devual linux

Typo alert :(

That should have been 'devuan'

What do you consider so bad about systemd? (Not liking the author doesn't count)

Hah! about 60% of the updates to my MINT system seem to involve systemd. It is not stable yet, and was *unnecessary in the first place*.

It was just Poetterings ego trying to make work for himself.

He should have been sacked instead.

Not quite true - there is a need of init replacement - we can't say systemd is the best one, but for sure not the worst one

Might be it is indeed part of the problem, but feel free to offer something better.

At the moment I consider systemd on mobile devices the best option ... for servers ... well, there is the compatibility package (at least in debian)

While I technically don't have anything against systemd (it is running on the system I am entering this from), I have had some issues installing distros which include it. I had an intel sbc that came with an ubuntu derivative installed. The OS was inconsistent about booting up. I tried the latest "real" ubuntu and debian, but had other issues. Devuan worked fine.

Had a similar issue with a tower... upgraded from Debian 9 to 10. Some process(es) that were loaded at boot up would get out of control and grind the system to a halt. Finally switched to Devuan and the problem went away.

On the other hand, I have had no issues with Raspbian on my Pi3, or Ubuntu on this system (another intel sbc).

• SLMR 2.1a * Virus detected! P)our chicken soup on motherboard?

It is the complete antithesis of the UNIX principle. It tries to do everything, and it seems does most of it badly. It is convoluted, monolithic and opaque. An init *system* should do the minimun necessary to get things in a sane state then get out of the way.

On a Pi3 I was able to get the devuan install to start up dramatically faster than Raspian lite, with the same working software, on the same unit, and same SDcard.

The latest wheeze is it wants to take over management of the filesystem, and in an extremely dangerous way. The idea is that users have a totally enclosed and encrypted equivalent of their home directory including all the access and metadata the original OS and filesystem keeps. There are the following problems.

You have no choice. The package will be encrypted and if anything at all goes wrong you've lost the lot.

You can't SSH remotely into your data. It's encrypted, including the SSH key!

If you take this somewhere else and do work (the supposed main benefit). You then have two versions (or more) and no way of knowing which is the most up-to-date. They are encrypted.

For my purposes the benefits it claims are not important which means that to me the complexity it brings is a cost with no benefit. Not that SysV init is anything other than a dog's dinner with its run levels and alphabetical execution ordering. Fortunately the BSD world has sane startup systems for those common cases where systemd is gross overkill.

One size never fits all.

Evidently it has been done:

Actually the sysv init with the make approach is what I am using on the servers. However the company servers are all RHEL and the systemd the reis

The war is over it is pointless to have this discussion further.

The war is an illusion - systemd, sysV init and BSD rc all exist today and none are likely to vanish. Every OS distribution contains its choice, if you can't find the one you want you are welcome to roll your own and may it be a smash hit.

Exactly!

Anyway, the only people who 'win' wars are those making the tools of war.

Logical BS - making a sward does not mean you can use it.

Full Marx!

-- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

You miss the point entirely! You can sell it to both sides, and still be around when both are long gone.

I think you are confusing swards with swords.

And each update worms its way a little more in to the dependencies of every other pacakage.

No his employer Red Hat have every right to let him turn their distro in to some abhorrent monolithic systemd dominated nightmare. The stupidity comes from from those in charge of other distros that decided to adopt his work - wasn't pulseaudio warning enough?

---druck

'every right' is a moral and political statement. 'should have' is an expression of engineering hindsight.

They are not comparable

There was a much earlier warning - when Poettering and his gang left Gnome 2 still incomplete, some time before producing the horrid Gnome 3.

It was the unholy alliance between redhat and gnome that made systemd so difficult for the mainstream distros to resit :(