Beta Released Of Devuan, The Systemd-Free Version Of Debian

[pal666]

Since you don't know what case sensitive

i know what is case sensitive(you are now playing debianxfce finding kernel bugs). i don't know what does 'forum is not case sensitive' mean. is english case sensitive? web? email?

No it does not, how did you come to that conclusion?

simple. people repeatedly post bullshit misinformation which is explained in readme. either they didn't read readme or they did read, but they are too dumb to comprehend it. i give people benefit of the doubt. capital d is just one of examples, but usually the first one

Why is it so hard for you to understand and let others to not use systemD?

others are free to not use systemd or computers in general. it will not make them smarter though.

Not wanting to use systemD doesn't make a person an idiot or stupid with lack of knowledge just like using systemD doesn't make anyone smart och full of knowledge.

but inability to comprehend does make a person an idiot

Why are so many wanting every single linux user to use systemD

who wants that? i want to not see stupid agressive arguments. also, since systemD is product of your imagination, only you could want that

Why all this one init system to rule them all argument?

btw it is pretty nice argument. it is good for linux adoption, just look at android. smart people could understand it without my help(hint)

[Nille_kungen]

i know what is case sensitive(you are now playing debianxfce finding kernel bugs). i don't know what does 'forum is not case sensitive' mean. is english case sensitive? web? email?

You said i spelled it wrong when i typed systemD when it spells the same way with or without an capital D i thought you might think that the forum is case sensitive.
You could call it a grammatical error

simple. people repeatedly post bullshit misinformation which is explained in readme. either they didn't read readme or they did read, but they are too dumb to comprehend it. i give people benefit of the doubt. capital d is just one of examples, but usually the first one

First i capitalize it how i see fit.
Second it's not in the readme and you would have known that if you read it.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/README

That said there is an notice about the spelling.
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Sof...temd/#spelling
Does it make you feel better if i instead spell it as sÿstëmd?
As an command i would agree but when generally speaking about it i rather use systemD to emphasize the end of the word.

others are free to not use systemd or computers in general. it will not make them smarter though.

No one has even implied that it would.
But some do want to use computers with linux but without systemD.

but inability to comprehend does make a person an idiot

Comprehend what?
If you mean systemd then do you mean comprehend as understanding or embracing systemd?
One can fully understand how systemd works but still choose not to use it, a choice doesn't have to do with not understanding systemD.
Do you really think that the only reason for anyone to choose not to use systemd is for not understanding better?

i want to not see stupid agressive arguments. also, since systemD is product of your imagination, only you could want that

If you don't like "stupid agressive arguments" then please don't look at your own post history.
If systemd only was a product of my imagination we wouldn't be discussing it here.

btw it is pretty nice argument. it is good for linux adoption, just look at android. smart people could understand it without my help(hint)

I agree to disagree and for me linux isn't all about adoption.

EDIT: I typed to fast so please read it as s/systemd/systemD/

[ssokolow]

While I agree that init scripts are a mess, I agree with the author of musl-libc that /bin/init must be held to a higher standard of quality and aspire to a smaller codebase size (eg. If necessary, adopt a microkernel-esque design where only the bare supervisory function lives in PID 1) and the core systemD binary fails both of those tests.

[valeriodean]

Lennart has a tendency to shit on bug reports or features he finds "unnecessary", "unfeasible" or whatever lives in his head. Take these for example:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817186

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817183

"We (in fact he, himself) decided/we know what's best for you" Do you think I'll file any more bug requests against systemd? No, thanks.

Seriously?
Both the bugs are related to the same behaviour (so, to me, they are two example that counts as one) a behaviour that is declared as "design decision", this is why the maintainer close the bug as "CLOSED WONTFIX".

We do not support display managers whose primary VT is not VT1. That is by design.

So, what you reported is not a bug because that is the intentional behaviour of the software (so the concept of bug is not applicable as well as the proposal of a fix). Also,I don't find the Lennart reply as "shit on bug reports".
It seems to me pretty much a normal workflow for a FLOSS software: there is a manitainer and he can accept or decline a patch for the software he is responsable for (otherwise there is no reason to have a maintainer if he is forced to accept everything from everyone).

[rohcQaH]

While I agree that init scripts are a mess, I agree with the author of musl-libc that /bin/init must be held to a higher standard of quality and aspire to a smaller codebase size (eg. If necessary, adopt a microkernel-esque design where only the bare supervisory function lives in PID 1) and the core systemD binary fails both of those tests.

I've always wondered why people hold PID 1 to higher standards than the kernel they intend to run the PID 1 on. Sure, PID 1 has to be stable. But if I were to worry about code complexity at the base of my operating system, I'd worry about the linux kernel, not systemd.

[arokh]

I love how 'does not handle mount errors at bootup well' == crap software.

As usual, opposers of systemd have no clue about software at all and their issues are non issues. As if handling NTFS mounts is what defines an init system. On top of it all, he refuses to create a ticket. Any sane person would understand where the fault lies.

[Cape]

It is pretty clear to me that this is yet again another problem of coordination and standardization in the GNU/linux ecosystem. Same thing is happening with nvidia and their wayland implementation.

Point is: we are lacking a general direction to follow. The unix "philosophy" is just useless in these cases since it's not a standard, it's just a reccomendation. An antiquated one as well, considering the average usecase.
Quite simply, code alone can't solve every problem... Sometimes you need to actively cooperate with other living human beings to reach your goal. This will become of vital importance as long as we follow the ultimate goal of conveniency, since we create new abstraction layers, each needing his own policy/standard.

I said it before: we need a GNU/Linux authority that is capable of driving the development towards a common goal by defining standards and behaviors.

[Doodzor]

It is pretty clear to me that this is yet again another problem of coordination and standardization in the GNU/linux ecosystem. Same thing is happening with nvidia and their wayland implementation.

Point is: we are lacking a general direction to follow. The unix "philosophy" is just useless in these cases since it's not a standard, it's just a reccomendation. An antiquated one as well, considering the average usecase.
Quite simply, code alone can't solve every problem... Sometimes you need to actively cooperate with other living human beings to reach your goal. This will become of vital importance as long as we follow the ultimate goal of conveniency, since we create new abstraction layers, each needing his own policy/standard.

I said it before: we need a GNU/Linux authority that is capable of driving the development towards a common goal by defining standards and behaviors.

This issue is a terrible example for the point you are trying to make. systemd IS the standard incorporated by everybody and building new distros on top of it IS the common goal. All the major distributions arrived at this on their own because it is a superior solution. Your comment is extremely out of touch. Everybody DID pick a standard and it does work very well but because it was not what a very small number of people like there needs to be a Linux authority to force everybody to use that instead of what everybody thinks is better?

[Cape]

This issue is a terrible example for the point you are trying to make. systemd IS the standard incorporated by everybody and building new distros on top of it IS the common goal. All the major distributions arrived at this on their own because it is a superior solution. Your comment is extremely out of touch. Everybody DID pick a standard and it does work very well but because it was not what a very small number of people like there needs to be a Linux authority to force everybody to use that instead of what everybody thinks is better?

This is exactly the point I was trying to make: you can't force a standard, you have to talk to all the parties involved and find a common/shared vision.

Take vulkan as an example of how to create a shared standard, even amongst competing parties...

In this cases, it's not a matter of what you ends up with, but rather how you reach it.

[Nille_kungen]

WTF? Are seriously suggesting that we should have a linux distribution board of some kind that forces things like systemd, pulse audio etc on every linux distribution and make them all use the same software?
Maybe you like if there was only one distribution as well?
Less choice for linux users ain't my motto.