Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

lists.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#51

Post by lomnakkus »

throw2016 wrote: post #47
lomnakkus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, sorry. I was using standardization in the "de facto" sense. I think the "forking threat" applies nonetheless as long as RH doesn't at least broadly go along with the "committee" of the (F)OSS community. Honestly, I don't really see how they would extract any value from not doing that, so I'm mildly mystified by all the "they're trying to take over the world" rhetoric. EDIT: Aside: Honestly, I don't see much value…

Forking is an extreme action, a last resort. Standards are about establishing ground rules to avoid escalations and disagreements. The whole idea of standards is collaboration and co-operation. Software is not static and decisions need to be made by everyone the standard impacts. Which is why it is important that control rests in a collective that represents everyone's interests. I think that's the only way we could…

(I think we've reached thread depth limits here, so I'll stop at this.)

Yes, it's a last resort and that does give the incumbent a bit of leverage. However, we've seen this type of thing before in the (F)OSS world: EGCS is an almost model example.

> Software is not static and decisions need to be made by everyone the standard impacts.

Sure, but systemd actually has very good reference documentation which you can hold them to.

> Which is why it is important that control rests in a collective that represents everyone's interests.

That may be the thing we disagree about, actually. I actually do think that the systemd maintainers actually do have everyone's best interests at heart and not just RH. That doesn't mean that they formally represent everyone's best interest, obviously. (I readily acknowledge that I may have this perception because I happen to agree with them on many issues, but I do try to be as impartial as possible when discussing it.)

>I think that's the only way we could call it a 'standard' without taking liberties with the word. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't. Off the top of my head, my best example would be AC vs. DC[1]: They were both 'standards', but were basically pioneered by two individuals. (For -- as it turns out -- absurd reasons.)

The point is that a 'standard' for me means something more along lines of a 'standard of service' or 'standard of care'. It's more about having a formalized set of parameters of X. It's not so much about the process itself.

[1] Oh, how I wish I could do a real proper link on those words, but here you go anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2AC41dglnM

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#53

Post by JdeBP »

klez wrote: post #24
shouldbworking wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like it either. I think it's just that "vaun" is a rarely used sound in English. No real words end in vaun.

Vuan, not vaun. "Uan" would be pronounced as the number "one"

If it were "vaun", then the obvious response would be that Vaughan is a perfectly acceptable name, and look how English spells that. (-:

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#54

Post by vertex-four »

petre wrote: post #22
geofft wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not super interested in rehashing the flamewar, so this is anecdata: from the perspective of sysadmin of thousands of physical machines, systemd has been a godsend. It gives me a standard way to supervise, gather log output from, and restart long-running-processes with dependencies on other processes. It's replaced a number of "sleep 10"s and "sleep 60"s that our infrastructure has grown over the years in shell s…

Most servers boot really slowly anyway (memory tests, raid cards etc), so why would anyone care if it takes one or ten seconds to boot Linux when the server boots in 120 seconds. Other init systems are capable of restarting things with dependencies as well, like BSD's rcng for instance. I am using runit to supervise my services since I can't rely on systemd.

Most servers are VPSes running on Xen, KVM, ESXi or Hyper-V.

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#55

Post by jakeogh »

nextos wrote: post #10
helb wrote: post #3

"Devuan Jessie 1.0 RC" on HN yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14167447 For those who forgot what Devuan was, like i did – basically a Debian fork without systemd.

For systemd-less distros, I really like GuixSD. A functional approach & Scheme for all stuff is a big plus.

Gentoo also works with or without systemd, and the dev's maintain a nice udev replacement, eudev.

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#56

Post by hfjfktnc »

duskwuff wrote: post #26
gareim wrote: post #2

I never understand when OSS projects give themselves names that will never go mainstream. If the goal is semi-popularity at least, then "Devuan" will not work.

As I noted on another thread, the choice to call their initial release "Jessie" is also bizarre -- that's the same as the release name for Debian 8.0, which was released in 2015. Between that and the project name (which is a typo of "Debian"), it all makes the project look like it's intentionally trying to create confusion between itself and Debian, rather than trying to succeed on its own merits.

Well, their release is essentially Debian Jessie with a few defaults modified (have the "init" meta-package depend on sysvinit instead of systemd), a few packages removed (systemd-sysv) and a few packages rebuilt to not depend on libsystemd (to no longer optionally support additional integration under systemd for freedom reasons).

Keep in mind that they originally wanted to release their version on Jessie in early 2015...

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#57

Post by [deleted] »

duskwuff wrote: post #26
gareim wrote: post #2

I never understand when OSS projects give themselves names that will never go mainstream. If the goal is semi-popularity at least, then "Devuan" will not work.

As I noted on another thread, the choice to call their initial release "Jessie" is also bizarre -- that's the same as the release name for Debian 8.0, which was released in 2015. Between that and the project name (which is a typo of "Debian"), it all makes the project look like it's intentionally trying to create confusion between itself and Debian, rather than trying to succeed on its own merits.

[deleted]

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#58

Post by geofft »

vertex-four wrote: post #54
petre wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most servers boot really slowly anyway (memory tests, raid cards etc), so why would anyone care if it takes one or ten seconds to boot Linux when the server boots in 120 seconds. Other init systems are capable of restarting things with dependencies as well, like BSD's rcng for instance. I am using runit to supervise my services since I can't rely on systemd.

Most servers are VPSes running on Xen, KVM, ESXi or Hyper-V.

Or containers! There are definite advantages to having your container's pid 1 be an actual init process (rkt-style) instead of the application being contained (Docker-style), and there are often advantages in that init being a full-featured init instead of a dumb EWONTFIX-style init. (Although I have written and used the EWONTFIX-style init for other purposes, where that led to a simpler architecture.)

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#59

Post by mxvzr »

e12e wrote: post #6
gareim wrote: post #2

I never understand when OSS projects give themselves names that will never go mainstream. If the goal is semi-popularity at least, then "Devuan" will not work.

To be fair, yahoo! and Google are pretty poor names too?

It's primal; something you can scream out during intercourse.

Re: Devuan Jessie 1.0.0 stable release candidate

#60

Post by Koshkin »

lomnakkus wrote: post #36
Koshkin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> value of standardization But the Linux community has always prided itself on freedom and diversity. Otherwise we might as well be all using one "standard" Linux distribution.

There are things that are worth diversifying on. Basic subsystems that only serve to keep the OS running is not one of them -- the benefits of standardization far outweigh the costs of lack-of-diversity. (Of course this is just my opinion, yours may differ.) As to freedom: I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Can you expound?

I think freedom and diversity simply do not exist one without the other. Freedom of choice that has been essential in making Linux popular in the first place may be severely limited by imposing more and more "standards"; I would argue that the very spirit of Linux lies exactly in this freedom. This is why we have so many distributions; and the more we standardize, the less need there is for this diversity, which, I think, is bad for Linux and, ultimately, for its users.
Post reply on HN