Devuan Is Still Moving Along As A Debian Fork Without Systemd

[SebastianB]

I think your POV, which I also found with Lennart's replies ("You don't like systemd? write a replacement") kind of forgets the pre-systemd era. Linux became the first server OS and a feasible alternative desktop OS by relying on distro maintainers to adjust packages so they could work together. Systemd pros and cons aside, offering unification and simplification is an option, not the inescapable way forward. We have been duped by the word "progress" and innovation into a worse situation a lot of times already, hell, the whole Free Software movement was aimed to RESTORE software freedom, so it was ultimately reactionary, not revolutionary. Down with change, back to Eden!

That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started. Linux exists because Linus didn't like what else there was available for 386 cpus(mostly minix) and wrote a replacement. Where do you think linux would be today if he instead whined a bit on some mailinglist and asked "someone" to do something because of software freedom or some bullshit? Where would GNU software have gone if RMS had done the same?

Lennart and co are doing something they enjoy, they have fun doing it the way they are doing it. They are not going to to stop and remove their code from the internet because some people disagree. Your either doing something about it or your talking and comment about what others are doing(or not doing). Those are the two options that you have. And no amount of whining about how unfair it is, how you can't code or don't have the time for it are going to change a thing about it.

If you think a little bit about it you should actually realize that its non of your effing buisness what lennart does with his time. You know whole freedom of speech, he can post whatever code he wants on ther internet, kinda what sets us part from the bad guys dontcha agree? The only people you have any right to complain to are maintainers of distributions, and even there only for the commercial ones imho where you are a customer. Apart from that your entitled to shit.

[gilboa]

That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started. Linux exists because Linus didn't like what else there was available for 386 cpus(mostly minix) and wrote a replacement. Where do you think linux would be today if he instead whined a bit on some mailinglist and asked "someone" to do something because of software freedom or some bullshit? Where would GNU software have gone if RMS had done the same?

Lennart and co are doing something they enjoy, they have fun doing it the way they are doing it. They are not going to to stop and remove their code from the internet because some people disagree. Your either doing something about it or your talking and comment about what others are doing(or not doing). Those are the two options that you have. And no amount of whining about how unfair it is, how you can't code or don't have the time for it are going to change a thing about it.

If you think a little bit about it you should actually realize that its non of your effing buisness what lennart does with his time. You know whole freedom of speech, he can post whatever code he wants on ther internet, kinda what sets us part from the bad guys dontcha agree? The only people you have any right to complain to are maintainers of distributions, and even there only for the commercial ones imho where you are a customer. Apart from that your entitled to shit.

Well said!

- Gilboa

[mpppp]

That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started.

You have a strange concept of "exactly".
Proof, let xy= secure boot. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. But if you don't like it and MS suggested "You don't like secure boot? write a replacement" is pure trolling, as a replacement would not remove the inconvenient step of signing the boot image. Sure, a write protectable BIOS that warns whenever the checksum for the next stage has changed would solve the issue, but it's not a replacement of secure boot, it's doing without it.

Same with systemd, a solution is doing without it, replacing it is a non-solution worse than the problem. You got my objection now?

Lennart and co are doing something they enjoy, they have fun doing it the way they are doing it. They are not going to to stop and remove their code from the internet because some people disagree.

Not that I ever asked that, did I?

Your either doing something about it or your talking and comment about what others are doing(or not doing). Those are the two options that you have. And no amount of whining about how unfair it is, how you can't code or don't have the time for it are going to change a thing about it.

If you think a little bit about it you should actually realize that its non of your effing buisness what lennart does with his time. You know whole freedom of speech, he can post whatever code he wants on ther internet, kinda what sets us part from the bad guys dontcha agree? The only people you have any right to complain to are maintainers of distributions, and even there only for the commercial ones imho where you are a customer. Apart from that your entitled to shit.

You must be a mind reader, replying to things I did not write. Unfortunately you must have somehow contacted the wrong brain.
Why should I do anything about systemd? As my comment history before your rant shows, I am comfortable, right now, without it.

[V10lator]

You have a strange concept of "exactly".
Proof, let xy= secure boot.

Since when is secure boot "free software"? So stop comparing bananas and apples. As your whole example is invalid now, what next? Also: A replacement for secure boot means implementing the signed boot process (as that's what secure boot is, no?) You could still re-implement it in your own software, even if it's not "free software". Hell, add signing to Coreboot and there's your example.
It's the same with systemd: You can't reimplement it without re-creating the APIs, as the APIs are what define systemd (to programs interacting with it). Still that code wouldn't be systemd and (as long as you're not copy&pasting systemds code) work different.

It doesn't matter if you like it or not. But if you don't like it and MS suggested "You don't like secure boot? write a replacement" is pure trolling

No, it's not. Again, here quoted for you:

free software

Apples and oranges...

as a replacement would not remove the inconvenient step of signing the boot image. Sure, a write protectable BIOS that warns whenever the checksum for the next stage has changed would solve the issue, but it's not a replacement of secure boot, it's doing without it.

So you want to exchange secure boot >as application< (UEFI/BIOS implementation) or >as standart<? Comeon, now you're not only comaring apples with oranges but apples with monkeys.

Same with systemd, a solution is doing without it

Fine, do so... By _replacing_ it with another init system... :P

replacing it is a non-solution worse than the problem.

Why? You don't have to use binary logs, you can be as modular as you want, you don't have to talk to PID1 at all and so on and so forth. So where exactly are these even more worse problems?

[mpppp]

Since when is secure boot "free software"? So stop comparing bananas and apples. As your whole example is invalid now, what next?

The example doesn't need to be free software for my point, BTW you're asking for a logical impossibility, see:

That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started.

"it started". It can't have possibly started by replacing *already free* software, it wouldn't be a start but a continuation.

In fact, rms wanted a printer with *closed* driver to work, QED. IIRC also Linus couldn't redistribute his modifications of Tanenbaum's minix so he launched his project from scratch.

So you want to exchange secure boot >as application< (UEFI/BIOS implementation) or >as standart<?

Irrelevant, you'd either replace the protocol or the implementation.
Two secure boot protocols would mean requiring signing rights from two entities. Two secure boot implementations would mean requiring signing rights from one entity.

But, you don't like secure boot, you don't want signed payloads, so what do you do? you replace the protocol or the app? Neither, you disable secure boot. Those challenging you to replace it are still trolling, which was the point I made and my objection, from the start.

Fine, do so... By _replacing_ it with another init system... :P

Why? You don't have to use binary logs, you can be as modular as you want, you don't have to talk to PID1 at all and so on and so forth. So where exactly are these even more worse problems?

You are describing *doing without* systemd, not *replacing* it. And I am already doing that:

$ pstree
runit─┬─adb───{adb}
      ├─dbus-daemon
      ├─dbus-launch
      ├─efreetd
      ├─runsvdir─┬─runsv───pause
      │          ├─5*[runsv───agetty]
      │          ├─runsv───login───bash───startx───xinit─┬─Xorg.bin───{Xorg.bi+
      │          │                                       └─enlightenment_s───e+
      │          └─runsv───dhcpcd
      ├─udevd
      └─wpa_supplicant

Systemd is not merely an init system- if it were, it would be replaceable without fuss and there would be no controversy either. But don't take my word for it, Lennart himself describes systemd in his blog, very clearly.

The "worse problems" I refer to, if systemd were *replaced*, is that you'd have not one, but two different implementations of a system above the kernel that manages a bunch of different tasks, some server related, some desktop related, and you'd have to mind the explicit and/or hidden requirements and quirks of both.