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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #183048 > unrolled thread

Replace systemd

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

Contents

  Replace systemd Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net> - 2017-07-03 22:40 +0200
    Re: Replace systemd Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-07-03 23:00 +0200
      Re: Replace systemd Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 00:10 +0200
      Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 00:30 +0200
      Re: Replace systemd Jason Wittlin-Cohen <jwittlincohen@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 02:30 +0200
        Re: Replace systemd Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2017-07-04 07:00 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:10 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 00:30 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 01:20 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-07-05 03:00 +0200
                  Re: Replace systemd SDA <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 14:20 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 04:30 +0200
                  Re: Replace systemd Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2017-07-05 10:00 +0200
                    Re: Replace systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-05 10:30 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-05 15:10 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 02:00 +0200
                  Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-06 13:10 +0200
                    Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 17:40 +0200
      Re: Replace systemd Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net> - 2017-07-05 23:50 +0200
    Re: Replace systemd Jim Ohlstein <jim@mailman-hosting.com> - 2017-07-03 23:00 +0200
      Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:00 +0200
        Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-05 15:20 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> - 2017-07-05 16:10 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-05 16:40 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 23:20 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-05 23:50 +0200
                  Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 01:00 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd chris <tknchris@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 00:00 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 01:30 +0200
        Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 06:30 +0200
    Re: Replace systemd Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 23:10 +0200
      Re: Replace systemd Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2017-07-06 13:10 +0200
        Re: Replace systemd Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 14:10 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-07-06 15:10 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:50 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2017-07-06 16:10 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 18:20 +0200
                  Re: Re: Replace systemd Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2017-07-07 05:40 +0200
                    Re: Re: Replace systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-07-07 21:20 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-07-07 21:00 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2017-07-06 15:50 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 18:10 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 07:10 +0200
    Re: Replace systemd Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-03 23:40 +0200
      Re: Replace systemd David Griffith <dave@661.org> - 2017-07-05 01:00 +0200
        Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 04:40 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-05 15:20 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 01:50 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-06 12:20 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 18:20 +0200
                  Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-06 22:20 +0200
                    Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 00:50 +0200
                      Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-07 16:10 +0200
                        Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 18:10 +0200
                          Re: Replace systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-07-07 21:20 +0200
                            Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 23:40 +0200
                        Re: Replace systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-07-07 21:30 +0200
        Re: Replace systemd JPlews <jw@plews.org.uk> - 2017-07-05 15:10 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 02:00 +0200
        Re: Replace systemd Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2017-07-05 17:50 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-07-05 18:40 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-07-05 19:10 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 02:00 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-07-06 05:20 +0200
                Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-06 13:20 +0200
                  Re: Replace systemd The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-07-06 14:00 +0200
                    Re: Replace systemd Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-07-06 14:30 +0200
                      Re: Replace systemd JPlews <jw@plews.org.uk> - 2017-07-06 16:20 +0200
                    Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-06 15:40 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd David Griffith <dave@661.org> - 2017-07-06 11:40 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 02:10 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-07-06 13:10 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd David Griffith <dave@661.org> - 2017-07-06 05:50 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2017-07-06 07:10 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Ansgar Burchardt <"Ansgar Burchardt"@43-1.org> - 2017-07-06 08:50 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:30 +0200
              Re: Replace systemd The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-07-06 14:10 +0200
            And the UNasked questions are? - was [Re: Replace systemd] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-07-06 11:50 +0200
          Re: Replace systemd Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-07-09 13:50 +0200
            Re: Replace systemd "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-07-09 15:30 +0200

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#183209

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

On 2017-07-05 at 11:27, Don Armstrong wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Jul 2017, David Griffith wrote:

>> It would be nice to have an install-time option for selecting the desired init.
> 
> It already exists:
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/04/msg00097.html
> 
> «
> You can just append:
> 
> preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"
> 
> to the installer command line.

I suspect that what the people who ask for this are thinking of is a
step in the installer sequence at which you are prompted to choose which
init system you want to be installed, such that the installer will never
even attempt to install any other init system.

This differs from the suggested methods to date not only in avoiding
"systemd-sysv was installed, then sysvinit-core replaced it later on"
(which some of the suggested methods may also do), but also in the UX;
having it presented to you as a choice, rather than having to know about
it in advance and take separate steps on your own, makes a significant
cosmetic and psychological difference, as well as affecting
discoverability.

