MX Linux Forum

By way of asking a 'dumb' question...

Has anyone ever considered using Devuan Beowulf as the next base (or optional base) for MX Linux version 18 or whatever the next release is called?

Nope, we prize stability

Devuan is Debian minus systemd... to quote their site:

Devuan is a fork of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution that started in November 2014. Its stated first goal was to provide a distribution without the systemd init daemon installed by default.

They are listed here: https://devuan.org/os/team/

I understand that, thanks. MX does not share that goal, that's all.

Totally removing systemd also totally removes any option to use certain applications that really need it. We keep the option to boot with systemd in the MX GRUB menu after installation.

However, I believe you can also create a pretty good facsimile of MX on the antiX base, which would be free of systemd. You could also probably install the MX tools on Devuan, but some, like the snapshot tool, might not work there.

Antix is not sytemd-free, it has packages that are dependant on libsystemd0.
Open the terminal and run on new install I think that sytemd-free is when all the dependancies from libsystemd0 are removed from the packages. Anticapitalista probably thinks libsystemd is harmless if systemd isn't instaled. The fact is LP can turn libsystemd0 into executive library at any time and during the upgrade pull some other parts of systemd that can controler the network or some other system processes. It's easier to advertise as sytemd-free.

Touch wood, My Devuan install trashed itself on me, prior to moving to Refracta, which did the same, before coming to MX17, which has been holding up to my abuse incredibly well. (After saying that I'm glad so say that I have a recent Clonezilla backup image. )

^Devuan also isn't sytemd-free. They invest most of their time in marketing. They should clean the libsystemd0 dependancies and not debate over some nonsense and complain how they have no enough people. Libsystemd0 has more dependancies than the basic systemd.

Like most things in this world there seems to be a lot of strong opinion on systemd (good, bad, ugly...) Like @handy noted in his comment, I include myself in the uniquely skilled at breaking OSes class of user. I was simply curious re: Devuan because on the surface it seems there might be an opportunity for synergy.

spidermouse wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:40 pm Antix is not sytemd-free, it has packages that are dependant on libsystemd0.
Open the terminal and run on new install

Code: Select all

 apt update && apt install systemd

I think that sytemd-free is when all the dependancies from libsystemd0 are removed from the packages. Anticapitalista probably thinks libsystemd is harmless if systemd isn't instaled. The fact is LP can turn libsystemd0 into executive library at any time and during the upgrade pull some other parts of systemd that can controler the network or some other system processes. It's easier to advertise as sytemd-free.

WRONG and FUD!
Why would anyone who doesn't want libsystemd0/systemd intentionally install it? moronic if you ask me.
antiX ootb does not need/use systemd/libsystemd0. (devuan, however, uses libsystemd0 - antiX does not).
Look here for our nosystemd packages - the vast majority make sure libsystemd0 does not get installed.

http://repo.antixlinux.com/stretch/pool/nosystemd/

Using Devuan would be bad as a base for MX Linux because it would put it further downstream which would cause security updates to come out later which is bad. Also the additional work involved in the change would mess up the MX Linux developer's rhythm.

manyroads wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:20 pm Like most things in this world there seems to be a lot of strong opinion on systemd (good, bad, ugly...) Like @handy noted in his comment, I include myself in the uniquely skilled at breaking OSes class of user. I was simply curious re: Devuan because on the surface it seems there might be an opportunity for synergy.

I break them when trying to make them the way that I require them to be, for me.

Arch, Manjaro, PC-BSD, OpenBSD, Artix (apart from not allowing me to install the PIA-VPN client GUI - which is why I'm here), antiX, & MX17, all can withstand the changes that I need to make to be a happy *nix user. :)

(Though, of course Arch & Manjaro are now systemd distros, so they are crossed off of my list.)

anticapitalista wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:31 pm

spidermouse wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:40 pm Antix is not sytemd-free, it has packages that are dependant on libsystemd0.
Open the terminal and run on new install

Code: Select all

 apt update && apt install systemd

I think that sytemd-free is when all the dependancies from libsystemd0 are removed from the packages. Anticapitalista probably thinks libsystemd is harmless if systemd isn't instaled. The fact is LP can turn libsystemd0 into executive library at any time and during the upgrade pull some other parts of systemd that can controler the network or some other system processes. It's easier to advertise as sytemd-free.

