On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 10:20:36 +0000, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> They have to chose a default, there are no other possibility. So,
> they chose the best one available.
>

Have to?

All distros should include all available options or else they get
out of the distro business.

But they are lazy and likely incompetent.

Just like most web sites only serve up pages designed for mobile
devices (because that's the majority) rather than use the standard
user agent string to determine the device and serve accordingly.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 07/12/2021 00.35, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 10:20:36 +0000, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> They have to chose a default, there are no other possibility. So,
>> they chose the best one available.
>>
>
> Have to?
>
> All distros should include all available options or else they get
> out of the distro business.

Obviously they don't get out of the distro business, which means they
know more about the distro business than you do :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Le 06-12-2021, Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> a écrit :
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 10:20:36 +0000, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> They have to chose a default, there are no other possibility. So,
>> they chose the best one available.
>
> Have to?

Of course. Whatever the choice there is always a default and it's a good
thing.

> All distros should include all available options

There are two issues with your point. First it implies all distros
should include systemd which is not what you are asking for. Second, if
an option is not good enough, every issue with it will become the issue
of the distro instead of the issue of the option's provider.

> or else they get out of the distro business.

The facts are against your claim. The most popular distros don't
propose any choice about the init system.

> But they are lazy and likely incompetent.

Far from it. Providing a robust distro usable by a lot of people in a
lot of ways require a lot of work and competence. But you are unable to
realize how customising an OS for only one personal computer is easier
to provide something way more broadly usable.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 21:28:46 +0000, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
>> But they are lazy and likely incompetent.
>
> Far from it. Providing a robust distro usable by a lot of people in a
> lot of ways require a lot of work and competence. But you are unable to
> realize how customising an OS for only one personal computer is easier
> to provide something way more broadly usable.
>

Gentoo has been quite successful in this respect. It can accommodate
both mass preferences and personal preferences. Gentoo, and LFS,
offer both systemd and non-systemd configurations.

(Note: I use Gentoo only for automated building. Otherwise my system
is my own creation.)

Thus, YOU are the one who fails to understand.

Most GNU/Linux distros only PANDER to an assumed ignorant majority.
They will play the role of master to the user slaves.

Gentoo, and its equivalents like LFS, assume an informed and knowledgeable
user base. With Gentoo, and LFS, developers and users are on an equal footing.

Only idiots, like YOU, can be fooled.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 07/12/2021 00.30, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:30:04 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
>>
>> Obsessed with performance and customization,
>>
>
> You fail to appreciate the semiconductor revolution. It has brought
> the common man (i.e. me and you) unparalleled capabilities for
> personal computing. No longer are we dependent upon paid CPU
> cycles on some remote mainframe. Everything that can be done
> digitally can be done on ones private desktop.
>
> Performance is critical.

Not to us. We have faster machines instead, easier and cheaper.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Le 10-12-2021, Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 21:28:46 +0000, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>>> But they are lazy and likely incompetent.
>>
>> Far from it. Providing a robust distro usable by a lot of people in a
>> lot of ways require a lot of work and competence. But you are unable to
>> realize how customising an OS for only one personal computer is easier
>> to provide something way more broadly usable.
>
> Gentoo has been quite successful in this respect. It can accommodate
> both mass preferences and personal preferences. Gentoo, and LFS,
> offer both systemd and non-systemd configurations.

You believe what you want, but LFS and Gentoo are not used by the mass.
The users of Linux are something like 1 or 2 percents of all of the
computers' users. And of those little percentage, probably no more of
1 or 2 percent are using LFS and Gentoo. There is nothing close to a
mass preferences.

> (Note: I use Gentoo only for automated building. Otherwise my system
> is my own creation.)

We have not the same definition of one's own system creation. If you
want to go this road, for automatics reasons, I changed the mkarchiso
file to add a user able to be used with ssh and I made my own distro by
your standards. But unlike you, I'm not pretending anything about my
needs and the mass needs.

And by the way, I remember the last time you needed LaTeX to create a
pdf, you asked for help. So basically, your own distro is useless. It's
only purpose is to manage its updates.

> Thus, YOU are the one who fails to understand.

To understand what? That you are a daydreamer? Far from it.

> Most GNU/Linux distros only PANDER to an assumed ignorant majority.

Thanks to them, not to you, the mass can use Linux.

> They will play the role of master to the user slaves.

