To systemd or not systemd - Ever wonder about it?

[zimbodel]

That's why I asked how you installed gnome (eg which packages, from what source, what was removed in the midst of installing those packages, etc) .

Because the most likely conclusion from your posts here , as well as an earlier post about not having samba on your system, is that whatever you did or installed earlier, removed sysv and various default packages.

asqwerth,
I think you are onto something, but if true this is horrendously dangerous.
Any package that just goes willy nilly willy and replaces systemv with systemd, is opening huge security trouble. Now I am really getting suspicious about the entire systemd thing.

If you are right there better be alarms going off when systemv is replaced with systemd without users knowledge during an install.
I think you are right that it is gnome that must have done it.

Thank you for pointing this out.

I use Linux since 1997, and never had this kind of fundamental system changes done just to install an application. It is really serious. I wonder how many people start out with Systemv and end up with systemd just because they installed a gnome application.

[zimbodel]

[/quote] by Adrian » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:20 am
Screenshot from ISO, you can see how sysvinit-core is installed on ISO anybody can check that.
[/quote]

Nice try adrian. A Live Disc is NOT an installation as you claimed to have done.,
This is laughable.

I get the same as your supposed proof on my system while I have systemd running !!

What you present as proof is therefore misleading and false as I get the same as you while I have systemd installed.

# dpkg -l sysv*
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Architecture Description
+++-===================-==============-==============-===========================================
ii sysv-rc 2.88dsf-59.9 all System-V-like runlevel change mechanism
ii sysv-rc-conf 0.99-7 all SysV init runlevel configuration tool for t
un sysvinit <none> <none> (no description available)
rc sysvinit-core 2.88dsf-59.9 amd64 System-V-like init utilities
ii sysvinit-utils 2.88dsf-59.9 amd64 System-V-like utilities

[asqwerth]

How could you not know, though? Whether you carry out installation by terminal commands or synaptic or mx packageinstaller, there are messages about what will be removed.

There's an additional yes or no step before it proceeds.

[zimbodel]

How could you not know, though? Whether you carry out installation by terminal commands or synaptic or mx packageinstaller, there are messages about what will be removed.

There's an additional yes or no step before it proceeds.

I dont use Mx packagemanager, it is a bit awkward. I install with apt or compile from sources.
Beats me, why I didnt see it in apt and never would expect an application removing init, but then sometimes these lists of software that will be installed in apt is loooooog.
I promise you I will not be the only one with this problem and it is a huge seccurity issue.

The good that came from this is that I will now write a script that will stop all interference with sysv. and check if it was removed. Merely relying on the apt flash-by is not acceptable anymore if applications now changes your init....

[asqwerth]

OK, so now we know how you got gnome onto your system. The way you did it probably caused your problems.

But if you are so against systemd, I'm rather surprised you would not know how interconnected with systemd the full gnome suite is. It's the red hat, poettering connection.

Not many people are going to compile gnome from scratch ; they would install binaries from Debian repos. And that can be done in mx without leading to removal of sysv or samba.

[Adrian]

by Adrian » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:20 am
Screenshot from ISO, you can see how sysvinit-core is installed on ISO anybody can check that.

Nice try adrian. A Live Disc is NOT an installation as you claimed to have done.,
This is laughable.

Like I mentioned before, I did a second fresh installation, sysvinit-core is both on ISO and on installed MX, anybody can check. I am interested what you claim that it doesn't exist on ISO or it doesn't exist when you install the ISO on the harddrive? What version of MX do you talk about?

Also, you can remove systemd, look:


You need to fix your antix repo first and also use aptitude that gives you a second option to replace system with elogind, I also had to overwrite a file.

