For interesting topics. But remember this is a Linux Forum. Do not post offensive topics that are meant to cause trouble with other members or are derogatory towards people of different genders, race, color, minors (this includes nudity and sex), politics or religion. Let's try to keep peace among the community and for visitors.
No spam on this or any other forums please! If you post advertisements on these forums, your account may be deleted.
Do not copy and paste entire or even up to half of someone else's words or articles into posts. Post only a few sentences or a paragraph and make sure to include a link back to original words or article. Otherwise it's copyright infringement.
You can talk about other distros here, but no MX bashing. You can email the developers of MX if you just want to say you dislike or hate MX.
But how useful is that when packages depend on systemd?
Why does it matter if the systemd package is installed if it is not running as PID1?
I don't like systemd because it's too complicated and the codebase is too big, runit-init solves that completely for me.
Although I do actually prefer the slightly more complicated OpenRC option because of the lovely user interface and tools.
dreamer wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:12 pmThis package seems crucial to using Debian without systemd as init.
Nope, I can run either sysvinit or runit-init as PID1 without the systemd-shim in Debian buster.
Packages depend on systemd. That's why systemd-shim is needed. A usable OS requires more than being able to boot the system. But maybe you are happy to recompile all the packages that depend on systemd? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Note to self and others: SysVinit is a good option. However if you run into problems try with systemd first. This applies to AppImages, Flatpaks, GitHub packages and even some Debian packages.
dreamer wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:05 pm
Packages depend on systemd. That's why systemd-shim is needed. A usable OS requires more than being able to boot the system. But maybe you are happy to recompile all the packages that depend on systemd? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This was the concern about systemd from the start--it would become a cancer worming its way into the entire OS.
I hope MX can stay clear of this systemd disease, but I'm sticking with MX no matter what init it uses in Buster.
dreamer wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:05 pm
But maybe you are happy to recompile all the packages that depend on systemd?
I am happy having the systemd package installed as long as it isn't doing anything, which would be the case if either sysvinit or runit-init were running as PID1.
As it happens my buster system doesn't have the systemd package installed at all and it is perfectly functional with my dwm desktop.
You may have problems with a bloated desktop environment like XFCE but I don't want to run those for the same reasons that I don't want to use systemd.
But anyway this is off-topic for this thread so I will stop now.
mod note: Signature removed, please read the forum rules
But the systemd-shim has gone so MX will have to make a choice as to the init system.
Probably the reason for the earlier poll... I'm for pitching systemd. I know no one asked.
Pax vobiscum, Mark Rabideau - ManyRoads Genealogy -or- eirenicon llc. (geeky stuff)
i3wm, bspwm, hlwm, dwm, spectrwm ~ Linux #449130
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
I wonder if Secure Boot will carry over to MX 19 (or 20)? That would be one less thing for people who are cursed with UEFI computers to have to deal with just to get an MX USB to boot.
JayM wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:29 am
I wonder if Secure Boot will carry over to MX 19 (or 20)? That would be one less thing for people who are cursed with UEFI computers to have to deal with just to get an MX USB to boot.
That's a good point. I saw that Buster will install on secure boot computers now, that would be a big plus. I guess everything is give and take in these decisions.
