Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:05:03 +0100 John Crisp wrote: > I read the following article a while back and the one reply that > really actually made the most sense to me and summed up my feelings > that there are wider political issues at stake - this was on page 3 > of the comments by Trevor Potts. > > IMHO If RHEL can't make Mr Torvalds develop the way you want, build > another system to replace him - effectively 'fork Linux' > > With a business head on rather than development, it make a lot of > sense. They like things they can control. > > Just my 2c worth :-) > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ The following is the direct link to Trevor Potts' specific comment: http://m.forums.theregister.co.uk/post/reply/2375127 SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] successfully manually removing systemd and libsystemd0 from debian and still maintaining a working desktop
Steve Litt: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:28:58 +0100 (CET) > k...@aspodata.se wrote: > > > At second thought, I'll first try to factor out udev completely -- or > > rather -- make the system to be *dev agnostic. > > Karl, please document your experiment so that some of us can follow in > your footsteps. I have a test machine currently running gentoo and an a minimal wheezy that I'll experiement with. > A "no udev" box isn't pertinent to Devuan, but it sure as heck is > pertinent to me, and probably you and I aren't alone. I think that devuan can profit from beeing able to switch to e.g. vdev, and Luke shown us that he was able to run X without udev. Soo, the usual claim of dependancy on udev is false. But I feel this is strange, why is that udev is forced upon you, why isn't it available to you at your own decision. And why are people saying that you can't have a useful system without it, and actually turning a deaf ear towards any argumentation against ? One problem with udev as I see it, is that you can't remove it without rebooting from some other media, you're stuck with it. How do you debug a thing like that ? Regards, /Karl Hammar --- Aspö Data Lilla Aspö 148 S-742 94 Östhammar Sweden +46 173 140 57 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On 19/02/15 18:38, Steve Litt wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:05:03 +0100 > John Crisp wrote: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ > > Trade mag journalists. Can't live with them, can't live without > them. :-) > LOl - yeah. But it was the comment that was the interesting bit (I think Mr Potts who wrote the comment is a journo there too - http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2160/) - I just wanted to add the original reference :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:05:03 +0100 John Crisp wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ Wow, this article (the article itself, not the replies) has a mislead right off the bat: "The dispute centred on plans to replace the sysvinit init system management toolkit with systemd" Ummm, no. If they'd replaced sysinit with OpenRC, runit, s6, or Epoch, we'd be dancing in the streets. We specifically object to systemd. The author then goes on to call systemd "a similar but less-Linux-specific set of tools". Systemd is about as Linux specific as you can get. Trade mag journalists. Can't live with them, can't live without them. :-) SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] successfully manually removing systemd and libsystemd0 from debian and still maintaining a working desktop
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:28:58 +0100 (CET) k...@aspodata.se wrote: > At second thought, I'll first try to factor out udev completely -- or > rather -- make the system to be *dev agnostic. Karl, please document your experiment so that some of us can follow in your footsteps. A "no udev" box isn't pertinent to Devuan, but it sure as heck is pertinent to me, and probably you and I aren't alone. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] The Onion Principle
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:48:12 + Noel Torres wrote: > To resume the principle: The best way to create a very complex > project is to add one layer at a time. I like it! Life's a journey, and a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] About Devuan's audience
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:26:06 + Nuno Magalhães wrote: > I'm here because i want choice and i like stuff to be modular and > open, not closed and monolithic (unless we're talking about Clarke's > 2001). Nuno, You've just almost completely described my intentions in one sentence. Very nice! I'd just add one thing: I'm also here because I demand trustworthy software vendors. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On 19/02/15 13:36, hal wrote: > Hello all, and great work on the Alpha! I am tagging this off-topic as it > doesn't really pertain to Devuan development except in a tangential aspect. > > I've always thought it a bit odd that just a handful of people, leading > certain Open Source projects, could get away with steering any certain Linux > distro directly into the path of oncoming traffic. I ran across this > article yesterday and thought it may explain some of the things that happened > with SuSE, Caldera, Gnome and now Debian. > > There are many changes that have happened with Linux distros over the years > and many just never made sense to me. Some new implementation supposing to > make things easier was just a mess to work with (NetworkManager, > resolvconf, udev, MDNS). Usually it was claimed "It is easier for users" but > often the case was wrong. When things work, they work OK, but good luck if > you need to fix it when it doesn't work. > > This articla was a bit concerning because the largest contributers to the > Linux kernel come from private businesses now. That's always been fine with > me until things like systemd happen which completely alter every aspect > of the system causing new problems at every level. The fact that most of the > major distros jumped on the band wagon without question was also strange to > me. It now makes sense to me because the collective of private > business makes up the majority of the development. There are far more private > interests funding the drive behind these changes than