Responses to Coming changes in impending MX 25 release.

[j2mcgreg]

Because it says so?

Code: Select all

Kernel: 6.6.12-1-liquorix-amd64 [6.6-16~mx23ahs] arch: x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc v: 12.2.0 parameters: audit=0
    intel_pstate=disable rcupdate.rcu_expedited=1 BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-6.6.12-1-liquorix-amd64
    root=UUID=<filter> ro quiet splash init=/lib/systemd/systemd

Checking the "Info" section at the very end of the report is the way that always works. If the init system isn't set as an explicit parameter like in the example above, it will not show in the kernel section.

Code: Select all

Info:
  Memory: total: N/A available: 7.64 GiB used: 2.38 GiB (31.2%)
  Processes: 263 Power: uptime: 19m states: freeze,mem,disk suspend: deep avail: s2idle
    wakeups: 0 hibernate: platform avail: shutdown, reboot, suspend, test_resume image: 3 GiB
    services: upowerd,xfce4-power-manager Init: systemd v: 252 target: graphical (5)
    default: graphical tool: systemctl

But that's the point. SystemD has to be set by the MX user, so it shows in the QSI. If it doesn't show, then in MX it is safe to assume that the default SysV init is in play because any other init would be indicated.

[Nokkaelaein]

But that's the point. SystemD has to be set by the MX user, so it shows in the QSI. If it doesn't show, then in MX it is safe to assume that the default SysV init is in play because any other init would be indicated.

MX 25 isn't a multi init system where SysV is always the default and systemd is set by the user, requiring this parameter after the fact.

(Also, on an earlier MX, the user has the option to install the provided systemd-sysv package, turning the system into a systemd one. Personally, I've turned all my own systems to systemd ones this year - deploying from an ISO of a systemd only installation prepared with the said systemd-sysv package - and I can confirm none of the systems show systemd in the boot parameter list. In other words, they are systemd installations where the init system doesn't show in the QSI kernel section. On these systems, too, the QSI shows the init system in the Info section, like it should. Summing up, the Info section shows the init system no matter what your configuration is and always shows that info, and looking for that in the kernel section presupposes that there is an explicit parameter present.)

[AK-47]

As a KDE user, who used sysV and X11 all the time with MX23, is there a way i can find out if systemd and Wayland with MX25 KDE will work for my use case, other than trying it out and „learn the hard way“ that it does not? :-)

If you do need to test something for now, install Debian 13 (now that it's out) on a test box or VM and see what happens. That will give you plenty of time for MX 25. Or you can wait for an MX 25 beta.

[LU344928]

I have seen nothing that compares to tweaking xfce - literally you can do anything with it.

Would that include the complete removal of Thunar and replacing it with, say, PCManFM? Or maybe it can't be removed at all and another file manager would just need to 'co-exist'.

That's my main gripe with Xfce... oh and the screensaver issue, which never seems to get fixed. I can recall complaints about it going as far back as MX18, I think.

[j2mcgreg]

But that's the point. SystemD has to be set by the MX user, so it shows in the QSI. If it doesn't show, then in MX it is safe to assume that the default SysV init is in play because any other init would be indicated.

MX 25 isn't a multi init system where SysV is always the default and systemd is set by the user, requiring this parameter after the fact.

(Also, on an earlier MX, the user has the option to install the provided systemd-sysv package, turning the system into a systemd one. Personally, I've turned all my own systems to systemd ones this year - deploying from an ISO of a systemd only installation prepared with the said systemd-sysv package - and I can confirm none of the systems show systemd in the boot parameter list. In other words, they are systemd installations where the init system doesn't show in the QSI kernel section. On these systems, too, the QSI shows the init system in the Info section, like it should. Summing up, the Info section shows the init system no matter what your configuration is and always shows that info, and looking for that in the kernel section presupposes that there is an explicit parameter present.)

Thank you. That answers my question. As long as the init system in play is indicted somewhere in the QSI report, that's what matters from a diagnostic viewpoint.

[Nokkaelaein]

As long as the init system in play is indicted somewhere in the QSI report, that's what matters from a diagnostic viewpoint.

No prob, and indeed, I agree; especially now that there will be a dedicated init system per ISO, having this information readily available like this is important.

[Mauser]

Looks like the MX developers have their hands full with Debian insisting on going with systemD for some unknown reason or reasons. While I have mixed feelings about systemD I like that the MX developers didn't just throw their hands up and just went with systemD only but by figuring out options to using different ISOs which will give people the choice on which init system to use. I applaud the MX developers on their progress so far. Sometime in the future the biggest task and nightmare will be when the day will come that Wayland will be thrown at all LINUX developers will be only init used pushing out X11 which will result in some colorful language the will be expressed by all LINUX developers to say the least which I wouldn't blame them if they do so. That will be a time I will not look forward to see that day come. Thank you MX LINUX developers and all those helping out.

[siamhie]

How does one see.. later on when all is running and such, and when users ask for help.. can you determine from the QSI which version is running, systemd or sysvintit?

It will show up at the bottom under Info. Here's what my Debian 13 KDE shows.

[Eadwine Rose]

Thanks Siamhie, post 173 holds a more extensive explanation as to why.

(which I don't get, but that is fine, I got my answer to 'where is it' )

[CharlesV]

I have seen nothing that compares to tweaking xfce - literally you can do anything with it.

Would that include the complete removal of Thunar and replacing it with, say, PCManFM? Or maybe it can't be removed at all and another file manager would just need to 'co-exist'.

That's my main gripe with Xfce... oh and the screensaver issue, which never seems to get fixed. I can recall complaints about it going as far back as MX18, I think.

You dont *have* to use thunar, there are many other FM's. I have never tried to just remove Thunar as I like it.. but I do have nautilus on board and use it all the time. And, I have it set to be default on at least two machines.

As for the screensaver, yup that is a buggy one. But, if you install xscreensaver it rocks! zero issues that I have seen.

I am not saying xfce is faultless, it has issues - as do ALL DE's - but pound for pound ... I prefer xfce over anything I have found.