If the installer doesn't present the option, then it's not really "an
install-time option" in a certain sense; it takes on more the shape of
advanced / expert hackery, rather than appearing to be something the
developers actually support.

I think that's the mindset, anyway.

-- 
   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]

#183210

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:11:27PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> I suspect that what the people who ask for this are thinking of is a
> step in the installer sequence at which you are prompted to choose which
> init system you want to be installed, such that the installer will never
> even attempt to install any other init system.

Yes, yes, we know.  But they're not going to GET this, so we are giving
them alternative ways to accomplish their goals.

I use fvwm, but you don't hear me asking for the debian-installer team
to add a user interface option to let me install fvwm.  This is because
I'm in a *small minority* of users, and it's not worth their time to
build a user interface option that only a small minority of users are
going to care about, especially when I can achieve the same goal by
running a simple apt-get command after the install.

Likewise, people who prefer sysvinit are a small minority, and they can
achieve their goal by running a simple apt-get command after the install.
There is no need to rewrite a complex user interface to accomodate this.

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

#183252

On 07/05/2017 09:44 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:11:27PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>> I suspect that what the people who ask for this are thinking of is a
>> step in the installer sequence at which you are prompted to choose which
>> init system you want to be installed, such that the installer will never
>> even attempt to install any other init system.
>
> Yes, yes, we know.  But they're not going to GET this, so we are giving
> them alternative ways to accomplish their goals.
>
> I use fvwm, but you don't hear me asking for the debian-installer team
> to add a user interface option to let me install fvwm.  This is because
> I'm in a *small minority* of users, and it's not worth their time to
> build a user interface option that only a small minority of users are
> going to care about, especially when I can achieve the same goal by
> running a simple apt-get command after the install.
>
> Likewise, people who prefer sysvinit are a small minority, and they can
> achieve their goal by running a simple apt-get command after the install.
> There is no need to rewrite a complex user interface to accomodate this.

Speaking of a minority, Linux was started by one good person, history. 
Individuals rule.

Cheers!
-- 
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Buster - KDE Plasma 5.8.7 - Intel G3220 - EXT4 at sda14
Registered Linux User #380263

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

#183263

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

On 2017-07-05 at 12:44, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:11:27PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> I suspect that what the people who ask for this are thinking of is
>> a step in the installer sequence at which you are prompted to
>> choose which init system you want to be installed, such that the
>> installer will never even attempt to install any other init
>> system.
> 
> Yes, yes, we know.  But they're not going to GET this, so we are
> giving them alternative ways to accomplish their goals.

And that's fair enough, but it's very different from what Don pointed to
in saying that this "already exists".

> I use fvwm, but you don't hear me asking for the debian-installer
> team to add a user interface option to let me install fvwm.  This is
> because I'm in a *small minority* of users, and it's not worth their
> time to build a user interface option that only a small minority of
> users are going to care about, especially when I can achieve the same
> goal by running a simple apt-get command after the install.

One difference there is that there *is* an option to install Debian with
*no* WM, DE, or similar, and only install whichever one you choose later on.

Since it is not even conceptually possible to install Debian with no
init system at all (even if an option to do so existed, what would it
*do* in practice?), having there be an option to select which of the
available init systems should be installed - rather than having to let
the system install one, then clean it up later on if that one is not the
one you wanted - can seem like the solution least biased in favor of any
particular init system.

(Imagine if you didn't have the option to install just the "base"
system, with no graphical interface, and had to install with a
pre-chosen default - GNOME,or KDE, or IceWM, or whatever you care to
name - and then remove that later in order to get fvwm in place. Sure,
you could still *do* it, but wouldn't it seem just as reasonable to ask
for an install-time option? Particularly if there were only a tiny
handful of WMs, etc., available, rather than the proliferation which
actually exist.)

> Likewise, people who prefer sysvinit are a small minority, and they
> can achieve their goal by running a simple apt-get command after the
> install. There is no need to rewrite a complex user interface to
> accomodate this.

I think I disagree with one of the underlying principles of this
viewpoint, but I can't quite identify what that principle is at the
moment, and I kind of want to get to bed right now.

