9 ms·

Don't panic and keep forking Debian

116 points by theophrastus 12y ago

Nux 12y ago
Good, interesting times.
theophrastus 12y ago
See also: https://devuan.org/ https://devuan.org/ as well as #debianfork and #devuan on IRC/freenode
- fredoralive 12y ago
  That site does seem to show an odd disconnect, it seems to mention "init-freedom" alongside "...the first goal of removing systemd...". Surely true "init-freedom" would be to give the end user a choice between sysvinit, bsd init, sysmtemd, launchd, android's init, and so on. Of course such true init-freedom would be near impossible. IMO people should just pick one, forking appropriately, and stop having such huge arguments over something the average user neither knows nor cares about. Just call Devuan the sysvinit fork of Debian and see how it goes...
  - pekk 12y ago
    Removing coupling which effectively mandates the use of systemd is a prerequisite for "init-freedom". You can't offer a choice when everything requires systemd.
    - Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 12y ago
      Compare to Gentoo. Gentoo defaults to their homegrown OpenRC. But Gentoo is all about choice and so systemd is an option and works perfectly well. That's "init-freedom". If someone doesn't like systemd and removes it from their distro, that's OK with me. But calling that "init-freedom" seems weird. Maybe they should call it something like "sysv-freedom", if that's what they mean.
      - digi_owl 12y ago
        Sadly the one thing that dissapears in this debate is that systemd has long since gone beyond being a init. For me the whole thing came to a head when i learned that consolekit (a bothersome thing on its own) was depreciated in favor of logind. And logind is tied to the hip of systemd. There are also issues like journald that you need to have running even if your primary logging facility is syslogd etc. At this point in time, systemd as init is just a minor part of the issue in my opinion.
na85 12y ago
Awful name aside, I'm glad this fork went ahead.
- Aloha 12y ago
  I agree about the name, I'm indifferent on the fork, but not really feeling it for systemd either.
eloff 12y ago
The same freedom that leads to all the many, many flavors of linux gives a great diversity of ideas. The downside is it fragments the finite development efforts of the contributors to the point where it becomes difficult to compete with the wider marketplace. I wonder sometimes if it were possible for everyone to contribute to one linux desktop if the situation would be different today. As it stands, after nearly three years using ubuntu desktop, I came to the conclusion that a windows license is very cheap by comparison. The amount of time and effort I spent wasted on package incompatibilities, instabilities, and debugging strange hardware/driver related issues isn't worth it. I keep linux in a VM where it's very easy and cheap to backup and rollback without affecting my data or ability to work. I really gave it a good try, and I liked a lot of things about the freedom to configure things like I want, without metro crapware infesting the place, but the downsides were just too much for me. Again I wonder how things could have been if everyone was pulling as a coherent team instead of in different directions.
- mikepurvis 12y ago
  Same here, except with a Mac as the host. I really like the setup of a OS X developer environment and tools, with the ability to summon Vagrant boxes or whatever else on command.
- secfirstmd 12y ago
  Exactly why Linux will never dominate the Desktop environment by the average user. You basically can't use Linux without at some time going to the cmd line to fix some dam configuration or driver problem.
  - SwellJoe 12y ago
    And, yet, it dominates the tablet and mobile environment, which is already more important than the desktop market ever was. Funny how that works.
    - secfirstmd 12y ago
      I know exactly what you mean. But we both know these are very different things. For most people, their tablet and phone works absolutely seemlessly, with drivers, apps, downloads etc just working they way they want them to. It just never works that way on the Desktop unfort. I know loads of "average" people who have tried to use MINT/Ubuntu but eventually a big chunk end up reaching for Redmond after they spend too long looking at StackExchange trying to figure something out.
orik 12y ago
there was a lot of discussion on /r/linux about this yesterday. concessions seemed to be that Devuan seems fishy, but I'll let you read for yourself. http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2nm2u9/theyre_going_to_fork_debian/ http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2nm2u9/theyre_going_t...
- ohazi 12y ago
  consensus?
  - orik 12y ago
    thanks, dunno how I missed that typo.
pronoiac 12y ago
Hey, I know that domain! I used to use the Dyne:Bolic live Linux CD to edit video.
agumonkey 12y ago
Isn't this the largest fork ?
ahomescu1 12y ago
Earlier submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669913
arh68 12y ago
I laughed heartily at the linked Fedora site: https://web.archive.org/web/20141020161905/http://forkfedora.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141020161905/http://forkfedora... I am not sure anything will come of this, but I hope it doesn't fail.
Aloha 12y ago
I'm for sure not feeling the love for systemd, it seems un-UNIX and a solution looking for a problem, and change for the sake of change. That said, not so big on the idea about a fork, I'd rather see debian do the normal debian thing, and support both things, maximizing freedom. That said, if that can't happen, a fork is inevitable - for the love of god pick a better name.
- lelandbatey 12y ago
