Laurent Bercot wrote:
>As for printing servers, I don't know, but I'd be surprised
>if cupsd was the only possibility.
>
> And if it actually is the only possibility, then we have a bigger
> problem than just sd_notify: it means that monopolies exist in free
> software - real, existing monopolies, albeit more inconspicuous than
> systemd's obvious attempts at a monopoly - and it is taking away from
> users' freedom. And that is what needs to be fought first and foremost.

Unfortunately, it seems like this is becoming the case. Was looking
for less complex substitutes to cups that I could easily modify myself
if I needed to. Didn't find a lot in that area. When I search for
multimedia viewers that don't use ffmpeg, they're also difficult to
find. There are several areas where I've looked for alternatives to a
library or ways around using them and found few or no other options.

There's a list of printer/spooler options at:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Printing-HOWTO/spoolers.html
Main alternatives typically mentioned are from BSD (lpd and lprng).
Someone mentioned pdq as a simpler alternative to cups. I was even
going so far as to looking into doing a copy command to send
postscript files to a printer. That got me looking into ghostscript
and ghostpcl. That's another area where there seems to be a monopoly.
There are practically no alternatives to ghostscript (that perform
adequately when converting files to postscript) and I could not find a
decent alternative to ghostpcl to create PCL formatted information.
Ghostpcl is designed so that it uses its own versions of third party
libraries (which can be annoying) rather than system libraries. One
would need to create one's own build scripts or get an alternative to
work around this. I should mention, my search for alternatives was
limited to compiled languages such as C or C++ (for
speed/responsiveness reasons) and I did not choose to consider many of
the possibilities written in interpreted languages at the time.

> I firmly believe that in 20ish years, we have lost most of the awareness
> of what free software is and what it means. If we cannot actually dive
> into the code and take out what we don't want, then it's de facto not
> free software anymore, no matter the reason.

That is one of the goals I have. I want to be able to go into the
code on my system and be able to make changes when needed. Most
people I discuss the subject with who run Linux have no interest in
how the code underneath works and don't understand why someone might
find it important to do this. Where I work, they're terrified of
changing source code and don't want anyone but a qualified distributor
doing that. It's very difficult to find the building blocks to a
system that are well designed, easy to modify and can be maintained by
one individual if needed. I really think you've hit on something
important with your statement.

It would be great if Devuan became the Linux distribution that offered
its users alternatives to more commonly used, often bloated software.
It would certainly make a great base distribution for other
derivatives if it did. Most Linux distributions I've run across so
far try to limit ones choices and make you follow their philosophy and
way of doing things. Personally, the systems that work the best for
me are the ones that don't try to lock you into doing things a
specific way and let you do what you want.

Sincerely,
Laura
http://www.distasis.com/cpp