On 12/30/23 00:44, altoid via Dng wrote:
> Hello:
>
> On 29 Dec 2023 at 11:14, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>> altoid via Dng said on Fri, 29 Dec 2023 07:24:02 -0300
>
>>> ... behind making systemd the "de-facto" init ...
>> Litt's Razor ...
>
> I learned the 'follow the money' approach at a young age and at great
> expense, eventually understanding that it is nothing but an important
> part of basic human nature.
>
>> ... started this whole thing dissing Linux ...
> I have come to believe that LP was tapped by MS and on board with
> them from very early on, years before systemd was announced.

I see it that way too. LP is not that different from deIcaza and the
other moles in that regard.

> Remember that MS has always played the 'long game'.
> Examples abound.
[snip]

One example reaching back to the 1990s would be that some of this is
about IBM picking up (or being tricked into sponsoring) the
decommoditization attack first outlined by M$ in the Halloween Documents¹.

[snip]> Every/anyone who can say *something* jockeys for their favourite
init
> software option without understanding that what Devuan needs *now* is
> not a *choice* but to survive the lack of sysvinit support.

+1

However at this new scale at least some minor coordination is needed.
There are many who can contribute with sysvinit scripts, if pointed or
nudged the right direction about which specific packages need scripts.

Sysvinit scripts are not hard to modify or even make. Although
identifying which packages need them and getting onboard with that
aspect of the development process may work best with guidance. Even I
have modified and even made such scripts. However, speaking only for
myself, I find the package work flow confusing.

/Lars

¹ gemini://gemini.techrights.org/archive/Halloween_Documents/Halloween_I.gmi