  You seem like someone who's used a variety of init systems, so I have some questions: 1. Why is systemd considered "un-unix"? 2. Why is sysv considered to "follow unix"? 3. Can you provide or point to some explanations on the ideologies that motivate the difference of opinions regarding sysv/systemd? 4. Really, can someone provide some context and history for all this?
  - uselessdguy 12y ago
    I don't think anyone really considers sysvinit to "follow Unix". In fact, I'd say sysvinit is more of a historical accident than anything. An actual example of a service manager that follows the Unix philosophy would probably be daemontools and its derivatives (s6, perp, nosh, daemontools-encore and runit).
    - krylon 12y ago
      When I first started using Linux, I found SysV init very intimidating (along with the rest of the system). When I eventually stumbled upon Slackware, and then FreeBSD, I was euphoric about how simple it was to configure system startup. Which, I guess, is why the BSDs feel a lot less pressure to replace their init/rc system than Linux distros.
  - ja30278 12y ago
    With the caveat that I haven't kept up closely with systemd 1. It is attempting to unify a bunch of previously disconnected functionality into a single program. Typically unix is composed of small single-purpose utilities that perform a single function, rather than a giant monolithic blob of code (with obvious exceptions, like emacs). 2. Partially because it has been around for so long and has so much history, and partially because it follows a unix tradition of using plain text configuration and shell scripting to solve problems. 3. The systemd folks believe that sysv init isn't capable of doing things that are important to modern systems (ex. dependencies between services, reacting to devices coming and going, intelligent daemon management, etc), and that doing those things correctly requires that an init system be 'more' than people previously thought it needed to be. They are also very....confident in their ideas, and don't hesitate to re-implement functionality (like logging) if it makes is easier to interoperate with their other code. People opposed to systemd believe that it is too complex for such a critical piece of system functionality. They also resent the fact that systemd seems to require tight coupling to the rest of the system, and that it is aggressively pushing into so many linux systems. Many of them also probably have a long history with sysv init, and are comfortable with the way that it works. (Some portion also probably recall pulseaudio, which had similar grand visions, was similarly aggressively pushed into use before it was fully baked). 4. I think 1-3 probably cover most of this.
TheCondor 12y ago
Is there a single name associated with this? A single developer's name? And they are requesting donations?
- theophrastus 12y ago
  well, one single name can be got via "whois devuan.org": Franco Lanza Unixmedia s.r.l. Via Cosimo Del Fante 4 Milano, Italy hence the Italian pronunciation of Devuan to 'dev-one'
krylon 12y ago
Assuming this actually going somewhere, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it might allow us to get over those intense - and usually pointless - arguments (to put it politely) about systemd. (Personally, I don't have very strong feelings about systemd, but I get the impression it could use some time to mature before becoming the centerpiece of a GNU/Linux system.) If the fork gave people the choice between "Debian with systemd" and "Debian without systemd", and if that was all there was to it, that would be really sweet. But given the circumstances of the fork, it is not exactly clear how the two distros would coordinate their development, possibly resulting in eventual divergence. Also, if the project catches on, this might lead to a kind of brain drain on Debian, replacing one - up until now - great distribution with two less impressive ones. (This is of course a worst-case scenario. There might be, three years from now, a lot of sharing of code and people between the two distros. I sure hope so.) It is surely a very interesting development, but it remains to be seen whether this is good or bad news or even news at all.
zxcdw 12y ago
Can someone TL;DR the problem with systemd?
- derekp7 12y ago
  Many people complaining about it is that it doesn't follow the Unix philosophy. I think that it's not so much that systemd is un-UNIX like (after all, it could be argued that X-windows is un-UNIX like too). I think the problem that people are having with it is that it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. (personally, I don't mind systemd, but I also didn't mind SysV, or BSD init styles either).
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    Also, it's a badly built cathedral, that most people see that will have problems in the future. And it's being built by a group of people with a history of pushing badly built catedrals onto Linux, that turn into ruins even before completion, and have to be maintained because people get used to praying there.
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    >it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. That is a beautiful mental image.
- mahouse 12y ago
  There are so many problems with it that it's not possible to tl;dr them. But Google will help you. There are so many posts flaming it (for good reasons) that it will be easy for you to understand everything.
  - danellis 12y ago
    Can you give examples of the most important ones? Are there any that are technical rather than philosophical?
  - EdwardDiego 12y ago
joemaller1 12y ago
How is it pronounced? DEV-on? de-VWAN? (like Juan) dev-oo-ahn?
- theophrastus 12y ago
