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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #178346 > unrolled thread

Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 19:20 +0100
    Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-03-02 22:10 +0100
      Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 18:30 +0100
    Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-03-03 13:50 +0100
      Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 19:10 +0100
        Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-03-03 20:40 +0100
        Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 11:40 +0100
      Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 19:20 +0100
        Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-03-03 20:40 +0100
          Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Aquarius <aquarius@tutanota.de> - 2017-03-03 22:50 +0100
            Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? AntiX GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-03-04 13:00 +0100
              Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? AntiX Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 17:00 +0100
              Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? AntiX songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2017-03-04 21:00 +0100
            Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 16:40 +0100
              Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 22:40 +0100
                Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 05:10 +0100

#178346 — Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd?

I've been considering Stretch as a clean install or dist-upgrade of my
aging Wheezy desktop setup as well as to install on a new notebook I've
yet to decide on.  I don't like systemd (why is unimportant to this
query). I plan to use some other init system, probably runit.  So ...

Just how dependent has Stretch's system become on systemd?  I don't
mean applications or GNOME, etc. with systemd dependency that I can
choose not to install, but the system itself, the guts, the basics, the
things and tools it needs to work properly.

Any info or links you can pass along will be appreciated. Yes.  I
know about the several Debian-base distros that use sysvinit
instead. They are being considered, too. Thanks.

B

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#178353

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:01:17AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> I've been considering Stretch as a clean install or dist-upgrade of my
> aging Wheezy desktop setup as well as to install on a new notebook I've
> yet to decide on.  I don't like systemd (why is unimportant to this
> query). I plan to use some other init system, probably runit.  So ...
> 
> Just how dependent has Stretch's system become on systemd?  I don't
> mean applications or GNOME, etc. with systemd dependency that I can
> choose not to install, but the system itself, the guts, the basics, the
> things and tools it needs to work properly.

I think it's pretty unproblematic. Just the other day there was a
call for testers (by Ian Jackson, no less) for a new SysV init
version targeted at testing (stretch).

I think things didn't change dramatically since Jessie:

  http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/How_to_stay_with_sysvinit_in_Debian_Jessie.html
  http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_remove_systemd_from_a_Debian_jessie/sid_installation
  http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Debian_Stretch

(and many more). Ignore the "remove" bit if you're installing from
scratch: you can do the apt-pinning thing even before systemd gets
installed (at least I remember that from my last install).

(And btw: it might be a good chance to give Ian feedback on how it
went, hint, hint :)

Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAli4hMkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYQ/wCfU+LUekvrCvMoM3yOt5Dy8AQY
f8UAn1FZV7DT4VnX7ayECLUaG5S/FghJ
=9t0A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#178370

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:47:05 +0100 <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:01:17AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > I've been considering Stretch as a clean install or dist-upgrade of
> > my aging Wheezy desktop setup as well as to install on a new
> > notebook I've yet to decide on.  I don't like systemd (why is
> > unimportant to this query). I plan to use some other init system,
> > probably runit.  So ...
> > 
> > Just how dependent has Stretch's system become on systemd?  I don't
> > mean applications or GNOME, etc. with systemd dependency that I can
> > choose not to install, but the system itself, the guts, the basics,
> > the things and tools it needs to work properly.
> 
> I think it's pretty unproblematic. Just the other day there was a
> call for testers (by Ian Jackson, no less) for a new SysV init
> version targeted at testing (stretch).

Read about that.  Wonder how "modern" the new SysV will be.  Or will
it be just more chrome and colored lights on the old Model T?.

> I think things didn't change dramatically since Jessie:
> 
>   http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/How_to_stay_with_sysvinit_in_Debian_Jessie.html
>   http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_remove_systemd_from_a_Debian_jessie/sid_installation
>   http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Debian_Stretch

Thanks.  Read those (or similar) shortly after Jessie debuted.  Did a
trial install (terminal only) of Jessie in VirtualBox and converted it
to sysvinit with no glitches.  Even added runit for supervision, but
not runit-init,  But never upgraded. My very custom install of Wheezy
was working fine at the time, and I saw no need.

> (and many more). Ignore the "remove" bit if you're installing from
> scratch: you can do the apt-pinning thing even before systemd gets
> installed (at least I remember that from my last install).

Preventing systemd from installing at all would be ideal.  And from
what I've read as far as systemdinit, this is possible, but it seems
there's always going to be a systemd library or two hanging around
due to SYSTEM dependencies. I've even heard X has such a dependency.
Insidious.

