On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:16:38 -0300
altoid via Dng <dng@???> wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2023 at 16:00, tito via Dng wrote:
>
> > it just needs the init system that pleases you?
> I don't care which, I really don't have a preference.
>
> Just as long as it is *not* systemd or a *systemd_like* init and
> adheres to the basic Linux principles/philosophy.
>
> > We are already there it is very imperfect and it is everywhere.
> Not everywhere, at least not yet.
>
> My Devuan box uses sysvinit, the default in a most (?) non-systemd
> distributions.
>
> > ... you are right we do not need to discuss it is already all decided ...
> > ... should still be some minimal details to decide you are here.
> You have obviously missed the point I am trying to make.

No, I fully understand the point you try to make, but there are
other points here that are quite interesting:
a) if we will not be able to cut  the umbilical cord  that ties us to systemd
     they will be able to grind us down by attrition in medium term
     by changing every release that little bit that put exponential extra work
     on the shoulders of init-freedom developers or "give me  just another init"
     developers.
 b) how can the cut be achieved: 
      1) using systemd service files: no, we are in the same trap as before.
      2) collecting init scripts: maybe, but it restricts the range of developers
           because some distros don't use sysvinit but a different init.
      3) creating a collection of service files that could be sourced by every
            init system out there (even systemd)  can give you the critical mass
            of developers you would need  to port the over 1000 (if I recall correctly)
            init scripts to orphan-init-scripts and init freedom choice would be
            broadened  to other init systems.

Is this an optimal solution? No it is not, because in this struggle there is none.

Ciao,
Tito
> > Time will tell ...
> Quite so.
>