-- 
   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]

#183287

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:57:14PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>Since it is not even conceptually possible to install Debian with no
>init system at all (even if an option to do so existed, what would it
>*do* in practice?), having there be an option to select which of the
>available init systems should be installed - rather than having to let
>the system install one, then clean it up later on if that one is not the
>one you wanted -

You are arguing from a false premise: that the only way to install 
Debian is to first install systemd, then replace it with sysvinit.

> can seem like the solution least biased in favor of any
>particular init system.

It seems quite proper that there *is* a bias here: towards the system that
Debian recommends, that is judged to be the best choice for the majority of
users, and will receive the most testing.


-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#183293

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

On 2017-07-06 at 06:54, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:57:14PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Since it is not even conceptually possible to install Debian with
>> no init system at all (even if an option to do so existed, what
>> would it *do* in practice?), having there be an option to select
>> which of the available init systems should be installed - rather
>> than having to let the system install one, then clean it up later
>> on if that one is not the one you wanted -
> 
> You are arguing from a false premise: that the only way to install
> Debian is to first install systemd, then replace it with sysvinit.

Am I?

Certainly there are ways to set things up in advance so that the
installer will never install the systemd-sysv package (or at least there
are reported to be - I've never tried any of them myself, so I can't
speak from personal experience, but I also have no reason to doubt the
people who say that they exist).

But that is not the scenario I am discussing. I am discussing the
experience which an ordinary user, who simply selects from the options
which the installer lists, will have. (My use of the term "option" in
the quoted paragraph, as well as the one preceding it in my last mail,
was referring to the options which the installer presents.)

If there is a way to achieve the result you describe in that limited
context, I am not aware of it.

If my argument is based on that premise in some other way, I'm not
seeing how; could you clarify?

>> can seem like the solution least biased in favor of any particular
>> init system.
> 
> It seems quite proper that there *is* a bias here: towards the system
> that Debian recommends, that is judged to be the best choice for the
> majority of users, and will receive the most testing.

There's still room to argue about the degree to which that bias should
be manifest, however.

It seems hard to dispute that that bias should extend at least as far as
determining which init system will be installed if the user does not
take action to select an alternative one. That's more or less the
definition of "default" in this context.

It also seems hard to dispute that the bias should *not* extend as far
as actively impeding the ability to install and make active another init
system. Fortunately, Debian does not actually do that, and I'm not sure
I've seen anyone argue that it should.

That would establish the outer bounds; in between, disputing any
specific proposition becomes easier, and arguing against such becomes
harder. For example, it seems considerably harder to argue that the bias
should extend as far as refusing to present the (few) mature,
established alternatives to be selected - and yet that is exactly what
people arguing against having the installer include an option for this
seem to be doing.

-- 
   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]

#183299

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 07:34:04AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> But that is not the scenario I am discussing. I am discussing the
> experience which an ordinary user, who simply selects from the options
> which the installer lists, will have. (My use of the term "option" in
> the quoted paragraph, as well as the one preceding it in my last mail,
> was referring to the options which the installer presents.)

The experience of the ordinary user installing Debian is that they
will have systemd, and things will just work.

Of course, this may require that they use an installer with non-free
firmware for support of their proprietary hardware, but that's outside
the context of your init system activism/trolling.

They also need to *NOT* use a live CD image, because those have never
worked.  Again, a separate issue, but it's far more important than
yours.  We get multiple users *per day* in #debian asking how to work
around whatever their live-CD-install broke.  Care to guess how many
users we get per day asking how to replace systemd?

As Don Armstrong already said, the Debian developers are *not* going
to change the installer to add the option you keep yelling for.  Just
get over it.

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

#183307

On 06/07/17 13:10, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 07:34:04AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>> But that is not the scenario I am discussing. I am discussing the
>> experience which an ordinary user, who simply selects from the options
>> which the installer lists, will have. (My use of the term "option" in
>> the quoted paragraph, as well as the one preceding it in my last mail,
>> was referring to the options which the installer presents.)
> 
...
> 
> As Don Armstrong already said, the Debian developers are *not* going
> to change the installer to add the option you keep yelling for.  Just
> get over it.
> 

The installer needs less, perhaps only choosing between network and 
physically accessible systems and installing ssh or a single default DE.

