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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #209328 > unrolled thread

Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd)

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

Contents

  Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2019-05-28 18:50 +0200
    Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-05-29 20:20 +0200
      Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-02 07:50 +0200
        Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-06-03 07:40 +0200
          Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2019-06-03 10:10 +0200
            Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2019-06-03 10:40 +0200
              Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-06-04 06:40 +0200
            Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-03 13:10 +0200
            Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-06-04 06:30 +0200
              Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-18 19:20 +0200
          Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-06-03 15:00 +0200
            Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-03 15:30 +0200
              Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-06-03 15:50 +0200
                Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-03 16:40 +0200
                  Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-06-03 17:00 +0200
          Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-18 19:20 +0200

#209328 — Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd)

In-Reply-To: <20190528071022.45725f73@debian9>

ah... sorry, here's the culprit, hard depend on systemd

dbus-user-session

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#209386

On Tue, 28 May 2019 12:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In-Reply-To: <20190528071022.45725f73@debian9>
> 
> ah... sorry, here's the culprit, hard depend on systemd
> 
> dbus-user-session
> 

It doesn't even have to be hard.  Any association no matter how soft
or distant an app has with GNOME or any of its various parts or
utilities will result in a systemd gotcha.  I discovered this when I
first tested Jessie.  It became more prevalent in Stretch.  I have no
idea about Buster.  That's why now I always do simulated installs first.

Is Debian slowly becoming systemd proprietary?  It would be a great
loss to Linux and its philosophy if true.  But that looks to be the
direction Debian is headed.

Once I suggested on this list when systemd first debuted with Jessie
about choosing an init at install time as an option. It was not well
received.  Many said it couldn't be done or was impractical. My reply
was, if you can change inits AFTER the install completes, why not
BEFORE. The thread died of apathy shortly thereafter with no resolution.

B

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

#209519

On Wed 29 May 2019 at 11:01:58 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:

> Is Debian slowly becoming systemd proprietary?  It would be a great
> loss to Linux and its philosophy if true.  But that looks to be the
> direction Debian is headed.
> 
> Once I suggested on this list when systemd first debuted with Jessie
> about choosing an init at install time as an option. It was not well
> received.  Many said it couldn't be done or was impractical. My reply
> was, if you can change inits AFTER the install completes, why not
> BEFORE.

I think it's beneficial to keep the d-i as simple as possible.
Once you've installed the system, all the tools are now available
for changing the init system to whichever one you choose. Adding
that to the d-i just bloats it (for everyone) without any
*essential* benefit to anyone.

> The thread died of apathy shortly thereafter with no resolution.

Perhaps because you didn't supply any patches for switching to
even one other init system (within the d-i, or as a post-installation
script).

Cheers,
David.

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

#209542

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 00:29:30 -0500
David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed 29 May 2019 at 11:01:58 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> 
> > Is Debian slowly becoming systemd proprietary?  It would be a great
> > loss to Linux and its philosophy if true.  But that looks to be the
> > direction Debian is headed.
> > 
> > Once I suggested on this list when systemd first debuted with Jessie
> > about choosing an init at install time as an option. It was not well
> > received.  Many said it couldn't be done or was impractical. My reply
> > was, if you can change inits AFTER the install completes, why not
> > BEFORE.  
> 
> I think it's beneficial to keep the d-i as simple as possible.
> Once you've installed the system, all the tools are now available
> for changing the init system to whichever one you choose. Adding
> that to the d-i just bloats it (for everyone) without any
> *essential* benefit to anyone.

The install includes lots of choices like print server, server or
desktop system, GUI, laptop utilities, etc. that are "bloat-worthy" and
can be installed after the main install has completed.  I know.  I used
to do it back in the day. I still do to a certain extent even today.
But now those choices are an integral part of the install.  So, why not
init? Can't even spare a few hundred K? Ridiculous irrantionale. We're
talking CD/DVDs not floppies.

As far as what constitutes "essential": Shouldn't the user decide
that?  Or, at least, have a say so?  What has happened to the basic
philosophy of good business: Satisfy the customer?

I'm not against systemd, per se, just against having it forced on me
by way of dependencies. I don't think the init should ever be a
dependency. Of anything.  It's too basic to the system.  

> > The thread died of apathy shortly thereafter with no resolution.  
> 
> Perhaps because you didn't supply any patches for switching to
> even one other init system (within the d-i, or as a post-installation
> script).

Didn't need scripts.  Debian already had the ability to switch to
sysvinit (probably because so many objected to systemd) by simply
installing sysvinit-core.  If it's that simple, why not make it part of
the install.  Yes, you won't be able to use GNOME, but freedom of choice
comes with consequences as do all choices.

B

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

#209547

Le 03/06/2019 à 07:23, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
[...]
> The install includes lots of choices [...] So, why not
> init?

I think a Debian maintainer had answered in the past something like
while not using systemd himself, he admitted the perceived percentage of
Debian anti-systemd users was not so important to justify it, because
one can relatively easily desinstall systemd and install sysv after install.

