On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:

>
> Le 22/03/2015 16:59, Steve Litt a écrit :
>
>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:53:02 +0000
>> Nuno Magalhães<nunomagalhaes@???> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:24 AM, T.J. Duchene<t.j.duchene@???>
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>> > >What I said was at some point Devuan will probably have to support
>>>> > >systemd's API, in order to support upstream projects that actually
>>>> > >require systemd.
>>>>
>>> >
>>> >Why?
>>> >
>>> >Biggest example: GNOME (now) requires systemd. I don't want systemd,
>>> >so, i won't use GNOME. If i want either, i'll use Debian, not Devuan.
>>>
>> I agree 100% with Nuno.
>>

>>      I agree also.

Me too.


> I'm still not against leaving some room to Gnome/KDE to come in if they
> find a way to run with stubs, or totally without systemd (which I doubt),
> but I absolutely don't care if Devuan has none of them.
>

Same here.

I recently ran across a Funtoo forum page which said they have a
systemd-free version of GNOME:
http://forums.funtoo.org/topic/111-gnome-312-is-here/

But, that was posted way back in July 2014.

>     99% people use Windows or Mac. Out of the 1% using Linux or BSD, 80%
> try painfully to get shomething working out of Gnome, because it's
> installed by default and they don't know of usable DEs they could install.

>

>     I think a Linux desktop with Xfce4 as default is going to be more
> attractive than Debian to any user, even if they didn't hear of systemd.
> Think of it: a desktop that's usable, out of the box! The Desktop is going
> to make the difference, because, of course, Debian Gnome/Linux will force
> people into Gnome's hell (no typo).

>

>     Didier

>

I agree. (Despite not having very much experience with XFCE or GNOME, I've
already seen enough to like XFCE more than GNOME.)

Regarding desktops - perhaps Puppy Linux might be a good place to look for
some inspiration? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_Linux

So small, light, fast, and relatively easy to use, even for total Linux
newbies.


I have to admit, some of the default out-of-the-box settings of most any
Puppy Linux I've tried annoy the heck out of me, like having to
single-click instead of double-click to open things.

But the software preinstalled in them is often quite nice and well-chosen,
and many quickly became favorites of mine. (Geany, NoteCase, mtPaint,
Viewnior, etc...)

And most Puppy Linuxes I've tried make it very easy to get on the internet,
something I recall usually being difficult to do back in 2011 when I was a
Windows XP user trying various Linux live discs.

Customizing things exactly to my tastes did take a while, but after I went
to the trouble, my customized Lucid Puppy 5.2, Lucid Puppy 5.2.8 version
004, and Lighthouse 64 Puppy 6.02 Beta 2 became the nicest, most
comfortable operating systems I've ever used.

And they (and other Puppies) already were the fastest operating systems I
ever used, without me having to customize them at all. If I recall
correctly, not even any of the other Linux live discs I tried years ago
compared well to Puppy's speed.


I've been using various forms of Puppy Linux since Feb. 2011. Before that,
I was a Windows XP user. (Actually, I still use Windows XP a lot, but now
usually inside a VirtualBox in Puppy Linux, rather than non-virtual Windows
XP.)

I've been very happy using either IceWM or Openbox (my new favorite) as my
window manager, and Puppy's usual default file manager Rox-Filer. (And
sometimes either xfe or TuxCommander in cases where I needed a multi-pane
file manager.)

I actually have hardly any experience with GNOME, KDE, or similar desktop
environments, and, so far, I have also never used any Linux other than
Puppy long-term.

Though I have been itching to try some other Linuxes, because I think it
would at least be educational for me to get more familiar with a more
typical distro.

I've also increasingly been considering trying to build my own Linux from
scratch, probably using this website as a guide:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/


Another good thing about Puppy Linux is that it's one of the major holdouts
against adopting systemd, according to this blog post by Barry Kauler, the
creator of Puppy Linux:

http://bkhome.org/news/?viewDetailed=00114


One of my favorite things about Puppy Linux is the fact that the entire
operating system can be loaded into RAM, which helps make things very fast.

Another of my favorite things is that I don't have to even have the OS
installed on my hard disk, and thus I don't have to worry that I might
accidentally break my entire system and have to reinstall everything from
scratch just because of installing (or doing) the wrong thing.

(That also made it easier for me to switch to Linux, back when I was
primarily a Windows XP user. Not having to actually install anything on my
computer, and being able to boot and run a complete, fast Puppy Linux
system - rather than just a sluggish preview - via a live CD or DVD, made
me feel more comfortable trying Linux, since I didn't have to put my
existing Windows sytem at risk by messing with partitions or installations
to get started playing with Puppy Linux.)


The way I do things - if I accidentally break my Linux system, all I have
to do to get back to normal with a nice, fresh default system is reboot.
My computer quickly boots my frugal installation of Puppy (with no Pupsave
file) from a Flash drive, and loads everything into RAM.

Then, after it's finished booting, I run my Puppy Linux Setup Kit to
restore all my custom settings and preferred software.

http://astroblahhh.com/puppy-linux/software/apollias-puppy-linux-setup-kit/


Anyway, I'm just an amateur programmer, and the way I do things is
unconventional even amongst Puppy Linux users - but maybe it will catch on
someday. (I didn't even announce my setup kit scripts to the official
Puppy Linux Discussion Forum yet, but I probably ought to.)

I assume (but don't know) that possibly most Puppy users have a frugal
installation on a hard disk or Flash drive, plus a Pupsave file to store
their custom settings.

I, meanwhile, don't use Pupsave files at all, since I've read Pupsave files
can get corrupted, and I assume using a Pupsave file would make it more
difficult for me to switch to another Puppy.


Many Puppy users use a live CD or live DVD of Puppy, which they can store
their settings on by saving additional sessions to the disc.

I used to do that, but I noticed the more sessions I saved, the longer my
system would take to boot. Also, booting from a Flash drive is much faster.


Another type of Puppy installation is a "full installation". If I'm not
mistaken, the difference between a Puppy full installation and a Puppy
frugal installation (with a Pupsave file) is, I think a full installation
isn't loaded into RAM, and changed files get saved to disk immediately,
rather than being saved to a Pupsave file after a delay and either
automatically and periodically, or upon the user's request.

(With a frugal installation without a Pupsave file, nothing gets saved, and
you just get asked at shutdown whether you want to create a Pupsave file,
and you're able to refuse to create one.)

I believe a frugal installation + a Pupsave file is probably the most
frequently recommended way of doing things - but a full installation might
in some circumstances be better, such as on a system with too little RAM to
comfortably load the entire operating system into RAM.


Anyway, I haven't yet heard of anyone else using a similar approach to the
way I run Linux - always booting my system from scratch with a default
Puppy Linux frugal installation with no Pupsave file, and then running my
Puppy Linux Setup Kit to install all of my customizations and preferred
software, and never saving anything to a Pupsave file, nor saving anything
to a multisession live CD or DVD of Puppy.

However, I've found this unusual way of doing things so beneficial, and
Puppy itself seems so clever and innovative in so many ways, I just thought
I'd point all this stuff out, in case these might be interesting
ideas/options for Devuan to explore.

Best wishes,
Apollia