MX Linux Forum

not sure how much more work that would entail

a whole lot...

rasat wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 11:18 am Same as KBD. I hope MX can keep both sysvinit and systemd in same iso. Not only for user choice, but also as security option. There are/were cases when either one fails during booting. In my case with earlier kernel version running in Dell inspiron 5567.

KBD wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 11:38 am If it turns out to be impossible to use the shim in Buster, I'd suggest either detailed instructions in the wiki for installing systemd on the next MX based on Buster, or, if possible, an option in MX Tools to run a script that installs systemd for users that need it.
Edit: I'd suggest two ISO options for the next Buster-based MX, one for sysVinit, one for systemd, but not sure how much more work that would entail.

It IS impossible (at the moment)

Sometimes in life -- and in Linux -- you just don't have a choice. systemd is what is being adopted going forward throughout Linuxdom. Sure, niche distros will stick to their never-systemd guns, but they will remain niche distros. Unless a solution can be found that can be maintained for the long term, now may be the time to relent and move on.

Is it worth it for MX to sponsor or take over systemd-shim maintenance ? How many debian subsystems/services will ship with properly tested (sysV)init scripts going forward ?

What are the implications of switching to systemd for antiX and MX (i seem to recall this may break the live features ?) Would it be more work to port the antiX live system to systemd ?

Sorry, i only have questions, probably like most users. Either way i am afraid there is going to be extra work for the developers to support buster.

systemD is definitely not something I want to see between me and the kernel...

And really wish MX Linux would stop supporting it... not to debate, just delivering my opinion.

Jerry3904 wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 11:56 am

not sure how much more work that would entail

a whole lot...

That's what I figured, so didn't mention it as a first option.

baldyeti wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 12:49 pm Is it worth it for MX to sponsor or take over systemd-shim maintenance ? How many debian subsystems/services will ship with properly tested (sysV)init scripts going forward ?

The systemd devs have already broken systemd-shim, are likely to break it again if development is resumed (since they really want systemd at PID 1) and we don't have the developers familiar enough with the internals of systemd to do that development ourselves.

Using systemd-shim doesn't help with init scripts. We would still have to deal with that issue either way.

Apart from a few active forum users (including devs), I doubt many of the 1000s of MX Linux users even know what systemd is, let alone have the knowledge to argue for it's inclusion/exclusion etc. So, I'll trust the Antix/MX team to do whatever they need to do to maintain the level of stability/reliability (and a few more ***ity's, security/simplicity/usability... etc ), that keeps many, including myself, using both Distros (bearing in mind any restrictions forced upon Antix/MX by decisions made by Debian).

So, as The Four Tops once sang; "Do what you gotta do..." (Yes, I'm that old that I remember The Four Tops )

Fork Debian Stretch and become independent, smaller (number of packages) and rolling (you already are sort of). If PCLOS can do it...

PS I don't know what is right for MX Linux so I just throw suggestions at the wall...

In one of my more unpopular posts/ questions here I asked if it wouldn't make sense to build future releases off of Devuan, rather than Debian, if staying systemd-free was essential. I'll repeat the question, put on my helmet & flak jacket and duck for cover.

Edit: Or perhaps offer two flavors of MX (Devuan and Debian) thus leaving the systemd non-systemd efforts to the respective root OS team(s).