  The originators direct english speakers to pronounce the name as "dev-one". but, hey, i've heard a lot of different pronunciations of 'linux' and even 'debian' over the years, so what ever floats yer penguin.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
kazinator 12y ago
No, no, no. Stupid name. In the name of tradition, you want a name which is an acronym that says "is not that other thing" or something like that and is perhaps infinitely recursive. How about WildOS? "WildOS is like Debian, omitting systemd" Or some other "-ild" word besides "wild". Gild? Mild? Definitely not DildOS though. :) Debrogas: "Debian rid of gnome and systemd" Retains the Latin flavor of Devuan, in any case. Rejected bloopers, from my personal cutting room floor: BSDOS: "Because systemd, of course, sucks" Windows: "What-I-need Debian: out with systemd" # # # However, in the end, I think a really good name for this fork would be: Defiant! But: not pronounced like the word "defiant" but with emphasis on the first syllable, so it sounds like debian: 'DE-fih-ənt. "What are you running on that server?" "Defiant six dot three!" "What? Debian?" "No, Defiant! D-E-F-I-A-N-T, spelled like the word defiant." I love this one. It captures defiance (getting upset and making a fork), sounds indistinguishable from Debian when uttered by a drunk hacker through a G.711 ULAW speech codec, and has an unusual pronunciation so we can endlessly correct people who just say "de-FIE-unt", who instantly identify themselves as not-in-the-know outsiders. Remember all the fun with Lie-nucks versus Lee-nucks versus Li-nucks. Lastly: Deviant (Also pronounced differently to sound like Debian.) PRO: changes only one letter in Devuan, and deletes one. CON: less abrasive than Defiant. It's deviant because it's forked; it deviates from some originally intended path.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
On the one hand, this seems wildly misguided; the Debian distribution for people who don't want to run systemd is still just Debian, and that'll remain the case through at least jessie, and for as long as people continue putting effort into keeping it working. So it's sad that the effort going into this fork doesn't instead go into maintaining the necessary infrastructure in Debian. I'm sure the maintainers of systemd-shim and cgmanager would welcome additional contributors. On the other hand, perhaps this will provide a more useful outlet for the set of people who keep claiming they'd use a fork if available, so that they can actually go use one and stop griping on Debian mailing lists. Nope, sorry, couldn't keep a straight face while saying that.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  From the site, it looks they'll keep adding to systemd-shim and cgmanager.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  There are several arguments I can see in favor of a fork. 1. Ensure that there will be a systemd-free variant of debian even beyond jessie. 2. Provide a tangible metric of the interest in such a variant. 3. Provide a platform on which alternatives to systemd can be developed and promoted. After all, systemd it must be said, addresses some legitimate concerns, largely concerned with service tracking and a generally far more dynamic computing environment. The recent Future of FreeBSD presentation by Jordan Hubbard is actually one of the more eloquent arguments in this light (noting that FreeBSD is both Not Linux and Doesn't Have Systemd). The primary argument against forking is that it divides efforts. My counterargument is that forking makes the existing divide between views on a given approach tangible and explicitly visible. Free Software, particularly under the GNU GPL or equivalent copyleft, also explicitly preserves the right to merge projects which have forked, as has in fact been the case in several notable instances -- GCC/EGCS, the long-running TK For a specific study of the topic, see "A Comprehensive Study of Software Forks: Dates, Reasons and Outcomes" by Gregorio Robles and Jesuus M. Gonzalez-Barahona http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf It cites: GCC/EGCS, xpdf/poppler, GNU Emac/Xemacs, the numerous OpenOffice forks, X.org/XFree, NetBSD/OpenBSD, Wireshark/Ethereal, Gerequi/Amarok, MySQL/Miriadb. In total the paper explores some 220 forks, analyzing them by software area (e.g., networking, web apps, development, etc.), year of initiation, and reason. "Technical" accounts for the most at 27%, "differences among technical team" is sixth at 7.3%. Resolution of forks is of particular interest: Successful branching: 43.6% Discontinuation of original: 29.8% Discontinuation of fork: 13.8% Discontinuation of both original and fork: 8.7% Re-merging of fork: 3.2% Other: 0.9% As a critic of systemd and proponent of the concepts of Free Software, including the Freedom to Fork, I'm in support of this and similar efforts.
Animats 12y ago
From their manifesto: Dear Init-Freedom lovers, The Veteran Unix Admin collective salutes you. Does this group expect to be taken seriously? Read Cory Doctorow's "When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth" and get over it.
anonbanker 12y ago
I've been waiting for this fork. It means I can install a .deb-based distribution again. Here's hoping this is as successful as Libreoffice or X.org has been.
- johnny22 12y ago
  huh? this is the first release to really require systemd. how could you have been waiting for a fork when one wasn't even necessary until a release that isn't even marked stable yet.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    I've been waiting approximately 180 days for this fork. it's been over a year since the General Resolution where systemd got voted on. the fork, for some of us, has been necessary since we saw how toxic the debian constitution was in practice.

