On 12 Oct 2023 at 17:48, Steve Litt wrote:

> ... you make me think more than any five other people.
Individually or at the same time?

[init software]

> Do we need just one window ...
*Not* the same thing.
Rather surprised you (seem to) think so.

You can do quite well in Linux without a WM or a desktop.
And it is quite fitting that you could choose your poison if you
needed one.

----
But a Linux init package is *not* in the same slot/category, it is
absolutely vital for a Linux box to run *anything* written for it.
----

The same way that a desktop has always been vital to any post-DOS MS
OS.
Because *any* "Windows" box needed it to run with *windows*.

Which is why MS (have to hand it to them) mastered their desktop
environment.
It was their key to the dominance of the desktop PC market.

Well not only that.
Convincing the general public that "computing" was as easy as turning
the PC on and clicking on an icon was fundamental.

All that while MS's infamous registry was invented (W95) to steadily
spread and silently take over the OS, controlling *everything* that
was going on inside the box without any possibility of knowing what,
when and why.

[ONE, however imperfect ... ]
> ... judging from the vast adoption of systemd ...

That is exactly what systemd-less Linux is up against.
The dominance of the Linux ecosystem by MS/IBM/RH via systemd.

> ... argue about which BSD should rule them all.
Ah ...
So you *do* understand.

> ... if I wanted a "take it or leave it" OS ...
That is *not* what I have said.
Seems I spoke too soon ...

[Republican loyalists ...]
> Bikeshedding!
Exactly.
One of the most interesting quotes I have ever come across is one
attributed to a Charles Kettering (1876-1958):

---
"If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working
on it"
---

It has been proven to death and is still highly relevant today.

Note that "Committee" must be one of the very few words (in English)
with three double letters. Sort of tells you something, no?.

> Depends on the definition of "great following" ...
Right ...
Now put a committee on getting a definition.

[... anti-bikeshedding principle ...]
Once you have seen it at work, you cannot unsee it.

You learn to avoid it like the plague because it is a tool in your
opponent's box.
And curiously enough, most times *you* end up using it against
yourself.

> ... at what point does planning become bikeshedding?
When you put your chances of survival in the hands of a committee.

Today, the chances of Linux systemd-free distributions surviving the
MS/IBM/RH onslaught are slim at best.

I will say it again: there is a lot of moolah behind the systemd
pustch.

As time goes by (and in IT time is *very* fast) more and more
programs will stop using init scripts and as a result, more and more
programs will not run on systemd-less distributions any more.

[ ... "needed variables ]
It may be a good idea.
I am not in a position to argue that point so I won't.

My point is that all efforts/manpower have to be directed at solving
the problem at hand ie: survival.

It is *not* being done and the price to pay will be the obsolescence
of any systemd-less distribution with the net result being the
absolute control of the Linux ecosystem by MS/IBM/RH.

To wit:

If you are on a fast sinking ship in the middle of a storm and all
you find on deck is a huge piece of styrofoam, you hold on to that to
try to stay afloat.

---> You *don't* go back below deck to see if you can find a suitable
life jacket. <---

Having clearly expressed my opinion on the matter, with this post I
will end my participation in this thread.

Thanks for your input.

.