Being invited to use a CLI during the installer would be good for the 
health of new users and support all esoteric choices*, and if not 
desirable does this person care about what's managing their windows any 
more than what's doing their init? If they are is this because they are 
invited to think about the choices?

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

#183302

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 07:34:04AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>Am I?

I'm bored now of repeating myself.

>Certainly there are ways to set things up in advance so that the
>installer will never install the systemd-sysv package (or at least there
>are reported to be - I've never tried any of them myself

*screeching halt*

Let me know when you have, and I may be prepared to discuss it with
you again.


-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#183278

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

On July 5, 2017 9:11:27 AM PDT, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 2017-07-05 at 11:27, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Jul 2017, David Griffith wrote:
>
>>> It would be nice to have an install-time option for selecting the
>desired init.
>> 
>> It already exists:
>> 
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/04/msg00097.html
>> 
>> «
>> You can just append:
>> 
>> preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"
>> 
>> to the installer command line.
>
>I suspect that what the people who ask for this are thinking of is a
>step in the installer sequence at which you are prompted to choose
>which
>init system you want to be installed, such that the installer will
>never
>even attempt to install any other init system.
>
>This differs from the suggested methods to date not only in avoiding
>"systemd-sysv was installed, then sysvinit-core replaced it later on"
>(which some of the suggested methods may also do), but also in the UX;
>having it presented to you as a choice, rather than having to know
>about
>it in advance and take separate steps on your own, makes a significant
>cosmetic and psychological difference, as well as affecting
>discoverability.
>
>If the installer doesn't present the option, then it's not really "an
>install-time option" in a certain sense; it takes on more the shape of
>advanced / expert hackery, rather than appearing to be something the
>developers actually support.
>
>I think that's the mindset, anyway.
>
>-- 
>   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

These are exactly my motivations for an install-time prompt.
-- 
David Griffith
dave@661.org

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

#183255

On 07/05/2017 08:27 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2017, David Griffith wrote:
>> On July 3, 2017 1:44:30 PM PDT, Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 03/07/17 20:42, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
>>>> Is there a pure Debian alternative?
>>>
>>> There is an alternative init daemon, in the form of sysvinit (install
>>> the package "sysvinit-core" to use this as your init daemon), and there
>>> are several solutions for service management.
>>>
>>
>> It would be nice to have an install-time option for selecting the desired init.
>
> It already exists:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/04/msg00097.html
>
> «
> You can just append:
>
> preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"
>
> to the installer command line.
>
> Or you can roll your own install media with its own syslinux.cfg which
> adds that or something more complicated in a preseed file.
>
> You don't need to fork the installer, or submit any patches upstream.
>
> If you want something more complicated, like not installing systemd at
> all, you'll have to pass --include and --exclude options to debootstrap
> using the base-installer/includes and base-installer/excludes preseed
> options; something like:
>
> base-installer/includes=sysvinit-core base-installer/excludes=systemd-sysv
>
> but that's totally untested.

Hey Don, longtime no see,

Is it true that systemd only allows sysvinit to run inside of systemd, 
in fact systemd is starting your computer and shutting down your 
computer and still running in the background while you are using your 
computer?

Seeking truth.
-- 
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Buster - KDE Plasma 5.8.7 - Intel G3220 - EXT4 at sda14
Registered Linux User #380263

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

#183283

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 04:49:41PM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
>Is it true that systemd only allows sysvinit to run inside of systemd, in fact 
>systemd is starting your computer and shutting down your computer and still 
>running in the background while you are using your computer?

No. It is not true.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#183265

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

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Don Armstrong wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Jul 2017, David Griffith wrote:
>> On July 3, 2017 1:44:30 PM PDT, Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 03/07/17 20:42, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
>>>> Is there a pure Debian alternative?
>>>
>>> There is an alternative init daemon, in the form of sysvinit (install
>>> the package "sysvinit-core" to use this as your init daemon), and there
>>> are several solutions for service management.
>>>
>>
>> It would be nice to have an install-time option for selecting the 
>> desired init.
>
> It already exists:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/04/msg00097.html
>
> «
> You can just append:
>
> preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"
>
> to the installer command line.
>
> Or you can roll your own install media with its own syslinux.cfg which
> adds that or something more complicated in a preseed file.
>
> You don't need to fork the installer, or submit any patches upstream.
>
> If you want something more complicated, like not installing systemd at
> all, you'll have to pass --include and --exclude options to debootstrap
> using the base-installer/includes and base-installer/excludes preseed
> options; something like:
>
> base-installer/includes=sysvinit-core base-installer/excludes=systemd-sysv
>
> but that's totally untested.
> »

I'm aware of that technique.  What I was talking about is a menu option 
that pops up when the install is running that explicitly asks the person 
installing which init to use.