there are hackers to > fix/oversee them. > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/linux-has-2000-new-developers-and-gets-1-patches-for-each-version/ I read the following article a while back and the one reply that really actually made the most sense to me and summed up my feelings that there are wider political issues at stake - this was on page 3 of the comments by Trevor Potts. IMHO If RHEL can't make Mr Torvalds develop the way you want, build another system to replace him - effectively 'fork Linux' With a business head on rather than development, it make a lot of sense. They like things they can control. Just my 2c worth :-) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ Trevor Potts : Re: If systemd is so bad... "If systemd is so bad... ...then why are so many distros using it?" It's called blackmail. RedHat are behind the whole thing. They spend the money that makes a lot of critical pieces of your average Linux distribution work. Now those things won't work without systemd and/or getting them to work without systemd is a right bitch/there are roadmaps to make them not work without systemd in short order. The short version of this whole thing is that Poettering - and with him, RedHat - are trying to take the kernel away from Linux Torvalds. They are doing so by creating another kernel in userland that everything depends on. Once they have enough stuff jacked into Poettering's matrix, they'll use it to leverage Torvalds out of the picture and finally take the whole cake for themselves. Systemd is nothing more than a cynical play for domination and control of the entire Linux ecosystem. To "own the stack" of a modern distro. And since RedHat has managed to co-opt so many core projects, there is precious little to stop them. "Linux" as we think of it today is on life support. Android/Linux and systemd/Linux are now looking to be the two dominant entities. Traditional Linux - one that adheres to the Unix philosophy - is all but dead. Hopefully, Devuan can save it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] successfully manually removing systemd and libsystemd0 from debian and still maintaining a working desktop
Isaac Dunham (Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:06:59):
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 08:44:22PM +, Luke Leighton wrote:
...
> Thanks to your write-up, I've gotten Xorg working sans udev
> (actually, simulated via overmounting with tmpfs and running mdev).
> FYI, *this* was why I included "devinfo" in libsysdev:
> for d in /dev/input/*; do DEV="`devinfo $d`"; [ -e "$DEV/name" ] && { echo
> $d; cat $DEV/name; } ; done
Nice script, I saved that, thanks.
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
---
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] successfully manually removing systemd and libsystemd0 from debian and still maintaining a working desktop
Dragan FOSS: > > Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:27:55 + > > From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton > > To: dng@lists.dyne.org > > Subject: [Dng] successfully manually removing systemd and libsystemd0 > > from debian and still maintaining a working desktop > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > the reason why i am informing you of this is as encouragement so that > > you know it *can be done*. > > > > i would be most grateful therefore if you could make it much more > > convenient for me to be able to do this, whilst still keeping all the > > debian, TDE and deb-multimedia repositories in /etc/apt/sources.list > > that i have today, by keeping the devuan project strictly focussed on > > providing alternative packages instead of polarising the GNU/Linux > > community even further than pottering has already done (by devuan not > > creating an ubuntu-style total distro fork). > > This IS already done :) > - > [root@trios][/home/dragan/Desktop]# inxi -r > Repos: Active apt sources in file: /etc/apt/sources.list >deb http://http.debian.net/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free >deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free >deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib > non-free >deb-src http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib > non-free >deb http://http.debian.net/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib > non-free >deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib > non-free >deb http://http.debian.net/debian/ jessie-backports main contrib > non-free >deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian/ jessie-backports main > contrib non-free >Active apt sources in file: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/trios.list >deb http://mirror.org.rs/trios/ mia main non-systemd-testing zfs Then that would be a better starting place. Thoose two seems to be the relevant links: http://mirror.org.rs/trios/pool/non-systemd/ http://mirror.org.rs/trios/pool/non-systemd-testing/ Regards, /Karl Hammar --- Aspö Data Lilla Aspö 148 S-742 94 Östhammar Sweden +46 173 140 57 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] successfully manually removing systemd and libsystemd0 from debian and still maintaining a working desktop
Luke Leighton: > karl please refresh and double-check the update for pulseaudio, I don't need pulseaudio, sorry. Regards, /Karl Hammar --- Aspö Data Lilla Aspö 148 S-742 94 Östhammar Sweden +46 173 140 57 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] successfully manually removing systemd and libsystemd0 from debian and still maintaining a working desktop
Luke Leighton : > aspodata.se> writes: > > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl.net>: > > > http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/ > > > > I'll try that. > > awesome. if you'd like to keep in touch (through this list > if that's ok with the dng team?) i can perhaps advise if you > get stuck. it would be interesting also to know what packages > you have that are dependent on libsystemd0. for example, > i removed cups-daemon, but you might need it. I don't really want cups. > > > * disabling udev > > > * returning to manual keyboard and mouse configuration in Xorg > > > * adding a huge number of manual entries to /etc/modules > > > > I'm fine with that, and I compiles my own kernels. > > great. if you've dealt with linux for a long time you probably > remember what it was like to edit xorg.conf, or, maybe, like me, > you have sections that are still there and just had to update them > :) Yes. > also i feel that anyone who has dealt with embedded systems > such as openembedded, opie/familiar and so on, this really should > not be hard for them, either. No. /// At second thought, I'll first try to factor out udev completely -- or rather -- make the system to be *dev agnostic. Regards, /Karl Hammar --- Aspö Data Lilla Aspö 148 S-742 94 Östhammar Sweden +46 173 140 57 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