Let's recapitulate:
1. false claim that sysvinit-core is not installed on ISO and harddrive -- easy to verify by anybody
2. false claim that you cannot replace systemd without removing important parts of MX -- it's doable with minimum skills and using aptitude correctly.
3. you "laugh" at me for some reason and imply that I cannot or didn't do a fresh install of MX, that's actually what's laughable, why would an MX developer have a problem to do a fresh install? Even more everybody can test if sysvinit-core is present on ISO or on their installation and it would be obvious who is the liar here. So... MX users if you are unsure do a dpkg -l sysv* both on live ISO or on your installed system and see who lies...
4. you seem to be an one-issue account that has a problem with systemd. That's fine, everybody has an opinion and an xxxxxxx, my problem begins is when you start to make false claims. I will continue to call you on your lies if you continue to spread them here.

[zimbodel]

Youre a child with your perpetual bickering.
Either help solving a problem like others on the thread did constructively for me or shut up.

Your post have become belligerent beyond the scope of the topic.
Please give the people who help constructively and actually solved my problem a chance rather than to inject your random noise with preschool show-and-tell proofs.

Let's recapitulate:
1. false claim that sysvinit-core is not installed on ISO and harddrive -- easy to verify by anybody
2. false claim that you cannot replace systemd without removing important parts of MX -- it's doable with minimum skills and using aptitude correctly.
3. you "laugh" at me for some reason and imply that I cannot or didn't do a fresh install of MX, that's actually what's laughable, why would an MX developer have a problem to do a fresh install? Even more everybody can test if sysvinit-core is present on ISO or on their installation and it would be obvious who is the liar here. So... MX users if you are unsure do a dpkg -l sysv* both on live ISO or on your installed system and see who lies...
4. you seem to be an one-issue account that has a problem with systemd. That's fine, everybody has an opinion and an xxxxxxx, my problem begins is when you start to make false claims. I will continue to call you on your lies if you continue to spread them here.

[Adrian]

Youre a child with your perpetual bickering.
Either help solving a problem like others on the thread did for me or shut up.

Let's recapitulate:
1. false claim that sysvinit-core is not installed on ISO and harddrive -- easy to verify by anybody
2. false claim that you cannot replace systemd without removing important parts of MX -- it's doable with minimum skills and using aptitude correctly.
3. you "laugh" at me for some reason and imply that I cannot or didn't do a fresh install of MX, that's actually what's laughable, why would an MX developer have a problem to do a fresh install? Even more everybody can test if sysvinit-core is present on ISO or on their installation and it would be obvious who is the liar here. So... MX users if you are unsure do a dpkg -l sysv* both on live ISO or on your installed system and see who lies...
4. you seem to be an one-issue account that has a problem with systemd. That's fine, everybody has an opinion and an xxxxxxx, my problem begins is when you start to make false claims. I will continue to call you on your lies if you continue to spread them here.

You are lying, you stop lying then we take you seriously. Maybe you should start by retracting your false statements if you did them in good faith (which obviously I doubt)

[zimbodel]

Get a life, read the posts someone already helped me solve this.
You are making a fool of yourself and I hate to see it.

You are lying, you stop lying then we take you seriously. Maybe you should start by retracting your false statements if you did them in good faith (which obviously I doubt)

[zimbodel]

I havent used Fedora or Redhat for over 10 years and did not follow at all what they do.
I just used gnome applications if they were indispensable.
Did not expect this kind of subterfuge of init.

Poettering......., so thats the source of the trouble.
Dont bet on IBM continuing systemd, they have way way different interests than RedHat.
This might get interesting as the competing companies will jump to linux alternatives which might kickstart sysv development again.
https://www.cringely.com/2018/10/29/red ... -over-ibm/

Anyway you helped me a lot. I now know where the fish rots.
Thanks

OK, so now we know how you got gnome onto your system. The way you did it probably caused your problems.
But if you are so against systemd, I'm rather surprised you would not know how interconnected with systemd the full gnome suite is. It's the red hat, poettering connection.
Not many people are going to compile gnome from scratch ; they would install binaries from Debian repos. And that can be done in mx without leading to removal of sysv or samba.