116 points by theophrastus 12y ago

Nux 12y ago

Good, interesting times.

theophrastus 12y ago

See also: https://devuan.org/ https://devuan.org/ as well as #debianfork and #devuan on IRC/freenode

fredoralive 12y ago
That site does seem to show an odd disconnect, it seems to mention "init-freedom" alongside "...the first goal of removing systemd...". Surely true "init-freedom" would be to give the end user a choice between sysvinit, bsd init, sysmtemd, launchd, android's init, and so on. Of course such true init-freedom would be near impossible. IMO people should just pick one, forking appropriately, and stop having such huge arguments over something the average user neither knows nor cares about. Just call Devuan the sysvinit fork of Debian and see how it goes...
- pekk 12y ago
  Removing coupling which effectively mandates the use of systemd is a prerequisite for "init-freedom". You can't offer a choice when everything requires systemd.
  - Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 12y ago
    Compare to Gentoo. Gentoo defaults to their homegrown OpenRC. But Gentoo is all about choice and so systemd is an option and works perfectly well. That's "init-freedom". If someone doesn't like systemd and removes it from their distro, that's OK with me. But calling that "init-freedom" seems weird. Maybe they should call it something like "sysv-freedom", if that's what they mean.
    - digi_owl 12y ago
      Sadly the one thing that dissapears in this debate is that systemd has long since gone beyond being a init. For me the whole thing came to a head when i learned that consolekit (a bothersome thing on its own) was depreciated in favor of logind. And logind is tied to the hip of systemd. There are also issues like journald that you need to have running even if your primary logging facility is syslogd etc. At this point in time, systemd as init is just a minor part of the issue in my opinion.

na85 12y ago

Awful name aside, I'm glad this fork went ahead.

