On 2019-03-17 6:05 p.m., Jaromil wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019, golinux@??? wrote:
>
>> On 2019-03-14 03:48, Rick Moen wrote:
>>> Quoting KatolaZ (katolaz@???):
>>>
>>>> I just wonder whether your nice solution is enough for a wider
>>>> audience used to have things popping up around all the time. I guess
>>>> it's not, as much as setnet is not a solution to manage networks
>>>> palatable to a wider audience, as much as apt-get is not the tool used
>>>> by the large majority of users to install packages, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Tinkerers will always be fine. But a distro that aims to be universal
>>>> like Devuan must also cater for those who are not willing to tinker
>>>> around, IMHO.
>>> I'm quoting the above in order to express appreciation for it -- in
>>> context. Like Steve Litt, I favour the smallest possible entanglement
>>> with Freedesktop.org 'desktop' components and their characteristic
>>> tangled dependency trees and difficult-to-justify complications,
>>> -=but=- the key fact is that Devuan Project has committed to be a
>>> universal operating system, construed as including DE-style software
>>> integration.
>>>
>>> I would not have supported that commitment, personally, but nonetheless
>>> can summon the wisdom to avoid expecting this project to abandon its
>>> principles just because I don't share some of them. And I thank you for
>>> aptly restating those principles.
>>>
>>>
>> When I first started using Debian, there was discussion of what
>> "universal" meant. Vocal old timers insisted it referred to the
>> variety of architectures that Debian would run on not different user
>> preferences. I am not arguing here; just providing some context of
>> the definition that has stuck in my mind (which may or may not be
>> "correct").
> I prefer to avoid the term "universal", whose adoption hints on a
> limited and perhaps authoritarian attitude, at least referring to the
> meaning of the term in philosophy. Also it makes me wonder what people
> think of, when they go around making a "universal system" with a
> "apt-get install anarchy" t-shirt... really?!.
>
> IMHO Devuan should aim to be a *base system* (and Debian too!). Being
> a "base" entails being minimal ("need to work" principle) and reliable
> for other derivatives, not a moving target, not an opinionated
> advanced system. Along this line, we are good with providing simple
> formulas for desktop/embedded/vm system that provide bases for
> derivatives, as well an efficient (and soon well documented) SDK for
> making them.
>
I think the current Debian based, Devuan installer for most people is
not far from that.
It really is a matter of knowing where to bail out of the install
procedure to get what you want as a starting point.

Maybe I'm missing something and the existing base install is too much
for some, but it looks to me as if the jumping off points may just need
better definition or maybe documentation.

Clarke