Really, you have no idea about the relation between the requesters of
solutions and the providers. When a payed system like Windows or MacOS
is not convenient, the users are complaining only to themselves. When an
opensource system doesn't fit the requirements, the users are asking
strongly for improvements.

> Gentoo, and its equivalents like LFS, assume an informed and knowledgeable
> user base. With Gentoo, and LFS, developers and users are on an equal footing.

Yes, so what? It's good for them.

> Only idiots, like YOU, can be fooled.

Fooled by what? I'm doing what I want with Archlinux. As I don't need
Gnome, it would be easy for me to switch from systemd to another init
system. But there is nothing better today, I don't want to switch to
something else. Maybe one day I will, but for now, I have no reason.

The same for LFS and Gentoo. For me LFS is interesting for educational
purposes, not for a day to day usage. And Gentoo can be good, but I see
no reason to switch for it, it wouldn't provide me anything I can get
right now.

The only distro I'm considering for a switch today is NixOS (or Guix for
the same reasons). It would be difficult, but it looks really
interesting.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 11-12-2021, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
> On 07/12/2021 00.30, Diego Garcia wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:30:04 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Obsessed with performance and customization,
>>>
>>
>> You fail to appreciate the semiconductor revolution. It has brought
>> the common man (i.e. me and you) unparalleled capabilities for
>> personal computing. No longer are we dependent upon paid CPU
>> cycles on some remote mainframe. Everything that can be done
>> digitally can be done on ones private desktop.
>>
>> Performance is critical.
>
> Not to us. We have faster machines instead, easier and cheaper.

But you are not really using you computer. If you passed half your
time compiling the updates of your distro, you would really need
performance.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 2021-12-11, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
> Le 10-12-2021, Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> a écrit :
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 21:28:46 +0000, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> But they are lazy and likely incompetent.
>>>
>>> Far from it. Providing a robust distro usable by a lot of people in a
>>> lot of ways require a lot of work and competence. But you are unable to
>>> realize how customising an OS for only one personal computer is easier
>>> to provide something way more broadly usable.
>>
>> Gentoo has been quite successful in this respect. It can accommodate
>> both mass preferences and personal preferences. Gentoo, and LFS,
>> offer both systemd and non-systemd configurations.
>
> You believe what you want, but LFS and Gentoo are not used by the mass.
> The users of Linux are something like 1 or 2 percents of all of the
> computers' users. And of those little percentage, probably no more of
> 1 or 2 percent are using LFS and Gentoo. There is nothing close to a
> mass preferences.
>
>> (Note: I use Gentoo only for automated building. Otherwise my system
>> is my own creation.)
>
> We have not the same definition of one's own system creation. If you
> want to go this road, for automatics reasons, I changed the mkarchiso
> file to add a user able to be used with ssh and I made my own distro by
> your standards. But unlike you, I'm not pretending anything about my
> needs and the mass needs.
>
> And by the way, I remember the last time you needed LaTeX to create a
> pdf, you asked for help. So basically, your own distro is useless. It's
> only purpose is to manage its updates.
>
>> Thus, YOU are the one who fails to understand.
>
> To understand what? That you are a daydreamer? Far from it.
>
>> Most GNU/Linux distros only PANDER to an assumed ignorant majority.
>
> Thanks to them, not to you, the mass can use Linux.
>
>> They will play the role of master to the user slaves.
>
> Really, you have no idea about the relation between the requesters of
> solutions and the providers. When a payed system like Windows or MacOS
> is not convenient, the users are complaining only to themselves. When an
> opensource system doesn't fit the requirements, the users are asking
> strongly for improvements.
>
>> Gentoo, and its equivalents like LFS, assume an informed and knowledgeable
>> user base. With Gentoo, and LFS, developers and users are on an equal footing.
>
> Yes, so what? It's good for them.
>
>> Only idiots, like YOU, can be fooled.
>
> Fooled by what? I'm doing what I want with Archlinux. As I don't need
> Gnome, it would be easy for me to switch from systemd to another init
> system. But there is nothing better today, I don't want to switch to
> something else. Maybe one day I will, but for now, I have no reason.
>
> The same for LFS and Gentoo. For me LFS is interesting for educational
> purposes, not for a day to day usage. And Gentoo can be good, but I see
> no reason to switch for it, it wouldn't provide me anything I can get
> right now.
>
> The only distro I'm considering for a switch today is NixOS (or Guix for
> the same reasons). It would be difficult, but it looks really
> interesting.

