On 20/12/2017, Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:
> Le 19/12/2017 à 18:08, Michael Siegel a écrit :
>> The point I was trying to make there, was that the way the article
>> states those facts is misleading, not that they are actually untrue. It
>> just really provokes the question "So, why use Devuan at all?" in kind
>> of a strange way. And as a whole, it gives a wrong impression of what
>> Devuan is.
>

>      I agree on this point. When reading this article you get the
> impression that Debian offers you all freedom and Devuan just offers
> less (systemd). Therefore what's the point of installinf Devuan?

>

I suspect (paranoia?) that the whole point of writing the article was
precises to give this misleading message i.e. Devuan is an unnecessary
fork. As said, systemd does much more than an init which should only
bring up and shutdown a system. Even process supervision can be
delegated off an init to some other process (daemon) that specifically
handles supervision.

Bundling various functionalities associated with an OS with an init,
is a subtle way of 'encouraging' users to stick with that 'init'.
Having several functions in an init requires complex
inter-communication between the various blocks comprosing that init,
hence excusing complexity that makes extraction of particular
functions from that init virtually impossible.

I am repeating what many already know to highlight the ease with which
deception can be achieved with the excuse of bringing Linux to the
masses. I can only pity them as this is not about bringing Linux to
all, but about making Linux just another Windows or MacOS. Linux is
about choice and modularity where packages are like bricks in a
building. Systemd is changing this concept into something similar to a
building built out of precast concert structures that must be replaced
as a whole and in many cases is difficult to find a replacement
equivalent.