Quoting Steve Litt (slitt@???):

> Due to my needs, my situation, my beliefs, and my skillset, an OS from
> the Debian project doesn't work for me. I've said why about 15 times on
> two mailing lists. For *me*, what works is the Devuan fork. So for me,
> the situation merited a fork.

I'm glad Devuan works for you (although it would be more truthful for
you to disclose here that you don't _actually_ run it; you use Void
Linux and have an instance of Devuan in a VM that you normally do
not use).

You appear to still creating confusion by using the word 'merited' in
a way that has a logic problem. (The logic error in question is called
'affirming the consequent'.)

You like Devuan (as do I) and therefore appreciate that it exists (find it
'merited' in the sense that you like it existing). You claim that this
justifies the action of a distribution fork, because there would have
been no other way for the Devuan Project to exist. But that is assuming
the result you are purporting to arrive at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other
ways exist to be rich.

Other ways exist besides forking distribution X to perpetuate
distroX-variant communities. The mere fact that you like the result of
that fork doesn't mean other means of achieving that goal might not have
been equally effective and a lot easier. And Bill Gates might have
gotten rich through stock ownership rather than owning Federal gold
repositories.

You keep wanting to work out that I had 'attacked' the Devuan Project or
claimed it wasn't right for you. I have never done either -- though I'd
be a lot more impressed with your fervent devotion to the Devuan Project
if you were not, in fact, running Void Linux.



> > If you're worried about the... um... ongoing threat of the... um...
> > non-function of a library between cron runs, you could set chattr +i
> > in addition.
>
> If my interpretation of your preceding paragraph is right, the tone of
> your preceding paragraph indicates skepticism on your part that the
> Debian project will keep changing things such that to keep my box
> systemd free I keep having to change my packagemanager-foo.

No, that is not what that paragraph said.

That paragraph was merely boggling over the notion of libsystemd0 being
a threat or any competent Linux admin being unable to deal with it.

But have fun with the apocalyptic thinking.


> Your preceding paragraph, and the one it responds to, precisely make my
> point. In the absence of guarantees, each of us picks what he thinks
> most likely to succeed. Naturally, different people pick different
> things. That doesn't make anybody wrong.

But people _do_ find countless other ways to err. ;->

I'll bet you didn't notice that you didn't actually say anything.


> First, your packagemanager-foo is cool. I didn't think it possible.

Frankly, *I'm* not even very good at it. I just collect clues from
others -- and there's absolutely nothing I've mentioned any of these
places that isn't fully covered in the basic distro documentation.

> It's a real boon for people hating systemd but not willing to switch
> away from Debian, as well as people who agree with you that it will
> always be possible to extricate systemd from Debian with the proper
> package manager maneuvers.

That is not exactly what I said.

Occasional third-party (or local) packages may also be necessary --
perhaps from Devuan Project. _Or_ other problems might come down the
pike that I haven't anticipated, necessitating other measures. And, as
I said, I've switched distributions four times (to the best of my
recollection) since first trying Linux in 1993, and it's reasonable to
assume that I will again.


> Second, I don't pick a distro exclusively for technological reasons,
> and Devuan wasn't created exclusively for technological reasons. Read
> https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141127.212941.f55acc3a.en.html ,
> which to me is Devuan's Declaration of Independence. Read the paragraph
> starting with "The problem is obviously not just technical" and the
> paragraph after it.

Yes, I read that at the time. I think there are some key (and very
telling) judgement errors in there, notably confusing bureaucratic
mishap with conspiracy (e.g., 'take-over of Debian by the GNOME project
agenda'). Neither the Debian Project nor the GNOME Project is anywhere
near that organised, and the truth as usual involves a great deal more
hapless blundering and a great deal less sinister plotting.

> For me, with my use case, the situation merited a fork and nothing less.

Iron-clad proof that Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. ;->