4 ms·

> I did empathize with people who didn’t like it for whatever reason This is a pretty clear indicator right here that influential people weren't listening on t

> I did empathize with people who didn’t like it for whatever reason This is a pretty clear indicator right here that influential people weren't listening on the issue. Any time you state "for whatever reason" is a clear sign you don't care for their reasons.

md8z 5y ago
I've heard quite a lot of these reasons. In my opinion, most of them either come from a place where the person is missing some key piece of information, or their use case was already better served by other tools anyway. So the reasons seem to be not particularly important. If you know something that you think everyone else missed, then you can mention it.
- yepthatsreality 5y ago
  > So the reasons seem to be not particularly important. If you know something that you think everyone else missed, then you can mention it. Is the existence of Devuan not a good example of a conglomeration of reasons so that I don’t have to spend time doing research for this request you probably don’t want answered? You’re still pushing the reasoning aside and saying “those reasons weren’t good enough so we put them in the whatever catgory”. I understand it’s often easier to hand-wave away well after the fact and the damage has been done. The Debian community didn’t move on from it, it split.
  - md8z 5y ago
    Well no, it's still not entirely clear to me what Devuan does process-wise that is actually different from Debian. I understand that they have a different set of base packages but so does every other modified version of Debian, of which there are several, it's not like Devuan was the first group to split off. What makes this one special? Why are these reasons any more important than any other time somebody shipped a Debian derivative for niche purposes? I honestly don't want to hand wave it away but I've never received good answers for this from Devuan people that themselves weren't hand-wavey, and you don't seem to want to discuss it either so... I guess that answers my question? I don't know, you tell me.
    - yepthatsreality 5y ago
      > I understand that they have a different set of base packages but so does every other modified version of Debian, of which there are several, it's not like Devuan was the first group to split off. So does every other version of Linux. If this enough to dissuade that there is no difference of opinion or difference in values and process handling and isolation then I cannot help you on this topic.
      - md8z 5y ago
        You are misunderstanding, I'm asking what those differences of opinion or values are. That part has not been explained to me. It doesn't appear to be about init systems anymore, because Debian also has sysvinit and openrc and all that stuff. Edit: Also, the proliferation of Linux distributions is illustrative of the same problem I think. There are a lot of distros out there that seemingly cannot really justify themselves, I've been using Linux for 20 years and for some of these distros it's still really hard for me to figure out what the difference is or why anybody would use it without spending days digging around and analyzing patchsets in random git repositories somewhere. Now just imagine how utterly incomprehensible this is to a non-technical person who doesn't have a clue what an init system is...
        yepthatsreality 5y ago
        TLDR; Debian chose to make room for systemd which broke the Unix compatibility. This decision created a precedent that Unix compatibility was no longer important. Devuan is distro that maintains the init daemon and tooling Unix compatibility promise and freedom as their philosophy titled Init Freedom. You got me to do the research. From the homepage: > Devuan GNU+Linux is a fork of Debian without systemd that allows users to reclaim control over their system by avoiding unnecessary entanglements and ensuring Init Freedom. From the Init Freedom page: > Init Freedom is about restoring a sane approach to PID1 that respects portability, diversity and freedom of choice. > Other Free Unices Without systemd > One of the critical arguments against systemd is the lack of portability to other Unices and the possibility that Linux-based systems using systemd would detach from the UNIX world. OpenBSD, FreeBSD and other BSD OSes are de facto incompatible with systemd or rather, systemd is incompatible with Unices not running Linux.

md8z 5y ago

I've heard quite a lot of these reasons. In my opinion, most of them either come from a place where the person is missing some key piece of information, or their use case was already better served by other tools anyway. So the reasons seem to be not particularly important. If you know something that you think everyone else missed, then you can mention it.

yepthatsreality 5y ago
> So the reasons seem to be not particularly important. If you know something that you think everyone else missed, then you can mention it. Is the existence of Devuan not a good example of a conglomeration of reasons so that I don’t have to spend time doing research for this request you probably don’t want answered? You’re still pushing the reasoning aside and saying “those reasons weren’t good enough so we put them in the whatever catgory”. I understand it’s often easier to hand-wave away well after the fact and the damage has been done. The Debian community didn’t move on from it, it split.
- md8z 5y ago
  Well no, it's still not entirely clear to me what Devuan does process-wise that is actually different from Debian. I understand that they have a different set of base packages but so does every other modified version of Debian, of which there are several, it's not like Devuan was the first group to split off. What makes this one special? Why are these reasons any more important than any other time somebody shipped a Debian derivative for niche purposes? I honestly don't want to hand wave it away but I've never received good answers for this from Devuan people that themselves weren't hand-wavey, and you don't seem to want to discuss it either so... I guess that answers my question? I don't know, you tell me.
  - yepthatsreality 5y ago
    > I understand that they have a different set of base packages but so does every other modified version of Debian, of which there are several, it's not like Devuan was the first group to split off. So does every other version of Linux. If this enough to dissuade that there is no difference of opinion or difference in values and process handling and isolation then I cannot help you on this topic.
    - md8z 5y ago
      You are misunderstanding, I'm asking what those differences of opinion or values are. That part has not been explained to me. It doesn't appear to be about init systems anymore, because Debian also has sysvinit and openrc and all that stuff. Edit: Also, the proliferation of Linux distributions is illustrative of the same problem I think. There are a lot of distros out there that seemingly cannot really justify themselves, I've been using Linux for 20 years and for some of these distros it's still really hard for me to figure out what the difference is or why anybody would use it without spending days digging around and analyzing patchsets in random git repositories somewhere. Now just imagine how utterly incomprehensible this is to a non-technical person who doesn't have a clue what an init system is...
      - yepthatsreality 5y ago
        TLDR; Debian chose to make room for systemd which broke the Unix compatibility. This decision created a precedent that Unix compatibility was no longer important. Devuan is distro that maintains the init daemon and tooling Unix compatibility promise and freedom as their philosophy titled Init Freedom. You got me to do the research. From the homepage: > Devuan GNU+Linux is a fork of Debian without systemd that allows users to reclaim control over their system by avoiding unnecessary entanglements and ensuring Init Freedom. From the Init Freedom page: > Init Freedom is about restoring a sane approach to PID1 that respects portability, diversity and freedom of choice. > Other Free Unices Without systemd > One of the critical arguments against systemd is the lack of portability to other Unices and the possibility that Linux-based systems using systemd would detach from the UNIX world. OpenBSD, FreeBSD and other BSD OSes are de facto incompatible with systemd or rather, systemd is incompatible with Unices not running Linux.