it's my understanding that most additions to the kernel from hardware companies are for drivers. i can only assume the rest are for new features they want to use or random bug fixes. i think the linux kernel itself is safe from needless radical changes because the linux kernel people actually get the last say on whether or not they accept a patch. frankly, i think it's a good system due to it's limited scope and direct oversight. the origin of the systemd problem isnt that anyone can publish code, it's the lack of oversight in distributions possibly due to the massive scope of the software they are distributing. tl;dr: Quality Control is very very very important. --Gravis On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:36 AM, hal wrote: > Hello all, and great work on the Alpha! I am tagging this off-topic as it > doesn't really pertain to Devuan development except in a tangential aspect. > > I've always thought it a bit odd that just a handful of people, leading > certain Open Source projects, could get away with steering any certain > Linux distro directly into the path of oncoming traffic. I ran across this > article yesterday and thought it may explain some of the things that > happened with SuSE, Caldera, Gnome and now Debian. > > There are many changes that have happened with Linux distros over the > years and many just never made sense to me. Some new implementation > supposing to make things easier was just a mess to work with > (NetworkManager, > resolvconf, udev, MDNS). Usually it was claimed "It is easier for users" > but often the case was wrong. When things work, they work OK, but good luck > if you need to fix it when it doesn't work. > > This articla was a bit concerning because the largest contributers to the > Linux kernel come from private businesses now. That's always been fine with > me until things like systemd happen which completely alter every aspect > of the system causing new problems at every level. The fact that most of > the major distros jumped on the band wagon without question was also > strange to me. It now makes sense to me because the collective of private > business makes up the majority of the development. There are far more > private interests funding the drive behind these changes than there are > hackers to fix/oversee them. > > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/linux-has-2000-new-developers-and-gets-1-patches-for-each-version/ > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Hello all, and great work on the Alpha! I am tagging this off-topic as it doesn't really pertain to Devuan development except in a tangential aspect. I've always thought it a bit odd that just a handful of people, leading certain Open Source projects, could get away with steering any certain Linux distro directly into the path of oncoming traffic. I ran across this article yesterday and thought it may explain some of the things that happened with SuSE, Caldera, Gnome and now Debian. There are many changes that have happened with Linux distros over the years and many just never made sense to me. Some new implementation supposing to make things easier was just a mess to work with (NetworkManager, resolvconf, udev, MDNS). Usually it was claimed "It is easier for users" but often the case was wrong. When things work, they work OK, but good luck if you need to fix it when it doesn't work. This articla was a bit concerning because the largest contributers to the Linux kernel come from private businesses now. That's always been fine with me until things like systemd happen which completely alter every aspect of the system causing new problems at every level. The fact that most of the major distros jumped on the band wagon without question was also strange to me. It now makes sense to me because the collective of private business makes up the majority of the development. There are far more private interests funding the drive behind these changes than there are hackers to fix/oversee them. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/linux-has-2000-new-developers-and-gets-1-patches-for-each-version/ ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[Dng] The Onion Principle
After reading the whole "keep as close to debian as possible" thread, and in my well-known spirit of resuming threads, I think we can benefit from the Principle of the Onion. At first stage (Devuan Jessie), we'll use a pinned repository with our desinfected packages, to provide our users (that's ourselves, in the first run) with the One Thing that made us congregate: a systemd-free Debian. Some packages (like Gnome) may become uninstallable from Debian repository and absent from ours: that's OK. After that (Devuan Aiken or Alhambra), we'll increment the amount of packages *WE* take care of. How much each of these packages takes from and gives to Debian depends on each maintainer. Some people will be happy of maintaining the same package both for Debian and Devuan. Some pairs of people will have good relations and share patched back and forth. Some pairs of people will have bad relations and packages will diverge between Debian and Devuan, and there will be a core of systemd-free packages that will be technically impossible to share. The Onion will have three layers now: a systemd-free core, a Devuan-specific but not-core set of packages, and the Debian repository. While time develops, more layers will be added to the Onion from the saucy inner core to the skinny external layers. Will Debian always be the onion skin? We do not know, and it is not important just now. To resume the principle: The best way to create a very complex project is to add one layer at a time. Regards er Envite signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
