Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91762 > unrolled thread

Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-19 01:32 +0000
    Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-09-19 12:32 -0400
      Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-19 22:10 +0000
        Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-20 02:53 +0000
          systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-20 09:01 +0100
            Re: systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-20 09:28 +0000
              Re: systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-20 20:00 +0000
                Re: systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-26 10:24 +0000
          Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-20 09:10 +0000
            Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-20 14:50 +0000
              Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-20 17:25 +0000
                Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-20 19:19 +0000
                  Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-21 01:49 +0000
                    Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-21 02:28 +0000
                  Choices and flexibility in Linux distributions (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:00 +0100
                  Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-26 10:10 +0000
              Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-20 20:48 +0200
            Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-21 00:28 +0000
              Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-21 01:21 +0000
              Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-20 23:50 -0400
          Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-20 14:04 +0200
            Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-20 23:46 +0100
            Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-21 12:19 +0100
      Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-20 02:45 +0000
        Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-09-21 17:15 -0400
          Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:06 +0100
    X11 "Missing charsets in String to FontSet conversion" (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-20 09:17 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#91762 — Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning

PostScript has always been the language of Unix and hence GNU/Linux.

However, I notice a problem with the venerable "gv:"

<https://www.gnu.org/software/gv/>

I get warnings each time I invoke gv:

Warning: Missing charsets in String to FontSet conversion
Warning: Unable to load any usable fontset

The problem, and solution, is described in the following web
page:

<https://superuser.com/questions/1531413/getting-warning-missing-charsets-in-string-to-fontset-conversion>

Fortunately, we still have some people who are versed in the
original brand of GNU/Linux that has not been bastardized by
the systemd/wayland/gnome folks (and I use that term kindly).

I have already updated my config and other files with that
recommendation and no longer receive the warning.

But this seemingly innocent episode reveals just how much
of legacy GNU/Linux is being threatened by the pseudo-progressive
morons of systemd/wayland/gnome.

Anyone who disagrees is myopic idiot.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#91784

Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes:

> I get warnings each time I invoke gv:
>
> Warning: Missing charsets in String to FontSet conversion
> Warning: Unable to load any usable fontset

You get font warnings when you run gv? Noob. No reason to set LC_ALL=C
like it's the year 2000 all over again, just get better fonts.

locale
LANG=en_US.utf8
LC_CTYPE="en_US.utf8"
LC_NUMERIC="en_US.utf8"
LC_TIME="en_US.utf8"
LC_COLLATE="en_US.utf8"
LC_MONETARY="en_US.utf8"
LC_MESSAGES="en_US.utf8"
LC_PAPER="en_US.utf8"
LC_NAME="en_US.utf8"
LC_ADDRESS="en_US.utf8"
LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.utf8"
LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.utf8"
LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.utf8"
LC_ALL=en_US.utf8

grep -v '!' .Xresources | grep -i font
*font:				-xos4-terminus-medium-r-normal--0-0-72-72-c-0-iso10646-1
*wideFont: 			-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal-ja-18-120-100-100-c-180-iso10646-1
emacs*font:			-xos4-terminus-medium-r-normal--12-120-72-72-c-60-iso10646-1
XTerm*faceName: RobotoMono Nerd Font

❰jayjwa❙~❱✔≻ gv 
❰jayjwa❙~❱✔≻ xfig
❰jayjwa❙~❱✔≻ 

> But this seemingly innocent episode reveals just how much
> of legacy GNU/Linux is being threatened by the pseudo-progressive
> morons of systemd/wayland/gnome.

Correct. Or "nu-linux" as I call it. 

-- 
PGP Key ID: 781C A3E2 C6ED 70A6 B356  7AF5 B510 542E D460 5CAE
       "The Internet should always be the Wild West!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91799

On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 12:32:41 -0400, jayjwa wrote:

>> I get warnings each time I invoke gv:
>>
>> Warning: Missing charsets in String to FontSet conversion
>> Warning: Unable to load any usable fontset
>
> You get font warnings when you run gv? Noob. No reason to set
> LC_ALL=C like it's the year 2000 all over again, just get better
> fonts.

PostScript was never really updated to properly handle Unicode.

>> But this seemingly innocent episode reveals just how much of legacy
>> GNU/Linux is being threatened by the pseudo-progressive morons of
>> systemd/wayland/gnome.
>
> Correct. Or "nu-linux" as I call it.

