inflenced by mind bending talk. I really don't want to talk politics. Please do not post anymore "truth about big tech". That's off topic.
What 'gov money' are you talking about??? And what 'mind bending' talk?? If you're that paranoid, why do you post on public forums?? And why bother asking again, when you've asked before, and claim to have done this? https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ub-4175719050/
I think we need to understand that the OP is a fierce defender of the free and open source movement.
The LICENCE for Totally Built Linux Distro states:
Quote:
Copyright John Hendrickson 22124BDR
xlfs-0.2 does not warrant legal use, xlfs does restrict publishing and use.
Student use only.
There are two products "build" (xlfs-0.2) and "boot scripts" (etc/ scripts/ that are not installed by default on USB, i.e. firewall/rc.iptables)
build:
The xlfs-0.2 is "as-is". There is no intentional malware, it is hoped that the software is helpful to build a linux distro from scratch on PC at home. The software is experimental and precaution should be taken (such as backups).
The software is not for use in money making enterprise without previous written agreement with the author. (student license only) (restricton includes government non-profit and gov charity having paid persons, and goes double for REDHAT MICROSOFT GOOGLE UBUNTU MATHEMATICA and other enterprises who withhold work under tort and criminal law from this author and are known to be big spenders of gov money)
NOTICE: Non-code (comments, todo), especially those marked "un-moderated blogging", are not to be re-published nor taken seriously. You are not forced to read or copy them and are free to delete non-code. The author is pressed for time as to preening these the author does not owe it.
There are laws concerning fair use. Origin and license must remain conspicuous, no copy-lefting. Fair is not by lenght. It should be understood (i.e. binutils.notes) that some "recipe" are short to cut&paste yet were hard bought with major un-compensated labor caused by "big tech". This includes the fact of "big tech" IP BANNING, mocking those seeking recipe on the internet, lack of disclosure, advertising the source is open and ready to build in linux to gain customers, arguably having tampered with to prevent reproduction they advertised as feature.
boot scripts:
These are simply my home server scripts to get my own PC running. They are modified or unmodified from many distro including slackware redhat and debian. Most were previously released under build-0.1 GNU License on Sourceforge. Many were not made with intention of supporting a wide audience or being published. There is nothing new since xlfs-0.1 build-0.1 which needs considering. I have no idea what comments might be in them that should be removed and reserve right to attend to it at a later time.
both build and scripts:
Neither xlfs "build" nor "boot scripts" are allowed to be used to make malware, poisons nor attack other internet customers directly or by machination. Period.
The software built is separately licensed, I cannot verify those license but can and have disputed some of them.
I think we need to understand that the OP is a fierce defender of the free and open source movement. The LICENCE for Totally Built Linux Distro states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlfs-0.2
Copyright John Hendrickson 22124BDR
xlfs-0.2 does not warrant legal use, xlfs does restrict publishing and use.
Student use only.
There are two products "build" (xlfs-0.2) and "boot scripts" (etc/ scripts/ that are not installed by default on USB, i.e. firewall/rc.iptables)
build:
The xlfs-0.2 is "as-is". There is no intentional malware, it is hoped that the software is helpful to build a linux distro from scratch on PC at home. The software is experimental and precaution should be taken (such as backups).
The software is not for use in money making enterprise without previous written agreement with the author. (student license only) (restricton includes government non-profit and gov charity having paid persons, and goes double for REDHAT MICROSOFT GOOGLE UBUNTU MATHEMATICA and other enterprises who withhold work under tort and criminal law from this author and are known to be big spenders of gov money)
NOTICE: Non-code (comments, todo), especially those marked "un-moderated blogging", are not to be re-published nor taken seriously. You are not forced to read or copy them and are free to delete non-code. The author is pressed for time as to preening these the author does not owe it.
There are laws concerning fair use. Origin and license must remain conspicuous, no copy-lefting. Fair is not by lenght. It should be understood (i.e. binutils.notes) that some "recipe" are short to cut&paste yet were hard bought with major un-compensated labor caused by "big tech". This includes the fact of "big tech" IP BANNING, mocking those seeking recipe on the internet, lack of disclosure, advertising the source is open and ready to build in linux to gain customers, arguably having tampered with to prevent reproduction they advertised as feature.
boot scripts:
These are simply my home server scripts to get my own PC running. They are modified or unmodified from many distro including slackware redhat and debian. Most were previously released under build-0.1 GNU License on Sourceforge. Many were not made with intention of supporting a wide audience or being published. There is nothing new since xlfs-0.1 build-0.1 which needs considering. I have no idea what comments might be in them that should be removed and reserve right to attend to it at a later time.
both build and scripts:
Neither xlfs "build" nor "boot scripts" are allowed to be used to make malware, poisons nor attack other internet customers directly or by machination. Period.
The software built is separately licensed, I cannot verify those license but can and have disputed some of them.
Being an advocate for free software is one thing, but continued rants about "big tech", "gov money", etc., are another...especially when they're easily disproved, as with their other posts about Red Hat, Wikipedia, etc.
And this 'license' makes little sense, because:
Apparently, you can only use this if you're a student. So that rules out a HUGE portion of users.
xlfs-0.2 does not warrant legal use, xlfs does restrict publishing and use. - So I can't use it for anything legal?
I can't use it at any business...eliminating another huge portion of users.
The "gov charity" portion is fairly amusing.
They advocate being 'free'...yet tell me that I can't post portions of it??
Misspellings in the license aside, it reads as yet another rant about 'big tech', with hints of conspiracy theory. So since I can't use it unless I'm a student (and even then, only for doing illegal things), not sure how many people will bother with it at all. For someone who advocates 'freedom', it's ironic their own license goes on about how it will restrict the users from publishing and use. And if I wanted LFS as a learning journey, why download something that eliminates the learning part?? I can just use any other pre-built distro.
Oh man.. I love this license!
It sounds like OP applied for a job with the BIG Tech and got rejected. (or is just paranoid)
Quote:
The software is not for use in money making enterprise without previous written agreement with the author. (student license only) (restricton includes government non-profit and gov charity having paid persons, and goes double for REDHAT MICROSOFT GOOGLE UBUNTU MATHEMATICA and other enterprises who withhold work under tort and criminal law from this author and are known to be big spenders of gov money)
I would like to understand what work are they witholding and if there is a criminal breach / tort why has the OP not filed a case to resolve?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
