MX and Devuan?

[ChrisUK]

You must really try hard to break antix.

On antiX-17.2_386-full with stock repos on EeePC 1005HA:

Code: Select all

# apt-get update && apt-get -s install libsystemd

returns

Code: Select all

E: Unable to locate package libsystemd

Try libsystemd0

[skidoo]

@manyroads
One of my hats is "kriv", I've been a longtime prolific maintainer at without-systemd.org
Because the battlecry of Devuan initially had been "preserving init system choice", it's been distressing to note their heavyhanded removal of choice
and the hypocrisy apparent within the tagline now emblazoned atop devuan.org homepage: "software freedom, your way".

But why it's possible to install systemd in _____ in the first place?
Or the packages that will install systemd as a dependancy?

When you install (or liveboot) antiX, visit /etc/apt/preferences.d
and note that it contains a rule which provides a reasonable defense against accidental installation of systemd init during the course of dist-upgrade operations.
You are free to further harden the rules, and I do so on all the machines that I maintain.

It's more like: Don't install gnome, budgie or any of the packages that are "entwined" with systemd.
Intentionally or unintentionally, the fact is any unexperianced inexperienced user is able to pull libsystemd0 or systemd into Antix antiX.

Please educate yourself to the fact that standalone libsystemd0 is harmless.
Recently, I read an "argument" stating "...is harmless in its current incarnization, but is a foothold, a future upgrade could install more badder stuffs !!1101! "
Yep, for anyone bent on arguing or hair-splitting worrying, um... bless your heart?
(disclaimer: I do this, I fret about "foothold...upgrade may contain privacy-unfriendly changes" in the context of mozilla-pushed updates)

Is it reasonable to expect many "unexperianced" users will install antiX (or MX)... and will proceed to install Guh-nome?
I say, no. That is not a reasonable expectation.
Further, I'm averse to introducing additional default protection(s) against systemd which would impinge users' freedom of choice.

[Redacted]

Further, I'm averse to introducing additional default protection(s) against systemd which would impinge users' freedom of choice.

What a mature, intelligent post. Really, The whole post deserves to be quoted.
Especially from a person who's active in the "anti-systemd" arena.
Thank you, skidoo.

[manyroads]

@skidoo I, too, appreciate your position. I understand the risk of intrusion and also prefer to avoid 'external' risks, prudently . If what you assert regarding Devuan is accurate, that alone would be reason to avoid a relationship, to my mind... but then what would an old and cranky guy like me know????

[Richard]

Thanks, ChrisUK, you are spot on. I thought I'd tried that but didn't.
It is there, if one were so inclined to use it.
Honestly, I can think of easier ways to have systemd and Gnome than to install it on antix-full.

But, different strokes for different folks.
Everyone is welcome to try whatever comes to mind, but support may lack interest.
I don't believe it is productive to expect the devs to change the distro to suit the whims of a few.
Better to look for a distro that is going the way you want.

I like antiX & MX as they come out of the box.
They are easy to set up the way I want and then take a snapshot for posterity & backup.

Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

[clicktician]

...that alone would be reason to avoid a relationship, to my mind...

@manyroads, actually I was puzzled by your OP because MX is based on antiX, which is where we get the super fast and light base from.

Why would you ask MX, whose roots and connections are with Mepis then antiX (which also started long ago as Mepis-based), whether MX is considering basing itself on Devuan?

I, too, was struck by the suggestion that MX was dissatisfied with its relationship to Antix. The OP is a fairly new forum member, and I found it very curious that he had the impression MX was shopping for a partner. Was that opinion from posts on the forum? Was it implied somehow? There is never only 1 cockroach in the kitchen. He's just the only one with the naiveté to say anything.

In this case, the "why" is way more interesting than the "what."

[skidoo]

Whoa. Shelf the reactionary fanboism. As for cockroaches, howabout try 'em lightly toasted with butter and oregano.

Please read the OP question at face value rather than inferring "suggestion" or innuendo.
The OP is active across several linux sites, same username. Check out his posts & you'll learn that he's consistently a kind, helpful, participant.

[Adrian]

I don't think MX devs in general see systemd as the devil, we actually offer a choice to boot either to sysV init and to systemd, I personally have no interest in Devuan. Seems to me like a wrong idea and wrong execution. I suggest people who have strong opinions about systemd use Devuan instead of trying to make other distros go into the same trap.

[richb]

I logged into MX systemd for a trial and have been running it all day. I have not detected any difference with normal operations except a faster boot time. I have not performed any system related commands where a difference may show up. Having said that I have no reason to do so in the future.

[asqwerth]

I use systemd in Manjaro (and various other distros), and sysV in MX (and also have a few other non-systemd distros). Choice is good. I'm ok with systemd generally but am glad there are alternatives in the Linux distro world.

I used to get annoyed by systemd's need to take 90 secs to do a check during bootup whenever the swap partition UUID changed (e.g. when you installed a new distro and swap partition got reformatted), so I changed all my distros' fstab files to either not identify swap by its UUID number, or by not having swap at all in that distro*. Once in a while a systemd distro will still take 90 sec to shutdown properly, so it's still not fully annoyance-free to me.

I think antiX's approach to not having systemd is balanced - firm but not strident/hysterical. If I want Gnome 3 I run it in a systemd distro (I have it in Korora, which is Fedora-based). Gnome to me is closely identified with the systemd devs. I don't install non-systemd distros then seek to install Gnome on them, and then get upset if some systemd-related package gets pulled in.

Maybe some non-systemd distros are able to not have any systemd-related dependency added when Gnome is installed, so good for them. I don't see that as a goal that antiX is actively striving to achieve.



*because I have tons of RAM!