> (And btw: it might be a good chance to give Ian feedback on how it
> went, hint, hint :)

Good suggestion.  I hadn't considered it..

Thanks for your input.

B

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

#178363

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2017-03-02 at 13:01, Patrick Bartek wrote:

> I've been considering Stretch as a clean install or dist-upgrade of
> my aging Wheezy desktop setup as well as to install on a new notebook
> I've yet to decide on.  I don't like systemd (why is unimportant to
> this query). I plan to use some other init system, probably runit.
> So ...
> 
> Just how dependent has Stretch's system become on systemd?  I don't 
> mean applications or GNOME, etc. with systemd dependency that I can 
> choose not to install, but the system itself, the guts, the basics,
> the things and tools it needs to work properly.

There are two packages which are in some sense "part of" systemd which
you will not be able to avoid: libsystemd0 and udev.

libsystemd0 is the "detect at runtime whether systemd is present"
library; it's what makes it possible for programs to use systemd when
it's there, but still work when it isn't. It might _technically_ be
possible to avoid this, but one of the packages which depends on this is
xserver-xorg-core, so for most systemd that will not be a practical
option.

udev wasn't originally a systemd thing, but is now maintained by the
systemd people, and apparently shipped from the same source package (or
at least I can't see any other reason why changes to udev would appear
in apt-listchanges under the name of "systemd").

Those are the only systemd-related packages on my current primary
machine (unless you count systemd-shim, which exists specifically to
make avoiding systemd itself possible), and I've been running it with no
apparent related issues for pretty much the entire time since the
systemd transition.


I do have to keep an eye on 'apt-get dist-upgrade' and on normal package
installs to make sure that nothing pulls in libpam-systemd and then
systemd automatically - but it's been quite a while since anything tried
to do that, and even that would only get systemd as a "normal" daemon
rather than as the init system.

systemd as the init system is provided by the systemd-sysv package. I
have that package pinned to never install in /etc/preferences:

Package: systemd-sysv
Pin: version *
Pin-Priority: -1

but this doesn't seem to be entirely effective in some cases, for
reasons I've given up on trying to track down; still, it may be making a
difference.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#178372

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 07:25:13 -0500 The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 2017-03-02 at 13:01, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> 
> > I've been considering Stretch as a clean install or dist-upgrade of
> > my aging Wheezy desktop setup as well as to install on a new
> > notebook I've yet to decide on.  I don't like systemd (why is
> > unimportant to this query). I plan to use some other init system,
> > probably runit. So ...
> > 
> > Just how dependent has Stretch's system become on systemd?  I don't 
> > mean applications or GNOME, etc. with systemd dependency that I can 
> > choose not to install, but the system itself, the guts, the basics,
> > the things and tools it needs to work properly.
> 
> There are two packages which are in some sense "part of" systemd which
> you will not be able to avoid: libsystemd0 and udev.

udev I knew about.  (Also, udisks2.)  But there are udev alternatives
that don't have any systemd dependency.  One is eudev from the
Gentoo people, IIRC. It's suppose to be platform independent..

> libsystemd0 is the "detect at runtime whether systemd is present"
> library; it's what makes it possible for programs to use systemd when
> it's there, but still work when it isn't. It might _technically_ be
> possible to avoid this, but one of the packages which depends on this
> is xserver-xorg-core, so for most systemd that will not be a practical
> option.

Had heard about that dependency.  I'm sure there are others
that have yet to be discovered.  That's one of the reasons I dislike
systemd.

> udev wasn't originally a systemd thing, but is now maintained by the
> systemd people, and apparently shipped from the same source package
> (or at least I can't see any other reason why changes to udev would
> appear in apt-listchanges under the name of "systemd").
> 
> Those are the only systemd-related packages on my current primary
> machine (unless you count systemd-shim, which exists specifically to
> make avoiding systemd itself possible), and I've been running it with
> no apparent related issues for pretty much the entire time since the
> systemd transition.

Know about systemd-shim from my tests with Jessie..  Read some time
ago, it was to be dropped from Stretch.

