On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 7:17 AM Martin Steigerwald <martin@???>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I am not really making a complete sense of what you wrote, so I am asking
> some questions:
>
> o1bigtenor via Dng - 29.06.24, 12:41:52 CEST:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 1:37 AM Steve Litt <slitt@???>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Simon Walter said on Fri, 28 Jun 2024 22:47:00 +0200
> > >
> > > >On 2024-06-28 04:18, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
> > > >> LXD was enough - - - - the joys I experienced there - - - well - -
> > > >> -
> > > >> the old
> > > >> saying is once burnt and twice shy!
> > > >
> > > >Ah... So it's a fork of LXD. OK. I proceed with more caution then.
> > >
> > > Is there something wrong with LXD?
> > >
> > > Well - - - it was promoted as a feature but you were (software)
> > > updated
> >
> > whenever
> > the system chose to. So if there was a buggy update - - - you didn't
> > have a choice
> > you lived with it until it was rolled back. If you tried to circumvent
> > the constant
> > updating (newest is always best you know) then your system would crash
> > (at least mine did (actual system shutdown)).
>
> You were forced to update and could not roll back? How so?
>

Easy - - - your system would update itself (you know - - - just like M$
has been doing for both Win 10 and now Win 11). Timing of update
was up to someone else - - - you would have NOTHING to do with that
choice!

>
> I can certainly delay an update, in case for example apt-listbugs lists
> some serious bug with it.
>
> "your system would crash" is quite non descriptive of what actually
> happened. What was the concrete error?
>

Concrete error - - - - system would shut down.

>
> > Then trying to remove
> > snapd or snappy
> > or whatever its nomen is was impossible to remove. even using rm -r
> > didn't remove
> > things. I finally managed to remove it by reinstalling (you know the M$
> > way of resolving
> > issues).
>
> snapd is not LXD!? Did you run LXD on Ubuntu, maybe even as a snap?
>

Only way to load LXD was using snapd (this was on Debian - - - Ubuntu
was even more coupled AFAIK).

>
> As I searched for a way to install some apps that are not readily
> available in Debian/Devuan, I looked at AppImage, Flatpak an Snap. From
> all I have seen about Snap I decided to never even try it out. AppImage's
> usually work okay. I use mostly Flatpak's for some 3rd party software that
> is not readily available, cause unlike those completely self-contained
> AppImage's I can update them all at once with "flatpak update".
>
> But I really do not see the connection between LXD and Snap! Did you run
> LXD as / inside a Snap container? I don't even have a clue on why I would
> ever want to do that. I thought Snap was more thought for desktop apps
> like Flatpak's and AppImage's.
>

Well - - - if the only way that you can load LXD is using a 'snap' then I
think
that would be your connection - - yes?

>
> > Seemed to me that the idea was to force one into a close and intimate
> > relationship
> > with Canonical - - - canonical seemed to think that this would then
> > enhance its
> > share price which would then make some individuals a LOT of moolah. Note
> > - - -
> > this is my analysis(!!!!). Some of the devs seemed to listen but most
> > were like
> > to have been programmed in - - - my way or the highway.
>
> I am not really making much sense of this. It is quite across the board.
>

As a business person - - - one adge learnt a LONG time ago is 'follow
the money' - - - sorry you're not understanding the reasoning.

>
> I am rather a fan of accuracy when it comes to things like that. Sure, as
> written, I do not trust Canonical. But what I see here is just broad
> accusations without any evidence.
>

Sorry if you don't believe the evidence. (Not my problem - - - I lived
through it!)

>
> This is sadly a pattern also regarding Systemd critics. There is a lot to
> criticize about Systemd. And there might easily be an agenda behind it.
> But it is also not as evil versus good as some like to put it.
>
> > It would have been a great system without that particular group of
> > features but
> > I really don't have the time to dig into something that burned me badly
> > once - - -
> > there was a lot of time spent trying to get things to where I wanted
> > them. So
> > - - - now its a warning that the antecedents are/were 'not friendly'.
> >
> > HTH
>
> Not really. Your description lacks a lot of detail and accuracy on what
> exactly went wrong.
>

I'm sorry that my command of computerese is not up to your standards.


>
> Anyway, I have Incus without any Snapd on my Devuan based server. No one
> really forces me to update. And I may even be able to pick a version from
> snapshots.debian.org to go back in time. Not really sure about that, as I
> never tried it. There might be limits to that, but that is true for other
> software as well. Of course even with no forcing me to update, I'd prefer
> to have software that is up to date regarding security fixes.
>
> Heck, there is not even any DBUS service running on the server. The DBUS
> library is installed, cause LXC *depends* on it, for some reason. Note:
> LXC not Incus! But no DBUS daemon. No Snapd, no DBUS daemon, no Systemd,
> no nothing. libsystemd is installed though. I could put elogind onto the
> server, then it would be replaced by libelogind. However, then I'd also
> get DBUS service installed.
>

Well - - - when I was trying to use LXD it was listed as LXD running on LXC
that were installed using snapd.

>
> libsystemd gets installed due to login and libpam related package pre
> depending on it. That is a hindrance coming from Debian that Devuan
> developers donot work around (anymore). I believe there has been a post on
> why. It would be hard to avoid AFAIR and need to fork and recompile a lot
> more packages. In the end I believe the decision was that it is not worth
> the effort to go completely libsystemd free.
>
> I did not yet test out Void or Alpine Linux. Maybe they manage without
> libsystemd. Well a package search for Alpine Linux yields no result for
> "libsystemd" and Void does not have it either. That is the luxury of not
> depending on Debian, I guess.
>

Enjoy the use on Incus - - - - I won't take even the time to look at it!

Once burnt - - - - twice shy!!!!!
(Just don't need that level of headache EVER again!)

Regards

>