It seems that you do not even need to install systemd (as the init
system) at all during a fresh install (if you don't install a full blown
DE)?
   https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd

[...]
> I'm not against systemd, per se, just against having it forced on me
> by way of dependencies. I don't think the init should ever be a
> dependency. Of anything.
[...]
for a modern DE at least, systemd seems to be a requirement, but not as
an init system?
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Ancillary_components

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

#209549

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

I wish to add one thing to this Discussion.  Mention was made, more than
once, that wicd "might" require Systemd.

Besides using Debian Stretch on one system (where I am happily learning
Systemd), I use Devuan Ascii (on an older machine with limited ram).

This is "official notification" that wicd works fine on Devuan Ascii,
meaning that, as far as I know, nothing in wicd actually references Systemd.

Good luck folks!

Kenneth Parker (Tri-Lingual:  Debian, Devuan and Ubuntu.  No Windows,
however).

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

#209595

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:21:18 -0400
Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wish to add one thing to this Discussion.  Mention was made, more than
> once, that wicd "might" require Systemd.

It's not wicd that has the systemd dependency, it's one or a few
wicd Recommends that do. Block those from installing and no systemd
reinstall.  But that's all academic now.  I went with another wifi
manager.

> Besides using Debian Stretch on one system (where I am happily learning
> Systemd), I use Devuan Ascii (on an older machine with limited ram).
> 
> This is "official notification" that wicd works fine on Devuan Ascii,
> meaning that, as far as I know, nothing in wicd actually references Systemd.

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

#209556

didier gaumet wrote: 
> Le 03/06/2019 à 07:23, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> [...]
> > The install includes lots of choices [...] So, why not
> > init?
> 
> I think a Debian maintainer had answered in the past something like
> while not using systemd himself, he admitted the perceived percentage of
> Debian anti-systemd users was not so important to justify it, because
> one can relatively easily desinstall systemd and install sysv after install.

There's a big problem with the popularity argument: it depends
on popcon, and popcon is overwhelmingly not installed by people
who care about security... who are likely to be professional
sysadmins.


> for a modern DE at least, systemd seems to be a requirement, but not as
> an init system?
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Ancillary_components

Correct, at least until Buster's GNOME, which will require it.
Hopefully Buster's XFCE will not; I don't know.

-dsr-

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

#209594

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:43:36 +0200
didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 03/06/2019 à 07:23, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> [...]
> > The install includes lots of choices [...] So, why not
> > init?  
> 
> I think a Debian maintainer had answered in the past something like
> while not using systemd himself, he admitted the perceived percentage of
> Debian anti-systemd users was not so important to justify it, because
> one can relatively easily desinstall systemd and install sysv after install.

That's what they said, yes, among other things.  But when your default
desktop environment GNOME has systemd (or parts of it) as a dependency,
and as time is money, the developers took the path of least
resistance.

No, you can't uninstall all of systemd easily and still have the system
work: too many dependency issues.  You can, however, easily replace
systemd-init with sysvinit while leaving systemd libraries still
installed.  In fact, the process in documented in the install docs
which is what I finally decided to do after lots of research and trial
installs.

Some had suggested I go with Devuan, if I wanted to be free of systemd,
but at the time -- a couple years ago -- Devuan IMHO wasn't ready for
prime time.

> It seems that you do not even need to install systemd (as the init
> system) at all during a fresh install (if you don't install a full blown
> DE)?
>    https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd

Now that I look at it, I read that years ago, but all the preseeding
does is install sysvinit after the system install with systemd is
complete. Just as easy to do it manually.  To make as basic a system
as possible, I started with a terminal only install, switched to
sysvinit, and installed only what I needed, component by component.

> [...]
> > I'm not against systemd, per se, just against having it forced on me
> > by way of dependencies. I don't think the init should ever be a
> > dependency. Of anything.  
> [...]
> for a modern DE at least, systemd seems to be a requirement, but not as
> an init system?
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Ancillary_components

Unfortuanately, as all those ancillary components are not
independent but interrelated, you're going to get unexpected
systemd "gotchas" just as I did with wicd.  I solved it by picking
another wifi manager which really has no relations to GNOME or systemd.

B

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

#210066

On Mon 03 Jun 2019 at 21:07:51 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:

> Unfortuanately, as all those ancillary components are not
> independent but interrelated, you're going to get unexpected
> systemd "gotchas" just as I did with wicd.  I solved it by picking
> another wifi manager which really has no relations to GNOME or systemd.

I thought you'd establish that the wicd "gotcha" was actually
caused by the fact that you'd accidentally set Recommends to
install and forgotten about it.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/06/msg00034.html

Cheers,
David.

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

#209565

On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 10:23:25PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> The install includes lots of choices like print server, server or
> desktop system, GUI, laptop utilities, etc. that are "bloat-worthy" and
> can be installed after the main install has completed.  I know.  I used
> to do it back in the day. I still do to a certain extent even today.
> But now those choices are an integral part of the install.  So, why not
> init?

Because a non-negligible number of people care about Desktop Environments,
and Print Servers, and SSH Servers.

Almost nobody cares about init systems.

