Hi Jude.
> Hi John,
>
> I think the general consensus right now is that Devuan prioritizes the
> inclusion of Free Software that adheres to the Unix software design
> philosophy. Like Debian, Devuan strives to be a Universal Operating
> System by giving users as much freedom as possible in the choice of
> what software they run. However, when two or more competing programs
> cannot be run at the same time (such as init), Devuan dedicates its
> energies to supporting the one that most strongly adheres to the Unix
> software design philosophy (design goal 1 you had above). In other
> words, Devuan tries to include everything Debian does and more, and a
> program's "Unixy-ness" is only relevant when it comes to resolving
> conflicts between them.
>
> I took a stab at stating what "Unix software design philosophy" means
> earlier up the thread, but I'll reproduce it here for your convenience:
>
> """
> 0. A program is a file that contains executable data (e.g. a binary, a
> script, or a library).
> 1. Each program has a single well-defined responsibility.
> 2. If two programs have orthogonal responsibilities, then they are
> logically independent of one another's implementation (i.e. programs
> with orthogonal responsibilities are not coupled to each other's
> implementations).
> 3. Functionality encompassing multiple responsibilities is obtained by
> composing two or more programs (such as through piping, I/O
> redirection, dynamic linking, and so on).
> """
>
> I think it's clear that under the most charitable interpretation of
> the above principles, systemd does not meet criterion 2. The programs
> it replaces, however, meet all four principles. Therefore, Devuan
> prioritizes supporting sysvinit, cron, syslog, ifupdown, dhcpd, etc.
> over systemd.
>
> -Jude
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:10 PM, John Morris <jmorris@???
> <mailto:jmorris@beau.org>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 17:04 +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> > However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate
> systemd
> > and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the
> reasons to
> > reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of rules for
> > acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for users,
> > developpers, and distros to easily share. I see these rules as an
> > addendum to the definition of free software.
>
> Yea, this is a topic I have been pondering along with apparently many
> others. Easy to say what we don't want, but what do we want? I
> think I
> have an idea. Lemme start with an analogy that I think is similar to
> where we are now.
>
> Imagine a bunch of Boy Scout Troops in an area. Now imagine a large
> influx of new people into the area joining and contributing much
> volunteer labor, etc. Great! But these new people have some strange
> ideas. They want to organize baseball leagues into the
> activities. Ok,
> that isn't too strange, why not? Then they want to convert the normal
> summer camps into baseball camp. Oh, and you start noticing a lot of
> nike.com <http://nike.com> and spalding.com <http://spalding.com>,
> etc. addresses on these new guys. Next thing
> you know they have simply outvoted the guys who think Scouting is
> camping, pinewood derbies and merit badges and by dint of numbers now
> own all of the physical and cultural assets, leaving the folks who
> wanted traditional Scouting to go found a new organization and start
> raising money to buy new campgrounds, design new uniforms, etc.
>
> The Troops are the distros, the newcomers are the Pottering and Gnome
> armies, nike.com <http://nike.com> is of course redhat.com
> <http://redhat.com> and so on. That is sorta where
> I see us being, driven off of what we thought we had built as
> permanent
> institutions and forced to reinvent most of them again. But there are
> differences which is why I settled on this particular analogy; the
> differences point to what might be a better way to see the
> situation and
> the way forward.
>
> The situation described couldn't really happen because the BSA has a
> written statement of what it exists for and the National organization
> would eventually move in and set things aright. Debian didn't
> have one.
> It didn't really even have an unwritten one. Ask "What is Debian
> trying
> to build?" and get a different answer from every person asked.
> Building
> a Great Free Software OS is not an answer. systemd/linux is a
> perfectly
> valid direction if that is the mission. For that matter so is ReactOS
> but Debian was never about that, so why not?
>
> What has happened is that a decade ago, Linux was Linux, distributions
> had different package managers, included/excluded a few less used
> applications, upgraded to newer versions of things on their own
> schedule, etc. but they were all the same basic thing. Without
> havingspell it out, we
> to spell it out, we all knew we were building a POSIX/UNIX/GNU sort of
> thing. And then things, quietly at first, changed. Where once there
> was one, one has already arrived and two more are clearly visible
> on the
> horizon. Google had the decency to go off and build their own
> infrastructure for their projects, unlike the Windows refugees and
> other
> misfits who have swarmed and seized most of the existing Linux distros
> and other infrastructure to host their fork.
>
> 1. For want of a better term, GNU/Linux. The original POSIX/UNIX
> Operating System with Linux as the OS kernel, Glibc (usually) as the C
> Library, a mix of BSD and GNU userland, the GNU toolchain and X for
> workstations along with one of the many Desktop Environments.
>
> 2. Android/Linux. Not too important for today's topic but it
> probably
> set some minds to thinking of the possibilities of putting a totally
> alien userland atop a Linux kernel.
>
> 3. ChromeOS/Linux. For now basically a mutant Gentoo but the wise
> shouldn't put a lot of money on that remaining true. Today it is
> only a
> distro but a full fork is likely.
>
> 4. Systemd/Linux, PotteringOS/Linux, POS/Linux, GNOME/Linux, whatever
> it eventually adopts as a brand. It ain't just GNOME3 and it
> ain't just
> Systemd. Reading what just Pottering has in store makes that
> clear; yum
> and apt-get relegated to 'distro maintainer use only', the OS
> shrunk to
> an anonymous stripped down platform to launch apps running in
> containers, all user space software appified into ad infested, in app
> purchase enabled security nightmares vended from App Stores that will
> need the extensive sandboxing planned for them.
>
> Seen this way, what we want is clear. We want what we wanted from the
> beginning, option #1. Simple, easy to articulate and pretty easy to
> decide to include/exclude features based on the criteria. And when it
> gets time to organize beyond some folks in an IRC channel, some
> thought
> into codifying exactly what the project is and is not trying to
> accomplish would be a good idea.
>
> The worry is that if #4 is really where Debian is being driven toward,
> sharing much of anything with them is strictly a short term
> solution as
> they are going to quickly become unrecognizable.
>
> > These rules would obviously put systemd out of the
> free-software
> > category, let's call it anti-freedom, which is worse than
> non-free. This
> > does not mean there needs to be an anti-freedom repository,
> after all :-)
>
> No, not anti-freedom. Systemd is Free Software. What it ain't is
> UNIX.
> I hope their new OS makes its creators happy and they all live happily
> ever after in fact. Because if they don't they will more likely than
> not come once again for our successful time tested UNIX base and try
> again. And they will always outnumber us. Because remember, UNIX is
> User Friendly, it is just particular about who it's friends are.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@??? <mailto:Dng@lists.dyne.org>
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng