Many people are going to have many questions! This detailed message you sent
may be a good thing to put in a wiki in a nice format for people to find, read,
get answers and understand Devuan. Clear, public, documented => better :-)


On 2014-11-29
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@???> wrote:

> Haines Brown wrote:
> > Instead of waiting for some messages to ascertain the culture of this
> > list, I'm so excited to hear of a fork that I boldly jump in with a
> > question.
> >
> > I would like to have a clarification of the difference between a
> > preseeded installation of Debian and a fork of Debian. I'd guess the
> > former simply manipulates a Debian installation, while the latter is a
> > different distribution that rather than preseed involves different
> > compatible default packages. Is the Devuan Project starting with a
> > built-in preseed and working toward a forked distribution by Spring
> > 2015?
> >
>
> This is loosely based on something I posted to the modular-debian list -
> the other place where folks are actively discussing a fork
> (https://www.freelists.org/post/modular-debian/Goals-and-Starting-points).
> That list is described as "discuss(ing) ways to maintain a more modular
> Debian ecosystem, and to avoid snowballing dependencies on a single init
> system" - but seems to have become focused more generally on ways
> forward for those unsatisfied with Debian's direction.
>
>
> 1. What are the GOALS of the Devuan fork?
>
> From the "Don't Panic and Fork Debian" post that announced Devuan:
>
> "Devuan aims to be a base distribution whose mission is to put the
> freedom of users: to be intended as developers, sysadmins and in
> general tech-savvy people, as the majority of Debian users are. Among
> the priorities are: enable diversity, interoperability and backward
> compatibility for the existing Debian downstream willing to preserve
> Init Freedom and avoid the opaque and homogenizing systemd avalanche."
>
> That's just a bit vague. Seems to me that we need a bit more
> specificity as to the focus and nature of the fork - such as:
> - Complete fork vs. a derivative
> - Desktop focused vs. Server focused (personally, servers are a lot more
> important)
>
> And, with the project defined as a "Debian fork," it would do us well
> to ask "what makes Debian, Debian" and what of those characteristics
> establish critical technical and project goals. My list, so far:
> "what is it about Debian that makes it 'Debian' and what do we want to
> keep?" At a minimum, it strikes me that Debian is defined by:
> - it's packaging system - dpkg & apt (to me, without apt, it isn't Debian)
> - it's installer
> - the compendium of upstream code that's been packaged and resides in
> the Debian repo
> - arguably, Debian policy (technical architecture, really) - on the
> modular-debian list, someone made a pretty compelling argument that
> Debian policy is what holds the distro together -- one might suggest
> that changes to Debian policy, regarding "diversity, interoperability
> and backward compatibility" (and I'd add, sticking to the "Unix way")
> would be a good jumping off point for Devuan
>
> 2. What's the STRATEGY for achieving those goals?
>
> Outside of a true fork, other options present themselves (with relaxed
> goals):
> - Wait-and-see: It could be that Jessie will be Debian's equivalent of
> Microsoft Vista - with sanity returning in Jessie+1. Meanwhile focus on
> LTS for Wheezy (think Windows XP), and maybe playing some
> techno-politics to influence future directions. Unfortunately, I have
> the sinking feeling that this ship has sailed - for Debian, maybe for
> much of Linux.
> - Other distros: Gentoo and Funtoo, obviously, and the resurgence of
> work on GNU Linux looks promising (GUIX's approach to build-to-order
> packaging is awfully compelling).
> - Other platforms entirely (I've been keeping my eye on SmartOS, and on
> work with exokernels and unikernals - Erlang-on-Xen is looking awfully
> nice for some of our upcoming development work)
>
> But for an explicit "Debian Fork" that question becomes: Where to
> start, what to build on, what has to be done new, by whom, and how?
>
> The "Don't Panic and Fork Debian" message lays out some of this:
>
> - "Devuan will derive its own installer and package repositories from
> Debian, modifying them where necessary, with the first goal of
> removing systemd, still inheriting the Debian development workflow and
> continuing it on a different path: free from bloat as a minimalist
> base distro should be. Users will be able to switch from Debian 7 to
> Devuan smoothly, as if they would dist-upgrade to Jessie."
>
> - Devuan will make an effort to rebuild an infrastructure similar to
> Debian, but will also take the opportunity to innovate some of its
> practices.
>
> Which does suggest that we might consider collaboration with other folks
> who are engaged in similar activities, notably:
>
> - the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD folks are actively trying to figure out who to
> keep going, now that the release team has dropped them from the Jessie
> release
> - the Dyson project (illumos with a Debian userland)
>
> Somehow, it seems like common infrastructure would save a lot of work.
>
> And then there's the question of organization:
>
> - Debian has clearly become way to baroque in its organization, decision
> making, and "techno-politics" -- that's how we got here
> - the "Don't Panic and Fork Debian" message includes: "Devuan developers
> look at this project as a fresh new start
> for a community of interested people and do not intend to enforce the
> vexation of hierarchy and bureaucracy that is often opposing
> innovation in Debian. We are well conscious this is possible mostly
> because of starting small again and we will do our best to not repeat
> the same mistakes."
>
> Which leads to the central questions of "who" and at least general
> principles of how work will be organized and decisions made (as has come
> up in the discussion of anonymity).
>
> Traditionally, a successful model has been that of an individual or
> small group driving the project, at least in its early years.
> "Benevolent dictatorship" has been somewhat more successful than
> management by committee. Examples that come to mind immediately
> include: the small Bell Labs team that brought us Unix, Bill Joy
> (Solaris), Linus Torvolds and the kernel (obviously), Ian Murdock and
> Debian (with initial support from the FSF, which brings Richard Stallman
> to mind), and Daniel Robbins (Enoch Linux, which begat Gentoo, which
> begat Funtoo).
>
> I'm not actually sure I can think of a good example of an o/s developed
> by committee (maybe IBM System/360).
>
> Which does bring me back to the core questions of:
> - who is actually driving Devuan, what are their (your) personal goals
> for the system, what design philosophies and track record are they (you)
> bringing to the table, and, based on that,
> - how are the efforts of others to be incorporated into the effort?
> (Note: With the right people, I'm fine with strong technical and project
> leadership, and benevolent dictatorship. With the wrong people at the
> helm, I run in the other direction.)
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>