What’s the problem with systemd exactly?

Try to come up with something new and creative that hasn’t already
been debunked
<https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html>/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91806

On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> 
> What’s the problem with systemd exactly?
> 

The problem, exactly, is that systemd is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

It is, exactly, an answer in search of a question.

If you desire it, then fine, but don't force it as the default.

But you don't "desire" it.  You just accept your distro master's
claim that it is desirable.


>
> Try to come up with something new and creative that hasn’t already
> been debunked
> <https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html>/
>

The above cannot be debunked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91815 — systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning)

On 2026-09-20, Leroy H wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> 
>> What’s the problem with systemd exactly?
>> 
>
> The problem, exactly, is that systemd is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.
>
> It is, exactly, an answer in search of a question.
>
> If you desire it, then fine, but don't force it as the default.

This is Lawrence, as you've now made this about choice, he'll opt to
ignore the freedom of choice he often touts about free software, to
evangelize about systemd again. *sigh*.

> But you don't "desire" it.  You just accept your distro master's
> claim that it is desirable.
>
>
>>
>> Try to come up with something new and creative that hasn’t already
>> been debunked
>> <https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html>/
>>
>
> The above cannot be debunked.
>
>

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91823 — Re: systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning)

Le 20-09-2026, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> a écrit :
> On 2026-09-20, Leroy H wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> What’s the problem with systemd exactly?
>>> 
>>
>> The problem, exactly, is that systemd is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.
>>
>> It is, exactly, an answer in search of a question.
>>
>> If you desire it, then fine, but don't force it as the default.
>
> This is Lawrence, as you've now made this about choice, he'll opt to
> ignore the freedom of choice he often touts about free software, to
> evangelize about systemd again. *sigh*.

I disagree with Lawrence on a lot of subjects, but on this one, I agree.
SysV is broken and if it could be fixed, it would have been done by now.
Gnome requires systemd, but it's a Gnome issue, it's not systemd fault.
If you don't need Gnome, you can avoid easily systemd.

Systemd is not perfect, it has issue, but most of the issues which have
been brought by systemd are there because it make sense. And the
alternatives just avoid the issues by not taking care of what systemd
do.

Most of the criticisms I saw on systemd are done by people who have no
technical argument, only hate, like the moron who sent the message you
are answering. Some guys have good criticisms against systemd, but
LH/LP/DG/FF/whatever is not amongst them.

And seeing your answer, it looks like you don't have arguments against
systemd neither. If you don't want systemd, just choose a distro which
avoid it and don't imagine war on freedom of choice. The best fight
against systemd would be to create a better init system and every major
distro will switch to it. As long as there is no serious alternative to
systemd, it will remain the default choice for every major distro.

Or maybe you want to refuse major distro the freedom to do what they
want? Freedom for you and not for others?

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91866 — Re: systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning)

On 20 Sep 2026 09:28:47 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> 
> If you don't want systemd, just choose a distro which
> avoid it and don't imagine war on freedom of choice. The best fight
> against systemd would be to create a better init system 
>

Stephanie Carpenter shows his utter ignorance yet again.

Only a total technical moron believes that systemd is just
an "init system."

Systemd has always been intended as the one-and-only interface
between the kernel and user space.  Systemd is not yet finished
(thanks to the incompetence of Poettering and his cohorts) but
it is creeping toward this end.

What does this mean?

It means that systemd will ultimately disallow any alternative
distro.  With the finished systemd in place, only IBM/RedHat/
Freedesktop approved software will be possible.  All of legacy
GNU/Linux will be gone.

This goal of IBM/Redhat has been known since at least 2014 yet
most GNU/Linux users are so stupefied that they are imperceptible
to the threat.

Yes, Poettering and his cohorts are quite incompetent. Their
bus1 project, which attempted to inject systemd tentacles into
the kernel itself, was rejected a long time ago:

<https://github.com/bus1/bus1>

But with IBM/RedHat support this nefarious trend will continue.

