2007/12/12, ropers <ropers@gmail.com>:

[...]

quoted text
> that there is a ports.tar.gz file on the CD.
>
> HOWEVER, that file is not installed by default, and the OpenBSD
> install program *does not even give the user the option* to install
> ports.tar.gz, be it from CD or otherwise. See here:
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Filesets

On OpenBSD:  for install (a few) non-free (for someone) software (non
developed by OpenBSD), you need to manually cp, tar, search, cd, make
etc... and it is _unrecomended_

On gnewsense: wget the .deb and then dpkg -i package.deb, or add a
repository (manually or from a gtk interface) and using latter another
interfaces (apt/aptitude/sinaptyc/etc) for install A_LOT of shit.
A_LOT is a relation about 10000:1 compared whit openbsd ports (may be
short).

On OpenBSD, you have a tool to install (a few) non-free licensed
programs, the Ports (Makefiles), but this tool is not designed or
intended for promote non-free software.

On gnewsense, you have A LOOT of tools to install non-free licensed,
Makefiles, .debs, dpkg, apt, aptitude, sinaptyc, kpackage. Also whit
apt-url, you can install non-free software only "clicking" on a url
(yes, like IE5,6,7)

This is on userland. But if you go to the heart of the system, take a
look on the .h files of the fat .tgz of the linux kernel... you will
find a lot of "intersting" comments about licenses.

I would like to know, from all the users of gnewsense or ututo, how
many of them have some of: non-free blobs, firmwares, drivers,
aplications, codecs, java, flash, or other shits... and how many
OpenBSD have any... compared in percent. B?is recomendable one, the
other or bot?

Greetings