-- 
David Griffith
dave@661.org

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

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

#183268

On Thu, 06 Jul 2017, David Griffith wrote:
> I'm aware of that technique. What I was talking about is a menu option
> that pops up when the install is running that explicitly asks the
> person installing which init to use.

We're not going to add such an option, because every additional question
asked during the install makes the install more difficult for new users.

If you want a non-default init system, you should know enough to supply
the incantation to the installer or know how to operate apt-get on your
own. If that's too difficult, then you should stick with the default.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      https://www.donarmstrong.com

"I always tend to assume there's an infinite amount of money out
there." "There might as well be, [...] but most of it gets spent on
pornography, sugar water, and bombs. There is only so much that can be
scraped together for particle accelerators."
 -- Neal Stephenson _Anathem_ p262

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

#183271

David Griffith writes:
> I'm aware of that technique.  What I was talking about is a menu
> option that pops up when the install is running that explicitly asks
> the person installing which init to use.

But there are far more urgent questions that don't get asked at install
time either:

1. Which editor to use at the default editor.
   (Even worse: emacs isn't even included in the install by default!)

2. Which shell to use as the login shell.
   I still have to install my favorite shell (zsh) manually :-(

3. Which web browser to install. Not everyone prefers Firefox.

4. Which mail user agent to install.

I can go on.  All have to be chosen after install and I don't think
there is a good reason the init system should be special: likely a
larger number people cares more about the software they use all the
time.  So if anything, one should probably ask about that.

Ansgar

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

#183274

On 06-07-17, David Griffith wrote:
> 
> I'm aware of that technique.  What I was talking about is a menu option that
> pops up when the install is running that explicitly asks the person
> installing which init to use.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Griffith
> dave@661.org
> 
> A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


There was no such option when SysVinit was default. Why would it exist
now? There are also no options to choose default browser, editor, video
player, music player and so on. But everyone is free to install and set
as default whatever they like. Including init system.

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

#183297

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

On 2017-07-06 at 04:09, Dejan Jocic wrote:

> On 06-07-17, David Griffith wrote:
> 
>> I'm aware of that technique.  What I was talking about is a menu
>> option that pops up when the install is running that explicitly
>> asks the person installing which init to use.
> 
> There was no such option when SysVinit was default. Why would it
> exist now?

Because now there are multiple prominent init-system alternatives from
which to choose, and the question has been brought to the forefront
since we are no longer running purely on inertia in this matter.

My own preferred way of addressing the init-system dispute would have
been to add exactly this sort of installer option for jessie, without
changing the default away from sysvinit, and then change the default to
systemd for *stretch*, while retaining the installer option.

We had no option for a long time because there was only one init system
that was meaningfully available, and then because the possible
alternatives (even if being seriously considered) were not particularly
controversial. That was inertia and laziness, and is not a good way of
doing things.

Now that the fact of this omission has been brought to our attention,
the right thing to do would be to provide such an option, and once the
option is established in the ecosystem, *then* change which alternative
is selected by default.

I would say that even if sysvinit were still the default alternative.
Once the fact that you've been omitting an option to choose where
meaningful choice exists is known, to fail to correct that omission is a
fault.

> There are also no options to choose default browser, editor, video 
> player, music player and so on. But everyone is free to install and
> set as default whatever they like. Including init system.

IIRC there is an option to choose default WM or DE, however, albeit from
a limited list (I'm thinking of task-gnome-desktop, task-kde-desktop,
task-xfce-desktop, etc.) - and there is the option to install without
any of the above and make the decision later, whereas there is no such
option for the init system.

Most of those aren't nearly as controversial as the init-system choice
has proven, either - and the ones which are (vi vs. emacs, anyone?)
don't tend to install *any* of the controversial options by default,
last time I checked. Since not installing an init system isn't a
meaningful possibility, providing a "select your choice" option is the
next best thing.