> 
> I do have to keep an eye on 'apt-get dist-upgrade' and on normal
> package installs to make sure that nothing pulls in libpam-systemd
> and then systemd automatically - but it's been quite a while since
> anything tried to do that, and even that would only get systemd as a
> "normal" daemon rather than as the init system.
> 
> systemd as the init system is provided by the systemd-sysv package. I
> have that package pinned to never install in /etc/preferences:
> 
> Package: systemd-sysv
> Pin: version *
> Pin-Priority: -1
> 
> but this doesn't seem to be entirely effective in some cases, for
> reasons I've given up on trying to track down; still, it may be
> making a difference.

All that's why I consider systemd so insidious.  It forces you to use it
whether you want to or not.  Something Microsoft has been doing to
their users for decades. ;-)

Thanks for all the great info.

B

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

#178375

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2017-03-03 at 12:42, Patrick Bartek wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 07:25:13 -0500 The Wanderer
> <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-03-02 at 13:01, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been considering Stretch as a clean install or dist-upgrade
>>> of my aging Wheezy desktop setup as well as to install on a new 
>>> notebook I've yet to decide on.  I don't like systemd (why is 
>>> unimportant to this query). I plan to use some other init
>>> system, probably runit. So ...
>>> 
>>> Just how dependent has Stretch's system become on systemd?  I
>>> don't mean applications or GNOME, etc. with systemd dependency
>>> that I can choose not to install, but the system itself, the
>>> guts, the basics, the things and tools it needs to work
>>> properly.
>> 
>> There are two packages which are in some sense "part of" systemd
>> which you will not be able to avoid: libsystemd0 and udev.
> 
> udev I knew about.  (Also, udisks2.)  But there are udev
> alternatives that don't have any systemd dependency.  One is eudev
> from the Gentoo people, IIRC. It's suppose to be platform
> independent..

Yeah, but last I checked, those weren't available in Debian. (Although
"last I checked" was months ago at minimum, so it's possible I could
have missed an ITP message for such a package.)

>> libsystemd0 is the "detect at runtime whether systemd is present" 
>> library; it's what makes it possible for programs to use systemd
>> when it's there, but still work when it isn't. It might
>> _technically_ be possible to avoid this, but one of the packages
>> which depends on this is xserver-xorg-core, so for most systemd
>> that will not be a practical option.
> 
> Had heard about that dependency.  I'm sure there are others that have
> yet to be discovered.  That's one of the reasons I dislike systemd.

Frankly, I have basically zero problems with this. There are definitely
advantages to building against systemd for those who _do_ have it, and
the alternatives to a dependency library like this would be "one set of
X packages built against systemd, one not" or "X packages built only
against systemd; if you want ones that aren't, compile it yourself".
Multiplied by all the _other_ packages that depend on libsystemd0.

I think a wrapper/stub library like this is probably the best solution.

>> udev wasn't originally a systemd thing, but is now maintained by
>> the systemd people, and apparently shipped from the same source
>> package (or at least I can't see any other reason why changes to
>> udev would appear in apt-listchanges under the name of "systemd").
>> 
>> Those are the only systemd-related packages on my current primary 
>> machine (unless you count systemd-shim, which exists specifically
>> to make avoiding systemd itself possible), and I've been running it
>> with no apparent related issues for pretty much the entire time
>> since the systemd transition.
> 
> Know about systemd-shim from my tests with Jessie..  Read some time 
> ago, it was to be dropped from Stretch.

It's orphaned and unmaintained (even upstream, AFAIK), but it's still
present in stretch as of this morning; I don't recall hearing word that
it was going to be dropped entirely.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#178485

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:10AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> All that's why I consider systemd so insidious.  It forces you to use it
> whether you want to or not.  Something Microsoft has been doing to
> their users for decades. ;-)
 
You started this thread with

>  I don't like systemd (why is unimportant to this query)

It would be better if we stuck to that.
 

-- 
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#178373

	Hi.

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 07:25:13 -0500
The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> systemd as the init system is provided by the systemd-sysv package. I
> have that package pinned to never install in /etc/preferences:
> 
> Package: systemd-sysv
> Pin: version *
> Pin-Priority: -1
> 
> but this doesn't seem to be entirely effective in some cases, for
> reasons I've given up on trying to track down; still, it may be making a
> difference.

