Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

On 9 April 2017 at 21:15, Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:25:57 +0100 Michael Fothergill
<michael.fothergill@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 April 2017 at 19:27, David Niklas <doark@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:30:11 -0700
> > Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices.
> > > So why at install time, is there no choice for the init system?
> > > You get what the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new
> > > one -- I've done it and it works -- but only after the install.
> > > It'd be a lot easier, if there were a choice to begin with just
> > > like whether you want a GUI and which one.
> > >
> > > Now, I know with LFS, you get to choose everything, etc. But is a
> > > choice of init at install time so outrageous that no one ever
> > > considered it or is it technically unfeasible or something else.
> > >
> > > Just curious.
> > >
> >
> > Because this reply is so late I'm CC'ing you off list.
> >
> > I sympathize, I run Gentoo Linux and us OpenRC. I plan on running
> > Devuan, a Debain derivative that supports lots of different init
> > systems. Why no one looks at their project and sees the people
> > involved when making a statistic up for the amount of dissatisfied
> > systemd users I don't know.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > David
> >
> >
> I have been reading through some of this stuff and I think that the
> debian users who are fans of the sysinit boot up scripts should
> switch to running Gentoo.
>
> I use Gentoo with the openrc option.

Gentoo is a rolling release. I prefer the "stable" philosophy of Debian
-- basically only bug and security fixes. I've been running Wheezy
now for 5 years, and it's, for all practical purposes, the "same" as
when I installed it. After such a time, a rolling release would be a
completely different animal versionwise.

I see what you mean. But I would say that once you get Gentoo set up you can choose from the stable install, a testing type install version and a more sid like version.

I use the stable option. Furthermore, after a bit of work you end up with a bang up to date kernel which updates and reuses the kernel config file when you do a sync update to the portage tree with a newer stable kernel from time to time as they are released.

In reality you do a sync update every three weeks and make sure you fix any broken packages if you encounter any. The community are good at helping you with that problem. That is the equivalent of the bug fixes and security updates in debian.

If you use the binary package option you can create a set of binaries you can use in other computers you have locally to maintain etc., assuming they are using the same architecture ie compile once on the master box and run everywhere on the other machines ie Gentoo on the master box and "DIY debian" (sort of) on the clone boxes.

At least I think that's how it works if I understand it correctly. I am not sure, but maybe you could get away with not updating the binaries in the clone boxes too often then that might create some extra stability and low maintenance if you put some thought into it.

Just a thought.

Regards

I've tried rolling releases before. They are usually cutting edge and
more problematical (Unless they've gotten a lot better). I want
something that works for years and doesn't break. That's one of the
reasons I chose Debian five years ago. Now, because of the systemd
thing, I'm looking at alternatives.

> Those who are OK with systemd should stick with Debian.

After much reading, I consider systemd more suited to large, busy
servers than a desktop box or notebook with just one user. It's
like being forced to use a huge tractor-trailer rig with lots of chrome
and lights and 24 gears when a simple mini-van will do. ;-)

B