All those who defend systemd are, unfortunately but undeniably,
stupefied and blinded idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92206 — Re: systemd and Wayland evangelization (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning)

Le 20-09-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit :
> On 20 Sep 2026 09:28:47 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> 
>> If you don't want systemd, just choose a distro which
>> avoid it and don't imagine war on freedom of choice. The best fight
>> against systemd would be to create a better init system 
>>
> Only a total technical moron believes that systemd is just
> an "init system."

I'm not saying that it's only an init system. People complaining about
systemd are complaining because it does things that go beyond what an
init system should do. So if you want to replace it, you should only
take care of the init system part. And do something good because
alternatives aren't. And that would prove that a pure init system is
possible. Good luck with that.

Because the fact is that it does thing beyond what an init system does
is the very reason why it's so popular. Because you can criticise what
you don't understand but you can't do anything. Because you will need to
understand the difference between doing something only for you and doing
something for millions people. They are huge difficulties here. So, yes,
keep complaining: it's useless, like you, and it's easy.

> It means that systemd will ultimately disallow any alternative
> distro.  With the finished systemd in place, only IBM/RedHat/
> Freedesktop approved software will be possible.  All of legacy
> GNU/Linux will be gone.

Nonsense. Repeating stupidities won't make them true.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91821

Le 20-09-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit :
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> 
>> What’s the problem with systemd exactly?
>
> The problem, exactly, is that systemd is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.
>
> It is, exactly, an answer in search of a question.

No. That's why every major distro did happily switch to systemd as soon
as they could. SysV is, like you, obsolete, and everyone who had to
maintain systems for others wanted to get rid of it. Canonical tried to
develop upstart to be able to remove SysV and failed that's why they
where happy to switch to systemd.

The need for something better than SysV was real and the only reason why
you can't see it is because you know nothing about computers as you
proved it many times. Your computer is useless and you can't see its
limitations.

> If you desire it, then fine, but don't force it as the default.

The fact that Gnome requires systemd to run is a Gnome issue, not a
systemd issue. If you don't use Gnome, you don't need systemd and you
don't have to falsely complain that anyone is trying to force systemd on
your computer.

> But you don't "desire" it.  You just accept your distro master's
> claim that it is desirable.

The information is available for free on Internet to let you know why
you are wrong. But it would require a too difficult challenge for you.
And your arguments would be better. But you don't want to have good
arguments, you want to lie because it's easier.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91845

On 20 Sep 2026 09:10:44 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>>
>> It is, exactly, an answer in search of a question.
> 
> No. That's why every major distro did happily switch to systemd as soon
> as they could.
>

The major distros did not "switch" to systemd as much as they totally
abandoned user choice.

As I have mentioned many times already, the major distros would
have been faced with a tremendous burden if they had decided to
maintain several different systems.  They simply could not handle
all that extra work and so they settled on systemd only.

Only Gentoo, and a few other distros, offers the user complete
freedom of choice and the Gentoo developers actually had to create
and maintain special software, i.e. eudev and elogind, in order to
make this freedom possible.  That's work!

The mainstream distro developers are a lazy and undedicated lot
and they strive only for convenience.  IBM/RedHat and Ubuntu are
for-profit corporations and only the revenue "bottom line" matters
to them.  They will not devote manpower to promote total user
freedom.

Systemd is NOT superior.  It is just an alternative among many
other alternatives.

But to support all these alternatives is a job that the mainstream
distros don't want to take.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91852

On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 14:50:31 +0000, Leroy H wrote:

> But to support all these alternatives is a job that the mainstream
> distros don't want to take.

Why would they when SysV and X11 distros are available for those that want 
them?

https://github.com/BryanLunduke/LCOS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91865

On 20 Sep 2026 17:25:40 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> 
>> But to support all these alternatives is a job that the mainstream
>> distros don't want to take.
> 
> Why would they when SysV and X11 distros are available for those that want 
> them?
> 

Because a true GNU/Linux distro includes EVERYTHING and allows the
user to pick and choose.  That's why.

Imagine walking into a store that proclaims itself to be a "produce"
store and finding only lettuce, tomatoes, and onions.

This is NOT a produce store.  This is a "lettuce, tomatoes, and onions"
store.  A true produce store stocks every type of produce.  Not every
customer may desire fresh figs, for example, but figs will be available
for those that want them. 

Consequently, no mainstream distro, such as Fedora, can claim to represent
GNU/Linux.  They are highly limited and should advertise themselves as
being highly limited.  They are by no means the definitive GNU/Linux.