Aloha 12y ago
I agree about the name, I'm indifferent on the fork, but not really feeling it for systemd either.

eloff 12y ago

The same freedom that leads to all the many, many flavors of linux gives a great diversity of ideas. The downside is it fragments the finite development efforts of the contributors to the point where it becomes difficult to compete with the wider marketplace. I wonder sometimes if it were possible for everyone to contribute to one linux desktop if the situation would be different today. As it stands, after nearly three years using ubuntu desktop, I came to the conclusion that a windows license is very cheap by comparison. The amount of time and effort I spent wasted on package incompatibilities, instabilities, and debugging strange hardware/driver related issues isn't worth it. I keep linux in a VM where it's very easy and cheap to backup and rollback without affecting my data or ability to work. I really gave it a good try, and I liked a lot of things about the freedom to configure things like I want, without metro crapware infesting the place, but the downsides were just too much for me. Again I wonder how things could have been if everyone was pulling as a coherent team instead of in different directions.

mikepurvis 12y ago
Same here, except with a Mac as the host. I really like the setup of a OS X developer environment and tools, with the ability to summon Vagrant boxes or whatever else on command.
secfirstmd 12y ago
Exactly why Linux will never dominate the Desktop environment by the average user. You basically can't use Linux without at some time going to the cmd line to fix some dam configuration or driver problem.
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  And, yet, it dominates the tablet and mobile environment, which is already more important than the desktop market ever was. Funny how that works.
  - secfirstmd 12y ago
    I know exactly what you mean. But we both know these are very different things. For most people, their tablet and phone works absolutely seemlessly, with drivers, apps, downloads etc just working they way they want them to. It just never works that way on the Desktop unfort. I know loads of "average" people who have tried to use MINT/Ubuntu but eventually a big chunk end up reaching for Redmond after they spend too long looking at StackExchange trying to figure something out.

orik 12y ago

there was a lot of discussion on /r/linux about this yesterday. concessions seemed to be that Devuan seems fishy, but I'll let you read for yourself. http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2nm2u9/theyre_going_to_fork_debian/ http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2nm2u9/theyre_going_t...

ohazi 12y ago
consensus?
- orik 12y ago
  thanks, dunno how I missed that typo.

pronoiac 12y ago

Hey, I know that domain! I used to use the Dyne:Bolic live Linux CD to edit video.

agumonkey 12y ago

Isn't this the largest fork ?

ahomescu1 12y ago

Earlier submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669913

arh68 12y ago

I laughed heartily at the linked Fedora site: https://web.archive.org/web/20141020161905/http://forkfedora.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141020161905/http://forkfedora... I am not sure anything will come of this, but I hope it doesn't fail.

Aloha 12y ago

I'm for sure not feeling the love for systemd, it seems un-UNIX and a solution looking for a problem, and change for the sake of change. That said, not so big on the idea about a fork, I'd rather see debian do the normal debian thing, and support both things, maximizing freedom. That said, if that can't happen, a fork is inevitable - for the love of god pick a better name.

lelandbatey 12y ago
You seem like someone who's used a variety of init systems, so I have some questions: 1. Why is systemd considered "un-unix"? 2. Why is sysv considered to "follow unix"? 3. Can you provide or point to some explanations on the ideologies that motivate the difference of opinions regarding sysv/systemd? 4. Really, can someone provide some context and history for all this?
- uselessdguy 12y ago
  I don't think anyone really considers sysvinit to "follow Unix". In fact, I'd say sysvinit is more of a historical accident than anything. An actual example of a service manager that follows the Unix philosophy would probably be daemontools and its derivatives (s6, perp, nosh, daemontools-encore and runit).
  - krylon 12y ago
    When I first started using Linux, I found SysV init very intimidating (along with the rest of the system). When I eventually stumbled upon Slackware, and then FreeBSD, I was euphoric about how simple it was to configure system startup. Which, I guess, is why the BSDs feel a lot less pressure to replace their init/rc system than Linux distros.
- ja30278 12y ago
  With the caveat that I haven't kept up closely with systemd 1. It is attempting to unify a bunch of previously disconnected functionality into a single program. Typically unix is composed of small single-purpose utilities that perform a single function, rather than a giant monolithic blob of code (with obvious exceptions, like emacs). 2. Partially because it has been around for so long and has so much history, and partially because it follows a unix tradition of using plain text configuration and shell scripting to solve problems. 3. The systemd folks believe that sysv init isn't capable of doing things that are important to modern systems (ex. dependencies between services, reacting to devices coming and going, intelligent daemon management, etc), and that doing those things correctly requires that an init system be 'more' than people previously thought it needed to be. They are also very....confident in their ideas, and don't hesitate to re-implement functionality (like logging) if it makes is easier to interoperate with their other code. People opposed to systemd believe that it is too complex for such a critical piece of system functionality. They also resent the fact that systemd seems to require tight coupling to the rest of the system, and that it is aggressively pushing into so many linux systems. Many of them also probably have a long history with sysv init, and are comfortable with the way that it works. (Some portion also probably recall pulseaudio, which had similar grand visions, was similarly aggressively pushed into use before it was fully baked). 4. I think 1-3 probably cover most of this.

