4 ms·

It seems though not having systemd in it would be against "init freedom": https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom . Or is

by _flux 8mo ago

It seems though not having systemd in it would be against "init freedom": https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom . Or is there some particular criteria an init system needs to satisfy to be included, that systemd doesn't satisfy but the others do?

imp0cat 8mo ago
Yep, no "unnecessary entanglements" evidently (their words, not mine).
- LooseMarmoset 8mo ago
  > Unnecessary entanglements The problems with systemd are: * that once it was adopted, every single package started requiring it * which meant that packages that previously could run everywhere, now could only run on systemd-based systems * binary logs - a solution that solved nothing but created problems * which locked out any system that wasn't linux * which locked out any linux system that didn't want to use it * which led to abominations like systemd-resolved * "bUt yOu DoNt hAVe tO uSE it" - tell that to the remote attestation crowd, of which Poettering is a founding member of. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 - soon you'll have to use systemD because nothing else *can* be used. literally everything the systemD crowd has done leads to lockout and loss of choice. All ramrodded through by IBM/RedHat. The systemD developers don't care about any of this, of course. They've got a long history of breaking user space and poor dev practices because they're systemD. I mean, their attitude was so bad they got one of their principal devs kicked from the kernel because they overloaded the use of the kernel boot parameter "debug", which flooded the console, and refused to modify the debug option to something compatible like "systemd.debug", broke literally every other system, and then told everybody else "hey we're not wrong, the rest of the world is wrong." And this has been their attitude since then. Look, if people want to use systemD, that's just fine. But it is a fact that the entire development process for systemD is predicated on making Linux incompatible with anything else, which is an entire inversion of how Linux and Free Software works. I actually like unit files. But if systemD was just an init system, it would stop there.
  - embedding-shape 8mo ago
    > * "bUt yOu DoNt hAVe tO uSE it" - tell that to the remote attestation crowd, of which Poettering is a founding member of. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 - soon you'll have to use systemD because nothing else can be used. You're saying that because the person who made systemd now work on hardware attestation, all Linux distributions will eventually require remote hardware attestation, where users don't actually have the keys? Maybe I'm naive, maybe I trust my distribution too much (Arch btw), but I don't see that happening. Probably Ubuntu and some other more commercial OSes might, but we'll still have choices in what OS/distribution to use, so just "vote with your partitions" or whatever.
    - LooseMarmoset 8mo ago
      If you build remote attestation into your product, corporate entities will require it. Just look at Android - What phones today give you unlimited root? If you have rooted, what applications have you broken? If you root, what e-fuses have you blown in your CPU meaning it can never be un-rooted? Android, at the start, was open and freely modified - not so much anymore. Companies like Google can and have cut off access to user's data, without recourse. You can't modify your phone, so you don't own your phone. You just pay rent until they don't support it anymore.
      - embedding-shape 8mo ago
        I think phones are a completely different beast though (and already a lost cause), PCs seems a lot more resilient to that sort of lock down. But on the other hand, you might be right, you never know how the future looks. But personally I'll wait until there is at least some signal that it's moving in that direction, before I start prepping for it to actually happening.
        LooseMarmoset 8mo ago
        Everything else has moved in that direction: * Literally every game console * Literally every smartphone * Microsoft, with their Win11 requirements, is moving there * John Deere (read on their own hardware attestation efforts to block DIY) * Car companies (require specialized tooling and software subscriptions to make certain repairs) * Anything that requires a signed bootloader and signed software updates * Snapdragon CPUs and e-fuses that burn when you use unsigned software, and brick * Apple hardware, literally crypto-signed so you can't use aftermarket parts * Google Chromecast * Amazon Kindle, locked hardware * IBM has locked hardware to their laptops for *years*. Ever try upgrading a wifi card in an IBM laptop? They're already invested in this the list goes on...of course it's coming to PC.
mdlxxv 8mo ago
Their criterion for an init system to qualify for this so-called "init freedom" seems to be "not being systemd".
PunchyHamster 8mo ago
they could've just cut out other systemd components (ntp, dns management etc) and use systemd The point of devuan is "we really do not like systemd". That's entire feature list
- t43562 8mo ago
  Why provide systemd if devuan is just debian with systemd alternatives? What would be the point - if you want systemd use debian?
Calzifer 8mo ago
> Or is there some particular criteria an init system needs to satisfy to be included, that systemd doesn't satisfy but the others do? Reading the first sentence on that page was to much? "Init Freedom is about restoring a sane approach to PID1 that respects portability, diversity and freedom of choice." systemd fails on the portability criteria. Apart from that, why should they invest there limited time to include systemd? Devuan is Debian without systemd. If you want systemd install Debian.
direwolf20 8mo ago
A systemd distro tends to be locked to systemd, with many pieces of software requiring systemd to be running. An init–freedom distro avoids such dependencies. Presumably, you can still install systemd if you really want to.

by _flux 8mo ago

imp0cat 8mo ago

Yep, no "unnecessary entanglements" evidently (their words, not mine).