WRONG and FUD!
Why would anyone who doesn't want libsystemd0/systemd intentionally install it? moronic if you ask me.
antiX ootb does not need/use systemd/libsystemd0. (devuan, however, uses libsystemd0 - antiX does not).
Look here for our nosystemd packages - the vast majority make sure libsystemd0 does not get installed.

http://repo.antixlinux.com/stretch/pool/nosystemd/

What happens when a user of antix want's to install gnome for example?


Ooops, libsystemd0.

It's very simple. Don't install gnome as it is totally entwined with systemd - same with budgie desktop.
Do you know a way to install gnome on a debian base without libsystemd0?

Added: If we know which app or set of apps install libsystemd0 when doing apt-get install gnome, then we might be able to avoid that useless dependency.

What happens when a user of antix want's to install gnome for example

Then you are no longer running antiX and it is not an antiX problem. :)

You could choose among the distros mentioned here that include gnome:
https://www.google.com/search?q=distros ... 8&oe=utf-8

anticapitalista wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:08 am It's very simple. Don't install gnome as it is totally entwined with systemd - same with budgie desktop.
Do you know a way to install gnome on a debian base without libsystemd0?

Added: If we know which app or set of apps install libsystemd0 when doing apt-get install gnome, then we might be able to avoid that useless dependency.

Very simple, you say? :)
No, it's not even close!

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 user is able to pull libsystemd0 or systemd into Antix.

Is antix systemd-free? Not yet.
This is how I see it.
I hope you'll be able to fix this, make it fully systemd-free.

Do you know a way to install gnome on a debian base without libsystemd0?
All packages related to gnome need to be clean for Gnome to run without systemd.

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

In TRIOS linux, for example, installing systemd or packages that were not cleaned were not possible to install.
People from TRIOS were runing Gnome without systemd.
I think that the only issue was that the dialog that sets the time wasn't working.

The screenshot, from Dragan, the creator of TRIOS.
He that made Gnome run on TRIOS without systemd. So it is possible.

Richard wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:38 am

What happens when a user of antix want's to install gnome for example

Then you are no longer running antiX and it is not an antiX problem. :)

You could choose among the distros mentioned here that include gnome:
https://www.google.com/search?q=distros ... 8&oe=utf-8

And if I install Budgie Desktop on Antix, I'll be runing Solus instead of Antix?! :D
Are you kidding me?

While there is a method to install packages that will pull in systemd and libsystemd0, this is the problem with Antix.

It is simple. You install a Linux distro and then you modify it with a DE. It is no longer the original distro. Whatever that DE brings in is not what the distro was as released. So antiX is systemd free.
The Debian creed 'You break it, you keep the pieces". Or in this case "You modify it, you keep init system"

@richb I think you have hit the nail on the head... I personally feel that Linux offers a great advantage to its users "you can do anything you want" but that comes with a terrible risk as well "you can do anything you want". It is not a distro's job to stop users from making architectural mistakes. Each distro is only obligated to hold true to its objectives. What a user "bends" the distro to accomodate is that users responsibility.

In fact that's why I asked my original question to learn why the choices made for this distro's (MXLinux) foundation were chosen over others. I knew that the following (Mencken quote) held true, I'm still not quite sure why, though.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

richb wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:41 am It is simple. You install a Linux distro and then you modify it with a DE. It is no longer the original distro. Whatever that DE brings in is not what the distro was as released. So antiX is systemd free.
The Debian creed 'You break it, you keep the pieces". Or in this case "You modify it, you keep init system"

What you said is a nonsense nonsense and I really hope you won't write that anywhere else if you want people to take you seriously.