This is FOSS software after all.  These mainstream bastards are getting
it all for free.  Otherwise it would cost them BILLIONS in development
dollars.  They thus have a responsibility to include everything and
allow the user to decide.

All this may sound absurdly idealistic but then so too does FOSS.

Anyone who partakes of FOSS had better share in this idealism or else
GTFO.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91872

On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:26 +0000, Leroy H wrote:

> Imagine walking into a store that proclaims itself to be a "produce"
> store and finding only lettuce, tomatoes, and onions.

Would you expect to find lotus root, gai choy, and taro? I used to go to 
an Asian market in Tucson that had produce I'd never seen before. No 
produce store can hop to cover all offerings. Be happy that there are 
distros that suit your preferences. 

Distros must be all inclusive sounds like a social justice warrior rant by 
Emperor Stallman, aka King Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91873

On 21 Sep 2026 01:49:07 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> 
> Would you expect to find lotus root, gai choy, and taro? 
>

You are stretching the analogy well past the intended bounds
and it is therefore invalid.


>
> Be happy that there are distros that suit your preferences. 
> 

When systemd is fulfilled such distros will no longer be possible.


>
> Distros must be all inclusive sounds like a social justice warrior rant by 
> Emperor Stallman,
>

Stallman is one of the great men of the 20th/21st centuries.
Watch what will happen when his vision dies.

There will never be another GNU/Linux (except maybe FreeBSD?).

It will be complacent idiots like you that will cause the
destruction.

It is not inherently difficult to provide an "all inclusive"
distro.  It requires only dedication and spirit, but these
FOSS qualities are absent in the mainstream distros.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91954 — Choices and flexibility in Linux distributions (was: Re: Let's Have Some GNU/Linux: GV Postscript Warning)

On 2026-09-20, Leroy H wrote:

> On 20 Sep 2026 17:25:40 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> 
>>> But to support all these alternatives is a job that the mainstream
>>> distros don't want to take.
>> 
>> Why would they when SysV and X11 distros are available for those that want 
>> them?
>> 
>
> Because a true GNU/Linux distro includes EVERYTHING and allows the
> user to pick and choose.  That's why.

Not really, this is where source-based distros sometimes thrive, because
you can't allow all choices with precompiled binaries.

Think things like not using GNU libc, or sometimes choosing between
alternative PDF rendering backends.

[...]
> Consequently, no mainstream distro, such as Fedora, can claim to represent
> GNU/Linux.  They are highly limited and should advertise themselves as
> being highly limited.  They are by no means the definitive GNU/Linux.

If you're calling it *GNU/*Linux, you're already limiting choices to a
GNU userland.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92203

Le 20-09-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit :
> On 20 Sep 2026 17:25:40 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>>> But to support all these alternatives is a job that the mainstream
>>> distros don't want to take.
>> 
>> Why would they when SysV and X11 distros are available for those that want 
>> them?
>
> Because a true GNU/Linux distro includes EVERYTHING and allows the
> user to pick and choose.  That's why.

That's not why. That's stupidity. They can't include everything. It's
just impossible. When they choose to include something, they are in
charge of maintaining its compatibility with the rest of the system. And
they don't have to include abandonware or immatures programs.

They let you install by yourself what they don't support and you are in
charge of maintaining its compatibility with the rest of the system.

> Imagine walking into a store that proclaims itself to be a "produce"
> store and finding only lettuce, tomatoes, and onions.

If the store is selling only what he produces, there's nothing wrong with
that. If the store is looking only for high quality food produced on a
short range around it, there's nothing wrong with that. No store can
sell everything that exist outside of your empty head. A store need to
choose what he decides to sell and that can imply a limited choice.

> This is NOT a produce store.  This is a "lettuce, tomatoes, and onions"
> store.  A true produce store stocks every type of produce.  Not every
> customer may desire fresh figs, for example, but figs will be available
> for those that want them. 

As you speak of fresh figs, they are available only during a short
period of time. Outside of that period, one can find figs, but nor fresh
or not locally produced. So the store must choose what he want to sell
and if he want to sell only fresh products, he wont sell figs every day.

> Consequently, no mainstream distro, such as Fedora, can claim to represent
> GNU/Linux.