TheCondor 12y ago

Is there a single name associated with this? A single developer's name? And they are requesting donations?

theophrastus 12y ago
well, one single name can be got via "whois devuan.org": Franco Lanza Unixmedia s.r.l. Via Cosimo Del Fante 4 Milano, Italy hence the Italian pronunciation of Devuan to 'dev-one'

krylon 12y ago

Assuming this actually going somewhere, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it might allow us to get over those intense - and usually pointless - arguments (to put it politely) about systemd. (Personally, I don't have very strong feelings about systemd, but I get the impression it could use some time to mature before becoming the centerpiece of a GNU/Linux system.) If the fork gave people the choice between "Debian with systemd" and "Debian without systemd", and if that was all there was to it, that would be really sweet. But given the circumstances of the fork, it is not exactly clear how the two distros would coordinate their development, possibly resulting in eventual divergence. Also, if the project catches on, this might lead to a kind of brain drain on Debian, replacing one - up until now - great distribution with two less impressive ones. (This is of course a worst-case scenario. There might be, three years from now, a lot of sharing of code and people between the two distros. I sure hope so.) It is surely a very interesting development, but it remains to be seen whether this is good or bad news or even news at all.

zxcdw 12y ago

Can someone TL;DR the problem with systemd?

derekp7 12y ago
Many people complaining about it is that it doesn't follow the Unix philosophy. I think that it's not so much that systemd is un-UNIX like (after all, it could be argued that X-windows is un-UNIX like too). I think the problem that people are having with it is that it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. (personally, I don't mind systemd, but I also didn't mind SysV, or BSD init styles either).
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  Also, it's a badly built cathedral, that most people see that will have problems in the future. And it's being built by a group of people with a history of pushing badly built catedrals onto Linux, that turn into ruins even before completion, and have to be maintained because people get used to praying there.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  >it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. That is a beautiful mental image.
mahouse 12y ago
There are so many problems with it that it's not possible to tl;dr them. But Google will help you. There are so many posts flaming it (for good reasons) that it will be easy for you to understand everything.
- danellis 12y ago
  Can you give examples of the most important ones? Are there any that are technical rather than philosophical?
- EdwardDiego 12y ago

joemaller1 12y ago

How is it pronounced? DEV-on? de-VWAN? (like Juan) dev-oo-ahn?

theophrastus 12y ago
The originators direct english speakers to pronounce the name as "dev-one". but, hey, i've heard a lot of different pronunciations of 'linux' and even 'debian' over the years, so what ever floats yer penguin.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

kazinator 12y ago

No, no, no. Stupid name. In the name of tradition, you want a name which is an acronym that says "is not that other thing" or something like that and is perhaps infinitely recursive. How about WildOS? "WildOS is like Debian, omitting systemd" Or some other "-ild" word besides "wild". Gild? Mild? Definitely not DildOS though. :) Debrogas: "Debian rid of gnome and systemd" Retains the Latin flavor of Devuan, in any case. Rejected bloopers, from my personal cutting room floor: BSDOS: "Because systemd, of course, sucks" Windows: "What-I-need Debian: out with systemd" # # # However, in the end, I think a really good name for this fork would be: Defiant! But: not pronounced like the word "defiant" but with emphasis on the first syllable, so it sounds like debian: 'DE-fih-ənt. "What are you running on that server?" "Defiant six dot three!" "What? Debian?" "No, Defiant! D-E-F-I-A-N-T, spelled like the word defiant." I love this one. It captures defiance (getting upset and making a fork), sounds indistinguishable from Debian when uttered by a drunk hacker through a G.711 ULAW speech codec, and has an unusual pronunciation so we can endlessly correct people who just say "de-FIE-unt", who instantly identify themselves as not-in-the-know outsiders. Remember all the fun with Lie-nucks versus Lee-nucks versus Li-nucks. Lastly: Deviant (Also pronounced differently to sound like Debian.) PRO: changes only one letter in Devuan, and deletes one. CON: less abrasive than Defiant. It's deviant because it's forked; it deviates from some originally intended path.