You may want to try somewhat different approach then:

Package: systemd-sysv
Pin: release a=stable
Pin-Priority: -1

Reco

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

#178376

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2017-03-03 at 13:00, Reco wrote:

> 	Hi.
> 
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 07:25:13 -0500
> The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> systemd as the init system is provided by the systemd-sysv package. I
>> have that package pinned to never install in /etc/preferences:
>> 
>> Package: systemd-sysv
>> Pin: version *
>> Pin-Priority: -1
>> 
>> but this doesn't seem to be entirely effective in some cases, for
>> reasons I've given up on trying to track down; still, it may be making a
>> difference.

I want to correct the record on this. When I wrote the above, I was
conflating multiple cases. What I have seen be ineffective is previous
pins, no longer present, against libpam-systemd and related packages; I
don't recall ever seeing anything try to install systemd-sysv in
violation of this pin.

(There are enough legitimate complaints against the systemd ecosystem;
there's no need to hurt the case against such things by throwing in
baseless complaints on top of them.)

> You may want to try somewhat different approach then:
> 
> Package: systemd-sysv
> Pin: release a=stable
> Pin-Priority: -1

I've noted this for later reference; if I ever see the
trying-to-install-packages-pinned-at--1 behavior again, I'll try that
variant.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#178383

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Maybe Devuan would meet your requirements of using the init system you would like to use. It is not on Stretch yet but on Jessie.

--
Securely sent with Tutanota. Claim your encrypted mailbox today!
https://tutanota.com

3. Mar 2017 20:21 by wanderer@fastmail.fm:


> On 2017-03-03 at 13:00, Reco wrote:
>
>> 	Hi.
>>
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 07:25:13 -0500
>> The Wanderer <>> wanderer@fastmail.fm>> > wrote:
>>
>>> systemd as the init system is provided by the systemd-sysv package. I
>>> have that package pinned to never install in /etc/preferences:
>>>
>>> Package: systemd-sysv
>>> Pin: version *
>>> Pin-Priority: -1
>>>
>>> but this doesn't seem to be entirely effective in some cases, for
>>> reasons I've given up on trying to track down; still, it may be making a
>>> difference.
>
> I want to correct the record on this. When I wrote the above, I was
> conflating multiple cases. What I have seen be ineffective is previous
> pins, no longer present, against libpam-systemd and related packages; I
> don't recall ever seeing anything try to install systemd-sysv in
> violation of this pin.
>
> (There are enough legitimate complaints against the systemd ecosystem;
> there's no need to hurt the case against such things by throwing in
> baseless complaints on top of them.)
>
>> You may want to try somewhat different approach then:
>>
>> Package: systemd-sysv
>> Pin: release a=stable
>> Pin-Priority: -1
>
> I've noted this for later reference; if I ever see the
> trying-to-install-packages-pinned-at--1 behavior again, I'll try that
> variant.
>
> -- 
>    The Wanderer
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#178387 — Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? AntiX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntiX

[antiX is a Linux distribution, originally based on MEPIS, which itself
is based on the Debian stable distribution. It initially replaced the
MEPIS KDE desktop environment with the Fluxbox and IceWM window
managers, making it suitable for older, less powerful x86-based systems.
Unlike Debian, antiX is "proudly systemd-free".[this quote needs a
citation] systemd does not support old hardware very well due to its
virtualization-based development.]

Although I wanted to give it a try their webpage is full of scripts and
invisible as html, their forum rejects registration without a verified
ISP IP.  Questioning their forum admin on why would he require a real IP
to participate in such a forum did not result to ANY answer.  So, I
became an anti-ANTIx fan for all that this intro implies.


Aquarius:
> Maybe Devuan would meet your requirements of using the init system you would like to use. It is not on Stretch yet but on Jessie.
> 
> --
> Securely sent with Tutanota. Claim your encrypted mailbox today!
> https://tutanota.com
> 
> 3. Mar 2017 20:21 by wanderer@fastmail.fm:
> 
> 
>> On 2017-03-03 at 13:00, Reco wrote:
>>
>>> 	Hi.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 07:25:13 -0500
>>> The Wanderer <>> wanderer@fastmail.fm>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> systemd as the init system is provided by the systemd-sysv package. I
>>>> have that package pinned to never install in /etc/preferences:
>>>>
>>>> Package: systemd-sysv
>>>> Pin: version *
>>>> Pin-Priority: -1
>>>>
>>>> but this doesn't seem to be entirely effective in some cases, for
>>>> reasons I've given up on trying to track down; still, it may be making a
>>>> difference.
>>
>> I want to correct the record on this. When I wrote the above, I was
>> conflating multiple cases. What I have seen be ineffective is previous
>> pins, no longer present, against libpam-systemd and related packages; I
>> don't recall ever seeing anything try to install systemd-sysv in
>> violation of this pin.
>>
>> (There are enough legitimate complaints against the systemd ecosystem;
>> there's no need to hurt the case against such things by throwing in
>> baseless complaints on top of them.)
>>
>>> You may want to try somewhat different approach then:
>>>
>>> Package: systemd-sysv
>>> Pin: release a=stable
>>> Pin-Priority: -1
>>
>> I've noted this for later reference; if I ever see the
>> trying-to-install-packages-pinned-at--1 behavior again, I'll try that
>> variant.
>>
>> -- 
>>    The Wanderer
>>
>> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
>> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
>> progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

