Stali: A new static Linux distribution
1–10 of 233 posts
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#220160825 stali for RPi stapi.img.gz available for download
Now for Raspberry Pi, it appears if my decryption is correct.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#3I still don't understand why systemd sucks
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#4I still don't understand why systemd sucks
static linux isn't really a reaction to systemd. What it is a reaction to is exemplified both by what the blurb on its WWW spends most of its time on, and indeed by its very name: dynamic linking.
"Executing statically linked executables is much faster" ... "Statically linked executables are portable" ... "Statically linked executables use less disk space" ... "Statically linked executables consume less memory" -- http://wayback.archive.org/web/20090525150626/http://blog.ga...
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#5( Also discussed previously at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819085 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7261559 )
Interesting points:
* http://sta.li/filesystem -- Everything not obviously covered by a fairly simplified hierarchy is put into /sucks , without fixing the problem of /etc still being a grab-bag miscellany.
* http://sta.li/filesystem -- /dev being for devices is a "Linux assumption".
* http://sta.li/filesystem -- There is no /usr/local .
* http://sta.li/filesystem -- /.git goes unmentioned. (-:
* http://sta.li/filesystem -- Half a decade ago, it was claimed that it has no /lib . This is contradicted here.
* http://dwm.suckless.org/ -- "Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it’s pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions."
* http://sta.li/installation -- Installation uses HTTP to fetch a boot volume image.
* http://sta.li/installation -- The actual installation steps of the doco are "TODO".
* http://sta.li/technologies -- The Korn shell is the default.
* http://sta.li/technologies -- uses Gerrit Pape's runit, tinydyndns, and socklog
* Commentators a few years ago assumed no kernel modules or initrd. There isn't "official" word on this, however.
* Nor is there official word on PAM, which logically falls foul of a no dynamic linking philosophy too.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#6I still don't understand why systemd sucks
Here are a pair of links that you may have missed under the "Don’t use systemd (read more about why it sucks)" line item.
http://suckless.org/sucks/systemd
http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
The first link reads like a sort of 99 Theses, while the second is a dissertation on why people will never get along on the subject of systemd.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#7Sucks less until it starts to suck more. It's religion not science. Classic NIH.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#8( Also discussed previously at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819085 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7261559 ) Interesting points: * http://sta.li/filesystem -- Everything not obviously covered by a fairly simplified hierarchy is put into /sucks , without fixing the problem of /etc still being a grab-bag miscellany. * http://sta.li/filesystem -- /dev being for devices is a "Linux assumption". * http:/…
> The actual installation steps of the doco are "TODO".
Building a kernel and such can be done like this:
I assume that's how that part of installation works. They could have documented that more nicely, though...
(Also, I use dwm. It works out of the box, using it on a stock Arch system is as simple as compiling, installing, and adding it to .xinitrc. And configuration has been made extremely simple also. It's not obvious at all, but it works for the particular niche I fit into.)
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#9Hasn't stali been around for at least a little while now? I don't think "brand new" is quite right :)
Looks like a neat distro, though. It's been on my bucket list to try.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#10I still don't understand why systemd sucks
Because people like to complain more than they like to actually build a usable alternative.
Edit: here's a great example from one of the links in the other comment:
suckless complaining about "sysv removed" in systemd. Link takes you to this changelog entry:
"The support for SysV and LSB init scripts has been removed from the systemd daemon itself. Instead, it is now implemented as a generator that creates native systemd units from these scripts when needed. This enables us to remove a substantial amount of legacy code from PID 1, following the fact that many distributions only ship a very small number of LSB/SysV init scripts nowadays."
So, code was removed from the init daemon itself and moved into a standalone utility that does one specific job.
Systemd is now both being blamed for bloating init, and for splitting functionality out into a separate tool that does one thing.