That's the beauty of Linux. There is a distribution or platform for
just about every need. I use MXLinux / kde, but for my needs I could
easily switch to Ubuntu or LinuxMint or Slackware. I used Gentoo a
long time ago and found it very stable. The handbook was literally a
textbook education in Linux and I did indeed learn a lot.
Rather playing my dick is bigger than yours, we should embrace all
that Linux can do and choose the distro that works best for our
particular needs.
There is no "best" Linux.
And IMHO that is actually a good thing.

--
Helmut
"If you don't like Linux, you might tick incorrectly"

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 22:13:54 +0000, Helmut Achterberg wrote:

>
> That's the beauty of Linux. There is a distribution or platform for
> just about every need ...
> There is no "best" Linux.
> And IMHO that is actually a good thing.
>

Is there?

It seems to me that the majority of distros have converged on
RedHat/Debian/systemd.

GNU/Linux, aside from Gentoo/LFS, no longer serves just about
every need.

GNU/Linux, however, still could remain free if not for RedHat and
its cohorts severely limiting choice.

An informed and sophisticated user base would vehemently rebel
but most GNU/Linux users nowadays are just looking for a "freebie"
(free as in beer) and couldn't care less about true software freedom.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 13:16:09 +0000, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 05-12-2021, David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> a écrit :
>>
>> False. systemd is more than an init system. It's a task management system that
>> happens to include system level tasks that were handled by sysvinit.
>
> You're right. And it's at the same time great and annoying. It's
> annoying because it's supposed to be an init system and it does
> things it shouldn't.
>

For a desktop workstation, the kind of scenario for which the personal
computer was originally developed, systemd is both totally UNNECESSARY
and a complete DETRIMENT.

Sure. The majority of global GNU/Linux installations are servers but that
does not mean that GNU/Linux is not good for anything else.

Any sophisticated GNU/Linux desktop workstation user will reject that
useless abomination known as systemd.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 21:39:39 -0500, David W. Hodgins wrote:

>
>> Anyone who believes that systemd is an improvement for desktop workstations
>> is, I am sorry to say, is an ignoramus fool.
>
> Then I'm glad you consider me to be an ignoramus fool. As the leader of the qa team
> for Mageia linux, I've seen the difficulty developers/packagers had getting sysvinit
> scripts to work properly, and not interfere with each other (especially the latter).
>

Both systemd and sysvinit are useless overkill for a desktop workstation.

The fact that you have not yet realized this simple truth makes Mageia (derived
from RedHat) highly suspect.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 12/12/2021 00.39, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 22:13:54 +0000, Helmut Achterberg wrote:
>
>>
>> That's the beauty of Linux. There is a distribution or platform for
>> just about every need ...
>> There is no "best" Linux.
>> And IMHO that is actually a good thing.
>>
>
> Is there?
>
> It seems to me that the majority of distros have converged on
> RedHat/Debian/systemd.
>
> GNU/Linux, aside from Gentoo/LFS, no longer serves just about
> every need.
>
> GNU/Linux, however, still could remain free if not for RedHat and
> its cohorts severely limiting choice.
>
> An informed and sophisticated user base would vehemently rebel
> but most GNU/Linux users nowadays are just looking for a "freebie"
> (free as in beer) and couldn't care less about true software freedom.
>

We'll make our own choices, thankyou.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 12/12/2021 00.39, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 22:13:54 +0000, Helmut Achterberg wrote:
>
>>
>> That's the beauty of Linux. There is a distribution or platform for
>> just about every need ...
>> There is no "best" Linux.
>> And IMHO that is actually a good thing.
>>
>
> Is there?
>
> It seems to me that the majority of distros have converged on
> RedHat/Debian/systemd.

There are a good number of distributions that do not use systemd, but
sure the most popularly used ones tend to use systemd.

> GNU/Linux, aside from Gentoo/LFS, no longer serves just about
> every need.

LFS I wouldn't class ass a distribution and the instructions do not
cover much of options.

Gentoo can be bent to many things, but do not serve all needs, for
example it lacks binary packages. The merit of Gentoo is the work they
done to make an up to date systemd-free system which has helped other
distributions and even the BSD community.