I hope you have a better argument than shifting the blame to the Antix user when the installation of XXX random package also installs libsystemd0 or systemd as a dependancy.
Half full or half empty glass, is still not full or empty. Systemd-free or partially systemd-free are two different things.

@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? You should be asking antiX - our base - whether it wants to switch from Debian + its own nosystemd repo, to Devuan.

My understanding also is that Devuan is essentially Debian packages laboriously converted to remove systemd dependencies. So it takes them really long to get their version of the current Debian Stable going since they have to repopulate their repos. This could be outdated information though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

AntiX and MX on the other hand keep to the Debian repos but with some changes to make sysV the default init and (for antiX) to have their own nosystemd repo for some key packages. Due to that, AntiX can release their release based on Debian Stable fairly soon after the latter is released, when compared to Devuan.

@ misko-2083

Wrote what I wrote and stand by it. Not trying to be liked.

misko-2083 wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:33 amAnd if I install Budgie Desktop on Antix, I'll be runing Solus instead of Antix?! :D
Are you kidding me?

Ugh. The way I look at things, if it's in the repos then it's part of the distro. How many users stick with only the defaults? Adding something from outside of the repos, that's different.

misko-2083 wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:33 am But why it's possible to install systemd in Antix in the first place?

Because you havn't turned on a block-rule for making it impossible for you get slurping in those dark, dangerous, unwanted packages.
If you need help to turn on blocking the unspoken, unwanted, you might think about formulating a nice and friendly help request.
Posts, with unfriendly or "strong" (as we cal it in DE) attributes are silently ignored.

Have a nice day.
fehlix

malspa wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:20 pm

misko-2083 wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:33 amAnd if I install Budgie Desktop on Antix, I'll be runing Solus instead of Antix?! :D
Are you kidding me?

Ugh. The way I look at things, if it's in the repos then it's part of the distro. How many users stick with only the defaults? Adding something from outside of the repos, that's different.

With all due respect that is not the contentious issue. Yes, one can install anything in the Debian repo. The issue is whether antiX is systemd free or not. It is as shipped. If one chooses to install Gnome, a major change in the DE, systemd is brought in. Obviously opinions vary but I will stick with the antiX developers in their position. My last word on this topic that has veered off topic.

unnecessary

richb wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:46 pmThe issue is whether antiX is systemd free or not. It is as shipped.

Understood. antiX is systemd-free "as shipped," okay. systemd-free out-of-the-box. But antiX does ship with those repos enabled. 'Nuff said.

@manyroads - I don't think your question was "dumb" at all. The part about "or optional base" sounds interesting.

Anyway, if/when Devuan reaches a point where the MX and antiX devs are satisfied with its stability, wouldn't a Devuan base be an option worth considering? Or maybe not, since anticapitalista has pointed out that Devuan does include libsystemd0.

malspa wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:41 pm

richb wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:46 pmThe issue is whether antiX is systemd free or not. It is as shipped.

Understood. antiX is systemd-free "as shipped," okay. systemd-free out-of-the-box. But antiX does ship with those repos enabled. 'Nuff said.

@manyroads - I don't think your question was "dumb" at all. The part about "or optional base" sounds interesting.

Anyway, if/when Devuan reaches a point where the MX and antiX devs are satisfied with its stability, wouldn't a Devuan base be an option worth considering? Or maybe not, since anticapitalista has pointed out that Devuan does include libsystemd0.

The enabled repos are the standard Debian repos, on which we are based. We cannot remove systemd or libsystemd0 from upstream Debian.
gnome has libsystemd0 hard coded as a dependency. To rebuild nosystemd versions of gnome that do not require libsystemd0 is far too much work for our small team. If user installs gnome, user gets libsystemd0, but not systemd (this is a fairly recent change it seems as in the past, installing gnome brought in the whole of systemd)

Whether gnome would actually work without systemd on antiX - I have no idea.

misko-2083's argument that antix is broken because it allows one to break it
if you try hard enough. I thought that was the foundation of linux.
You are free to try whatever you wish. There are many ways to break it.
And you might find a new way of fixing it. :)

Reminds me of buying a car with a diesel engine, filling the tank with gasoline
and accusing the manufacturer of building a faulty engine when it breaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtozuGGVFqg

I wonder what else Trisquel protects their users from? That's a strange idea.
They didn't used to do that.

