Devuan 3.0 Released For Debian 10 Without Systemd

[mskarbek]

So what. They are only wasting their own time, it's not like you are being forced to take any notice. If what they are doing works for them, then it's a success for them. That's what FOSS is for.

It's just an observation. I have nothing against wasting time.

[cmsigler]

... Imagine a cluster of these!!!

(Someone had to...)

[ALRBP]

tbh i dont see any hate.
i only see hate against systemd and their devs.

Do you actually read this forum? I've seen more hate against system-free people (notably Devuan, but also Gentoo and any project that supports alternative init, even if systemd is also supported (Gentoo)) than against systemd (anti-systemd hate only dominates in non-systemd projects forums).

[Michael_S]

I find initscripts more readable and easier to understand. ymmv

That's probably because you learned initscripts first and then systemd much later. The learning curve for systemd is pretty short, and the documentation is excellent.

I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with initscripts, init system choice, Devuuan, etc... I just want to be clear that some portion of the hatred for systemd - not all of it, just a portion - is nothing more than, "I learned SysV, and I don't feel like learning anything else." A lot of systemd criticisms are valid, just not that one.

I have yet to see a systemd based distro start/boot faster or shutdown faster than a sys-v init, openrc init distro on any of my systems. again YMMV.

systemd boot can be very quick, but it depends on tuning by the distribution maintainers. I have VMs all running off virtio mapped files on the same spinning platter drive. Their boot speed order, fastest to slowest, is: Debian (systemd), Void (runit), Fedora(systemd), Ubuntu MATE (systemd), and GuixSD (GNU Shepherd).

[tuxd3v]

I wonder why anyone would prefer symlinked initscripts over systemd for booting?
systemd's service files are much easier to understand as they have very good documentation.

If you take a good deep dive into systemd, you will find that systemd, has tons, but tons more of symlinks than SysVinit..

Actually systemd basic systemd services, executed from the unit file, via fork&exec are simple to understand..
The others require to run a script, and so you are already with 2 files to understand, turning it harder to understand..

SysVinit on the other hand, uses the LSB Headers( in the same file, has the deamon.. ). turning it easier to understand..

[archkde]

This (admittedly annoying) diagram demonstrates this idea.

http://www.troubleshooters.com/linux...ol_systemd.htm

They can't even spell systemd correctly.

[discordian]

It is still fairly monolithic. Not one of those modules can truly function on its own and systemd is fairly broken without all of its modules.

Ssssshh, dont tell me, I am still convinced I got an embedded system running with just udev + systemd + networkd with a ~22MB base filesystem.

[andyprough]

Since we have a release, are you thinking about doing some Devuan v. Debian benchmarks Michael?

[Michael]

Since we have a release, are you thinking about doing some Devuan v. Debian benchmarks Michael?

No, none of the benchmarks I normally run are likely to be impacted from the init system changes.

[Giovanni Fabbro]

I understand what you mean, personally I wouldn't switch, but I feel afraid by systemd monolithic-ness and their developers attitude.

You're already using the biggest monolithic piece of software available: the Linux kernel.