> GNU/Linux, however, still could remain free if not for RedHat and
> its cohorts severely limiting choice.

RedHat don't limit your freedom, you still can choose to build and
install your own init system and kernel, so you could in theory do a
systemd-free RedHat, just loads more to keep it up to date.

As long as you don't maintain a such version of RedHat and release it
for public use, I wouldn't call it a new distribution, it's just a
modified RedHat.

--

//Aho

On 12/12/2021 10:31, J.O. Aho wrote:
> There are a good number of distributions that do not use systemd, but
> sure the most popularly used ones tend to use systemd.

If the point of your distro is stability and longevity, the the fact
that there are a hundred plus programmers dashing behind Pöeterring with
poop scoops and plastic bags does tend to favour using what everybody
else is gradually making work.

Let's face is, Post Script and X windows were both designed by committee
to be far far more than was necessary, and are both massive examples of
creeping featurism and bloatware but have over the years been tamed to
become useable.

Systemd will in the end be made to work, not because it's good, but
because everyone decides to put effort into making it usable.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 13/12/2021 12.51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Systemd will in the end be made to work, not because it's good, but
> because everyone decides to put effort into making it usable.

Sadly systemd/Linux will be the one and only in the future, which also
will cause Linux programs no longer compatible with BSD.

--

//Aho

"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> writes:

> On 13/12/2021 12.51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Systemd will in the end be made to work, not because it's good, but
>> because everyone decides to put effort into making it usable.
>
> Sadly systemd/Linux will be the one and only in the future, which also
> will cause Linux programs no longer compatible with BSD.

On the face of it, this is a gross mis-representation of the situation.

Why is it sad that the _few_ Linux programs that interface with systemd
will not run without systemd?

--
Dan Espen

On 12/13/2021 6:51 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 10:31, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> There are a good number of distributions that do not use systemd, but sure the most popularly used ones tend to use systemd.
>
> If the point of your distro is stability and longevity, the the fact that there are a hundred plus programmers dashing behind Pöeterring with poop scoops and plastic bags does tend to favour using what everybody else is gradually making work.
>
>
> Let's face is, Post Script and X windows were both designed by committee to be far far more than was necessary, and are both massive examples of creeping featurism and bloatware but have over the years been tamed to become useable.

PostScript wasn't designed by a committee, and in fact is
a nice design. It's an RPN language that uses a stack. It's
fully documented in the form of a book.

It was PDF, that started out with an intent, but got saddled
with parallel subsystems (JetForm). And also had attack surfaces
added to it (javascript, a movie player, and so on). It's PDF
that you should heap scorn on, because nobody but Adobe can
handle every possible feature in it. And it's because not
all the features in Adobe readers or editors are really PDF.
That's why they could make PDF an ISO standard and defend
their products at the same time. By just bolting stuff on the
side, that weren't really PDF.

On XWindows, you could continue to run your legacy applications
(like say Xeyes), without having to accommodate the lengthy list
of added subsystems. I don't see that as a problem. Where I have
a problem, is where something is not backward compatible and
breaks everything it touches.

If you wanted an example of rampant bustedness, that would be Python.
Any time I want to run some Python thing, my distro is just a
bleeding mess, and after a week of poking at it, I have to give up.

Paul

On 11/12/2021 23.03, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 11-12-2021, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>> On 07/12/2021 00.30, Diego Garcia wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:30:04 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obsessed with performance and customization,
>>>>
>>>
>>> You fail to appreciate the semiconductor revolution. It has brought
>>> the common man (i.e. me and you) unparalleled capabilities for
>>> personal computing. No longer are we dependent upon paid CPU
>>> cycles on some remote mainframe. Everything that can be done
>>> digitally can be done on ones private desktop.
>>>
>>> Performance is critical.
>>
>> Not to us. We have faster machines instead, easier and cheaper.
>
> But you are not really using you computer. If you passed half your
> time compiling the updates of your distro, you would really need
> performance.
>

Oh, but I know for a fact that the compilation of my distro is done on
servers that also run my distro (sometimes the commercial version). I
think it is done on virtual machines. I don't know the details, but I
think a fresh environment is created each time a package is built, so
that it sees only the declared packages needed for building.

And doing things with virtual machines needs much more resources and
power than doing it directly.

If the process is deemed slow, we moan for more and better CPUS and more
memory.

--
Cheers, Carlos.