You must really try hard to break antix.

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

Richard wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:04 pm 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

@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".

misko-2083 wrote:
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.

skidoo wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:28 pm 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.

@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????

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.

manyroads wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:13 pm ...that alone would be reason to avoid a relationship, to my mind...

asqwerth wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:52 am @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."

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.

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.

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.

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!

Adrian wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:01 pmI suggest people who have strong opinions about systemd use Devuan instead of trying to make other distros go into the same trap.

Excellent suggestion.

asqwerth wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:32 pmI 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.

Makes sense.

I do think that a Devuan base might attract quite a few more users, but personally if I was trying to avoid systemd I'd probably install Devuan itself instead.

As for GNOME, I do like using it sometimes (I have GNOME in one of my Debian installations), but I've never tried to add it in MX, or even in Mepis, back in the day (before systemd). That has never seemed like a good idea to me. Like, I wouldn't add GNOME or Xfce to my Kubuntu installation, even though they're available in the repos.

Interesting discussion. Like the OP, I had been wondering if antiX and MX might end up going with a Devuan base. Sounds like that won't be happening, and for good reasons.

I'm glad that this topic, question was started, I have learned a lot and now I like antiX/MX even more ;-)

By way of adding a bit of context to my perspective and/or reason for my original question/ inquiry...

* I have been testing systemd free distros (because there seems to be a religious war going on around the issue of systemd). I wanted to see if I could understand what all the fuss is/was about (without the strong opinion and emotion). To that end, I have tried and run Artix, antiX, Devuan...
* Prior to that, I had been testing and experimenting with XFCE4 dominant distros (which is how I came to be here). As many of you have noticed, I like this distro a lot, especially because of its MX tools. I, also, find these forums incredibly helpful.
* As I learned about MX & antiX, I noticed mention of a unique 'middle-ground' approach in dealing with systemd.
* I thought I could benefit by testing Devuan (its primary DE being xfce4 and it heavily claims its systemd independence and Debian heritage). To be honest, I was/am a bit 'underwhelmed' by their xfce4 setup.

Given that background and my interest in helping test the next release here, I thought I'd ask if consideration had been given by MX in offering Devuan as a foundational OS option, in the next release- much like what LinuxMint does with Ubuntu & Debian.

By way of answering comments, questions or issues regarding my background, as distinct from my parentage, anyone interested may read about those topics here:
* http://pep-inc.com (primary business)
* http://eirenion.org (secondary business)
* my parentage is enumerated here http://many-roads.com

Your question was good; not so certain about some of the answers...

Jerry3904 wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:56 am Your question was good; not so certain about some of the answers...

42?

Adrian wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:03 am

Jerry3904 wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:56 am Your question was good; not so certain about some of the answers...

42?

42!

I don't know what Adrian meant with that, but I thought your response was fine.

Jerry3904 wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:34 am I don't know what Adrian meant with that, but I thought your response was fine.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(answer)

Now that we know he answer to life, the universe and everything, the question remains: why are people so touchy?

@adrian Maybe that answer is also 42?!?!?
@buck fankers, I thought your response was helpful and constructive. It was in perfect keeping with "Life, the Universe and Everything"

lol about 42 :-)

ChrisUK wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:53 am

Jerry3904 wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:34 am I don't know what Adrian meant with that, but I thought your response was fine.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(answer)

Of course, was being too literal...

I think Devuan could get their user base up by adding MX on top of their base themselves.

Mexuan? Devumx?

But I wonder how strong the "not invented here" sentiment runs there.

[redacted by the author] and replaced by...

@stevo

I pm'ed my original comment to you.