-- 
 "The most violent element in society is ignorance" rEG

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

#178396 — Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? AntiX

On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:38:00 +0000 GiaThnYgeia
<GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntiX
> 
> [antiX is a Linux distribution, originally based on MEPIS, which
> [snip]

Aware of it.  Also mx-16 is a systemd-free distro put together by former
Mepis and AntiX people.  Unfortuantely, both are based on Jessie and
there's been no hint of a Stretch-based release.

The reason I want the most current "stable" release is I choose
everything -- hardware and software -- for a 5 to 7 year lifetime.
For example, this system: I originally built it 10 years ago and even
with the numerous upgrades since the newest part, a hard drive (original
one still good), is still 3 or 4 years old.  So, I need an OS that's
going to have support for at least 5 years.  And I don't like rolling
releases -- too many potential problems.

Thanks anyway for your recommendation.

B

> 
> 
> Aquarius:
> > Maybe Devuan would meet your requirements of using the init system
> > you would like to use. It is not on Stretch yet but on Jessie.

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

#178413 — Re: Stretch & Safely Replacing systemd? AntiX

GiaThnYgeia wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntiX
>
> [antiX is a Linux distribution, originally based on MEPIS, which itself
> is based on the Debian stable distribution. It initially replaced the
> MEPIS KDE desktop environment with the Fluxbox and IceWM window
> managers, making it suitable for older, less powerful x86-based systems.
> Unlike Debian, antiX is "proudly systemd-free".[this quote needs a
> citation] systemd does not support old hardware very well due to its
> virtualization-based development.]

  MATE and lightdm work well for my older machine with systemd.

  i'm running up to date debian testing.  i haven't had any 
major issues other than when systemd was first installed.


  songbird

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

#178394

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 22:24:46 +0100 (CET) Aquarius <aquarius@tutanota.de>
wrote:

> Maybe Devuan would meet your requirements of using the init system
> you would like to use. It is not on Stretch yet but on Jessie.

I'm aware of Devuan and tested it in VirtualBox.  At the
time ( a year ago), it was still pretty rough around the edges.
Unfortunately, it's still in Beta. I checked just a couple days ago.  I
also looked at AntiX and mx-16. They are systemd free, too, but as with
Devuan both are based on Jessie.. I doubt if they'll have Stretch-based
releases ready within my timeframe. Plus, I can't do a custom install
with the latter two (start with a terminal-only system), or I haven't
found a way so far. That's why I'm seriously considering Stretch
itself along with all the trouble of ridding it of systemd (or as much
of it as I can).

Thanks, anyway, for the recommendation.

B

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

#178424

Le 04/03/2017 à 16:19, Patrick Bartek a écrit :

> I'm aware of Devuan and tested it in VirtualBox.
[...]
> also looked at AntiX and mx-16. They are systemd free, too, but as with
> Devuan both are based on Jessie.. 
[...]

last stable version available, five years support and systemd-free but
not linux-based: would FreeBSD 11 be an option?

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

#178434

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 22:15:18 +0100 didier gaumet
<didier.gaumet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 04/03/2017 à 16:19, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> 
> > I'm aware of Devuan and tested it in VirtualBox.
> [...]
> > also looked at AntiX and mx-16. They are systemd free, too, but as
> > with Devuan both are based on Jessie.. 
> [...]
> 
> last stable version available, five years support and systemd-free but
> not linux-based: would FreeBSD 11 be an option?

Have little experience with any flavor of BSD other than some
cursory reading.  Always considered BSD more for servers than general
user systems.  But I'll look into it.  It's been years.

Thanks.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web