Yes, you and your 3 friends care DEEPLY and PASSIONATELY about this.  I
get that.  But there's only 4 of you, not 4000.

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

#209567

Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 10:23:25PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > The install includes lots of choices like print server, server or
> > desktop system, GUI, laptop utilities, etc. that are "bloat-worthy" and
> > can be installed after the main install has completed.  I know.  I used
> > to do it back in the day. I still do to a certain extent even today.
> > But now those choices are an integral part of the install.  So, why not
> > init?
> 
> Because a non-negligible number of people care about Desktop Environments,
> and Print Servers, and SSH Servers.
> 
> Almost nobody cares about init systems.
> 
> Yes, you and your 3 friends care DEEPLY and PASSIONATELY about this.  I
> get that.  But there's only 4 of you, not 4000.

Greg --

is that the sort of argument you feel proud to be making?

-dsr-

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

#209568

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:11:37AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> > Almost nobody cares about init systems.
> > 
> > Yes, you and your 3 friends care DEEPLY and PASSIONATELY about this.  I
> > get that.  But there's only 4 of you, not 4000.
> 
> Greg --
> 
> is that the sort of argument you feel proud to be making?

Yes.  I do not believe Debian should bend over backward, spending many
hours of development time, to appease a handful of zealots who can
achieve their personal goals with three minutes of work.

If someone strongly disagrees with this, they can create their own
personalized installer, or they can switch to Devuan.

Now, open your eyes.  The real goal of these zealots is not to save
three minutes of work when they install.  It is to shove their political
agenda into the spotlight.

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

#209572

Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:11:37AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> > > Almost nobody cares about init systems.
> > > 
> > > Yes, you and your 3 friends care DEEPLY and PASSIONATELY about this.  I
> > > get that.  But there's only 4 of you, not 4000.
> > 
> > Greg --
> > 
> > is that the sort of argument you feel proud to be making?
> 
> Yes.  I do not believe Debian should bend over backward, spending many
> hours of development time, to appease a handful of zealots who can
> achieve their personal goals with three minutes of work.
> 
> If someone strongly disagrees with this, they can create their own
> personalized installer, or they can switch to Devuan.
> 
> Now, open your eyes.  The real goal of these zealots is not to save
> three minutes of work when they install.  It is to shove their political
> agenda into the spotlight.

Thanks for announcing that people who care what init system they
are running are zealots. I had thought that I was a professional
with a valid technical point of view, but my eyes are now open.
I realize that no objection I can possibly make is worthwhile.

Perhaps I too will start making arguments that people should stop
complaining about things because they are not in the majority.

Presumably I was also wrong about politics being the alternative
to war. That can only happen when people respect each other.

-dsr-

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

#209574

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

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:17:00AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote: 

[...]

> > Now, open your eyes.  The real goal of these zealots [...]

> Thanks for announcing that people who care what init system they
> are running are zealots [...]

Folks. Can we just get along?

To the one side: if we want something to happen (e.g. keeping
SysV init viable), it's on us to help making it. To the other
side: "you don't exist" has been one of the most offending
insults in this unfortunate spat.

Please stop it.

Thanks

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

#210065

On Sun 02 Jun 2019 at 22:23:25 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 00:29:30 -0500 David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed 29 May 2019 at 11:01:58 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > 
> > > Is Debian slowly becoming systemd proprietary?  It would be a great
> > > loss to Linux and its philosophy if true.  But that looks to be the
> > > direction Debian is headed.
> > > 
> > > Once I suggested on this list when systemd first debuted with Jessie
> > > about choosing an init at install time as an option. It was not well
> > > received.  Many said it couldn't be done or was impractical. My reply
> > > was, if you can change inits AFTER the install completes, why not
> > > BEFORE.  
> > 
> > I think it's beneficial to keep the d-i as simple as possible.
> > Once you've installed the system, all the tools are now available
> > for changing the init system to whichever one you choose. Adding
> > that to the d-i just bloats it (for everyone) without any
> > *essential* benefit to anyone.
> 
> The install includes lots of choices like print server, server or
> desktop system, GUI, laptop utilities, etc. that are "bloat-worthy" and
> can be installed after the main install has completed.  I know.  I used
> to do it back in the day. I still do to a certain extent even today.
> But now those choices are an integral part of the install.  So, why not
> init? Can't even spare a few hundred K? Ridiculous irrantionale. We're
> talking CD/DVDs not floppies.

I can't see any of those items in the d-i itself, with the exception
of laptop-detect (6162 bytes). They're all pulled in from Debian
mirror which doesn't cause bloat. Where I see varities of packages
that I don't use, they are essentials like fonts (for non-English
speakers) and strange (to me) partition handlers. Oh, and lilo makes
an appearance (~400K) as well as grub.

> As far as what constitutes "essential": Shouldn't the user decide
> that?  Or, at least, have a say so?  What has happened to the basic
> philosophy of good business: Satisfy the customer?

"Essential" is what you need to install a system that works (and
can boot itself up and initialise itself) and has the functionality
for you to be able to change init system (and anything else) if
you want to. That's my reading.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web