-- 
   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]

#183279 — And the UNasked questions are? - was [Re: Replace systemd]

On 07/05/2017 10:25 PM, David Griffith wrote:
> [snip]
> I'm aware of that technique.  What I was talking about is a menu
> option that pops up when the install is running that explicitly
> asks the person installing which init to use.
>

On 07/06/2017 01:28 AM, Ansgar Burchardt replied:
> But there are far more urgent questions that don't get asked
> at install time either:
>
> 1. Which editor to use at the default editor.
>    (Even worse: emacs isn't even included in the install by default!)
> 2. Which shell to use as the login shell.
>    I still have to install my favorite shell (zsh) manually :-(
> 3. Which web browser to install. Not everyone prefers Firefox.>
> 4. Which mail user agent to install.
>
> I can go on.  All have to be chosen after install and I don't think
> there is a good reason the init system should be special: likely a
> larger number people cares more about the software they use all the
> time.  So if anything, one should probably ask about that.

On 07/06/2017 03:09 AM, Dejan Jocic also replied:
> There was no such option when SysVinit was default. Why would it
> exist now? There are also no options to choose default browser,
> editor, video player, music player and so on. But everyone is
> free  to install and set as default whatever they like.
> Including init system.


I would include among those UNasked questions:
   1. What is a common feature of the above and others in this thread?
   2.Thus, what is the Catch-22 quagmire faced by the installer team?

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

#183450

Hi there


On 05/07/17 17:27, Don Armstrong wrote:

> It already exists:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/04/msg00097.html
>
> «
> You can just append:
>
> preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"
>
> to the installer command line.
>
> Or you can roll your own install media with its own syslinux.cfg which
> adds that or something more complicated in a preseed file.
>
> You don't need to fork the installer, or submit any patches upstream.
>
> If you want something more complicated, like not installing systemd at
> all, you'll have to pass --include and --exclude options to debootstrap
> using the base-installer/includes and base-installer/excludes preseed
> options; something like:
>
> base-installer/includes=sysvinit-core base-installer/excludes=systemd-sysv
>
> but that's totally untested.
> »

You need to modify your net install DVD too;
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_remove_systemd_from_the_Netinst_CD


Regards,
Rob

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

#183456

Hi,

Rob van der Putten wrote:
> You need to modify your net install DVD too;
> http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_remove_systemd_from_the_Netinst_CD

Guests may not discuss there. So here:

The genisoimage run in "update-cdrom.sh" only prepares for booting via
BIOS from CD/DVD. One would need to afterwards run
  isohybrid /div/test.iso
in order to make it ready for booting via BIOS from USB stick.

The promised UEFI capabilities by a run of
  isohybrid --uefi test.iso
cannot be achieved because the genisoimage run did not advertise file
/boot/grub/efi.img as El Torito boot image for EFI.
Upstream genisoimage cannot do this. Fedora has a modified one which knows
option -e. See
  http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=Isohybrid#UEFI

In debian-9.0.0-amd64-netinst.iso the file /.disk/mkisofs tells the
command that was used to create it. Cleaned from the Jigdo specific options,
peculiarities of the production machine, and some ineffective options,
that is:

  xorriso -as mkisofs \
    -r \
    -V 'Debian 9.0.0 amd64 n' \
    -o test.iso \
    -J -joliet-long \
    -isohybrid-mbr "$isohybrid_MBR" \
    -c isolinux/boot.cat \
    -b isolinux/isolinux.bin \
      -boot-load-size 4 -boot-info-table -no-emul-boot \
    -eltorito-alt-boot \
    -e boot/grub/efi.img \
      -no-emul-boot -isohybrid-gpt-basdat \
    ./

where $isohybrid_MBR is a file with a copy of the first 432 bytes of the
original ISO. E.g made by:

  isohybrid_MBR=/tmp/debian9.mbr
  dd if=debian-9.0.0-amd64-netinst.iso bs=1 count=432 of="$isohybrid_MBR"

A run of isohybrid is not needed. The ISO will begin to boot from the
usual media on the usual firmwares. How far it gets depends on the
quality of the other manipulations, which i am not up to judge.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web