JoshTriplett 12y ago

On the one hand, this seems wildly misguided; the Debian distribution for people who don't want to run systemd is still just Debian, and that'll remain the case through at least jessie, and for as long as people continue putting effort into keeping it working. So it's sad that the effort going into this fork doesn't instead go into maintaining the necessary infrastructure in Debian. I'm sure the maintainers of systemd-shim and cgmanager would welcome additional contributors. On the other hand, perhaps this will provide a more useful outlet for the set of people who keep claiming they'd use a fork if available, so that they can actually go use one and stop griping on Debian mailing lists. Nope, sorry, couldn't keep a straight face while saying that.

marcosdumay 12y ago
From the site, it looks they'll keep adding to systemd-shim and cgmanager.
dredmorbius 12y ago
There are several arguments I can see in favor of a fork. 1. Ensure that there will be a systemd-free variant of debian even beyond jessie. 2. Provide a tangible metric of the interest in such a variant. 3. Provide a platform on which alternatives to systemd can be developed and promoted. After all, systemd it must be said, addresses some legitimate concerns, largely concerned with service tracking and a generally far more dynamic computing environment. The recent Future of FreeBSD presentation by Jordan Hubbard is actually one of the more eloquent arguments in this light (noting that FreeBSD is both Not Linux and Doesn't Have Systemd). The primary argument against forking is that it divides efforts. My counterargument is that forking makes the existing divide between views on a given approach tangible and explicitly visible. Free Software, particularly under the GNU GPL or equivalent copyleft, also explicitly preserves the right to merge projects which have forked, as has in fact been the case in several notable instances -- GCC/EGCS, the long-running TK For a specific study of the topic, see "A Comprehensive Study of Software Forks: Dates, Reasons and Outcomes" by Gregorio Robles and Jesuus M. Gonzalez-Barahona http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf It cites: GCC/EGCS, xpdf/poppler, GNU Emac/Xemacs, the numerous OpenOffice forks, X.org/XFree, NetBSD/OpenBSD, Wireshark/Ethereal, Gerequi/Amarok, MySQL/Miriadb. In total the paper explores some 220 forks, analyzing them by software area (e.g., networking, web apps, development, etc.), year of initiation, and reason. "Technical" accounts for the most at 27%, "differences among technical team" is sixth at 7.3%. Resolution of forks is of particular interest: Successful branching: 43.6% Discontinuation of original: 29.8% Discontinuation of fork: 13.8% Discontinuation of both original and fork: 8.7% Re-merging of fork: 3.2% Other: 0.9% As a critic of systemd and proponent of the concepts of Free Software, including the Freedom to Fork, I'm in support of this and similar efforts.

Animats 12y ago

From their manifesto: Dear Init-Freedom lovers, The Veteran Unix Admin collective salutes you. Does this group expect to be taken seriously? Read Cory Doctorow's "When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth" and get over it.

anonbanker 12y ago

I've been waiting for this fork. It means I can install a .deb-based distribution again. Here's hoping this is as successful as Libreoffice or X.org has been.

johnny22 12y ago
huh? this is the first release to really require systemd. how could you have been waiting for a fork when one wasn't even necessary until a release that isn't even marked stable yet.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  I've been waiting approximately 180 days for this fork. it's been over a year since the General Resolution where systemd got voted on. the fork, for some of us, has been necessary since we saw how toxic the debian constitution was in practice.