LooseMarmoset 8mo ago
> Unnecessary entanglements The problems with systemd are: * that once it was adopted, every single package started requiring it * which meant that packages that previously could run everywhere, now could only run on systemd-based systems * binary logs - a solution that solved nothing but created problems * which locked out any system that wasn't linux * which locked out any linux system that didn't want to use it * which led to abominations like systemd-resolved * "bUt yOu DoNt hAVe tO uSE it" - tell that to the remote attestation crowd, of which Poettering is a founding member of. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 - soon you'll have to use systemD because nothing else *can* be used. literally everything the systemD crowd has done leads to lockout and loss of choice. All ramrodded through by IBM/RedHat. The systemD developers don't care about any of this, of course. They've got a long history of breaking user space and poor dev practices because they're systemD. I mean, their attitude was so bad they got one of their principal devs kicked from the kernel because they overloaded the use of the kernel boot parameter "debug", which flooded the console, and refused to modify the debug option to something compatible like "systemd.debug", broke literally every other system, and then told everybody else "hey we're not wrong, the rest of the world is wrong." And this has been their attitude since then. Look, if people want to use systemD, that's just fine. But it is a fact that the entire development process for systemD is predicated on making Linux incompatible with anything else, which is an entire inversion of how Linux and Free Software works. I actually like unit files. But if systemD was just an init system, it would stop there.
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  > * "bUt yOu DoNt hAVe tO uSE it" - tell that to the remote attestation crowd, of which Poettering is a founding member of. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 - soon you'll have to use systemD because nothing else can be used. You're saying that because the person who made systemd now work on hardware attestation, all Linux distributions will eventually require remote hardware attestation, where users don't actually have the keys? Maybe I'm naive, maybe I trust my distribution too much (Arch btw), but I don't see that happening. Probably Ubuntu and some other more commercial OSes might, but we'll still have choices in what OS/distribution to use, so just "vote with your partitions" or whatever.
  - LooseMarmoset 8mo ago
    If you build remote attestation into your product, corporate entities will require it. Just look at Android - What phones today give you unlimited root? If you have rooted, what applications have you broken? If you root, what e-fuses have you blown in your CPU meaning it can never be un-rooted? Android, at the start, was open and freely modified - not so much anymore. Companies like Google can and have cut off access to user's data, without recourse. You can't modify your phone, so you don't own your phone. You just pay rent until they don't support it anymore.
    - embedding-shape 8mo ago
      I think phones are a completely different beast though (and already a lost cause), PCs seems a lot more resilient to that sort of lock down. But on the other hand, you might be right, you never know how the future looks. But personally I'll wait until there is at least some signal that it's moving in that direction, before I start prepping for it to actually happening.
      - LooseMarmoset 8mo ago
        Everything else has moved in that direction: * Literally every game console * Literally every smartphone * Microsoft, with their Win11 requirements, is moving there * John Deere (read on their own hardware attestation efforts to block DIY) * Car companies (require specialized tooling and software subscriptions to make certain repairs) * Anything that requires a signed bootloader and signed software updates * Snapdragon CPUs and e-fuses that burn when you use unsigned software, and brick * Apple hardware, literally crypto-signed so you can't use aftermarket parts * Google Chromecast * Amazon Kindle, locked hardware * IBM has locked hardware to their laptops for *years*. Ever try upgrading a wifi card in an IBM laptop? They're already invested in this the list goes on...of course it's coming to PC.

mdlxxv 8mo ago

Their criterion for an init system to qualify for this so-called "init freedom" seems to be "not being systemd".

PunchyHamster 8mo ago

they could've just cut out other systemd components (ntp, dns management etc) and use systemd The point of devuan is "we really do not like systemd". That's entire feature list

t43562 8mo ago
Why provide systemd if devuan is just debian with systemd alternatives? What would be the point - if you want systemd use debian?

Calzifer 8mo ago

> Or is there some particular criteria an init system needs to satisfy to be included, that systemd doesn't satisfy but the others do? Reading the first sentence on that page was to much? "Init Freedom is about restoring a sane approach to PID1 that respects portability, diversity and freedom of choice." systemd fails on the portability criteria. Apart from that, why should they invest there limited time to include systemd? Devuan is Debian without systemd. If you want systemd install Debian.

direwolf20 8mo ago

A systemd distro tends to be locked to systemd, with many pieces of software requiring systemd to be running. An init–freedom distro avoids such dependencies. Presumably, you can still install systemd if you really want to.