They don't. So what's the matter? You are the matter. 

> They are highly limited and should advertise themselves as
> being highly limited.

You are illiterate, so you can't know how they advertise themselves.
They tell clearly what they do, that's enough. They are major distros
because most people are happy with what they find in using them. So,
they are right to act as they do. Because people choose them for that
very reason.

They don't stop you to use another distro. So as you don't use those
distro why should they listen to you? Why should they comply to your
request? Can't you start acting like a freedom defender instead of
acting like a little dictator?

> They are by no means the definitive GNU/Linux.

Nobody says that. This issue is just in your head. Because you are a
little dictator who wants others to act like you.

> This is FOSS software after all.

Which means freedom. So stop acting like a little dictator. Nobody stops
you to do what you want. So stop telling others what they should do.

> These mainstream bastards are getting it all for free.

You can't stop spreading shit. They are working hard to provide for free
something that millions of people can use. And millions of people are
happy with what they get. Only you, the little dictator, are unhappy with
what they do.

> Otherwise it would cost them BILLIONS in development dollars.

No. What you are asking them to do would cost them billions of dollars.
Because juste taking care that everything that exist is compatible with
everything is just impossible.

> They thus have a responsibility to include everything and
> allow the user to decide.

They let the user decide. If the user want to include something they
don't provide, he just can. They don't stop him. They even provide ways
to do it properly with the distro package managers.


> All this may sound absurdly idealistic but then so too does FOSS.

Stop speaking of freedom when you are acting like a little dictator.
Freedom doesn't mean freedom only for you. That means freedoms for the
distros too.

> Anyone who partakes of FOSS had better share in this idealism or else
> GTFO.

Certainly not. The opposite is true. People are mostly happy with what
they find. You want to change that. And if the distros comply, you
wouldn't neither stop complaining, nor benefit from it. So the major
distros are right to avoid listening to you. You don't fight for
freedom, you are fighting to impose your will. Because you are a useless
pathetic little child unable to do anything. So you expect others to do
your job for you for free, but it's not what freedom is. It's slavery.
You are requesting slavery in the name of freedom and it's shit.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91859

On 2026-09-20 16:50, Leroy H wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2026 09:10:44 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> It is, exactly, an answer in search of a question.
>>
>> No. That's why every major distro did happily switch to systemd as soon
>> as they could.
>>
> 
> The major distros did not "switch" to systemd as much as they totally
> abandoned user choice.
> 

Were distros providing alternatives to system V before they switched to 
systemd?

...

But to support all these alternatives is a job that the mainstream
distros don't want to take.

...

> But to support all these alternatives is a job that the mainstream
> distros don't want to take.

It just takes volunteers to do it. If nobody volunteers to do it, it is 
not done. You want it done? You do it yourself, for the community.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91869

On 20 Sep 2026 09:10:44 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> SysV is, like you, obsolete, and everyone who had to maintain
> systems for others wanted to get rid of it.

I posted an example in this group just a couple of months ago, where I
replaced a sysvinit script of nearly 200 lines with a systemd service
file of less than a dozen lines.

    “Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be
    possible.”
      -- Alan Kay

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91871

On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:28:48 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> 
> I posted an example in this group just a couple of months ago, where I
> replaced a sysvinit script of nearly 200 lines with a systemd service
> file of less than a dozen lines.
> 

Big effing deal.

Any technically competent person can boot Linux using essentially
ZERO lines of code.

Furthermore, you conveniently forgot to include the million lines
of code that implements your supposedly lean service file.

So add that to your dozen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91875

On 9/20/26 20:28, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2026 09:10:44 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
>> SysV is, like you, obsolete, and everyone who had to maintain
>> systems for others wanted to get rid of it.
> 
> I posted an example in this group just a couple of months ago, where I
> replaced a sysvinit script of nearly 200 lines with a systemd service
> file of less than a dozen lines.

  Having used both, I tend to agree with you.
  Unlike the cryptic Winders registry, systemd
  does NOT seem evil or especially defect-ridden.
  Makes a lot of things MUCH easier.

  Could somebody PUT evil in there ? Sure. But
  this is why distro-makers/proofreaders check
  things out before release. DO remember one
  evil distro - Mint - before systemd ... somebody
  got into the servers used for downloading the distro.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web