
Don't panic and keep forking Debian - theophrastus
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141127.212941.f55acc3a.en.html
======
eloff
The same freedom that leads to all the many, many flavors of linux gives a
great diversity of ideas. The downside is it fragments the finite development
efforts of the contributors to the point where it becomes difficult to compete
with the wider marketplace. I wonder sometimes if it were possible for
everyone to contribute to one linux desktop if the situation would be
different today.

As it stands, after nearly three years using ubuntu desktop, I came to the
conclusion that a windows license is very cheap by comparison. The amount of
time and effort I spent wasted on package incompatibilities, instabilities,
and debugging strange hardware/driver related issues isn't worth it. I keep
linux in a VM where it's very easy and cheap to backup and rollback without
affecting my data or ability to work. I really gave it a good try, and I liked
a lot of things about the freedom to configure things like I want, without
metro crapware infesting the place, but the downsides were just too much for
me.

Again I wonder how things could have been if everyone was pulling as a
coherent team instead of in different directions.

~~~
secfirstmd
Exactly why Linux will never dominate the Desktop environment by the average
user.

You basically can't use Linux without at some time going to the cmd line to
fix some dam configuration or driver problem.

~~~
jqm
I can't remember the last time I had to fix a driver problem on Linux.

My GF, who is not very computer savvy, has been using Mint for years at home
and at work. Unfortunately, there were no command line configurations needed
even once to set it up. What a disappointment. Ah well, I personally use
Slackware so I'll get my jollies there I suppose....

Granted, I did have to go by GF's work at one point and install a printer but
you know what? I've spent a lot less time there than I used to as her Windows
systems (she and an assistant now both use Mint) regularly got virus or gunked
up and slowed to a crawl...

Linux on the desktop has actually been much easier and reduced my honeydo
workload considerably. Fact.

That aside, I have to scratch my head and wonder about people who claim to
have so many of these types of problems. Tech people too. People who should be
eager to embrace and learn powerful command line invocations and the control
this learning brings....

~~~
krylon
I remember, ten years ago I had to compile the kernel module for my sound card
manually, because it was not part of the mainline kernel. _shrug_

Since then, my experience with Linux' driver support has been very smooth, as
well, any a lot smoother than stuff I've seen on Windows. Getting a printer to
work on Windows is incredibly convoluted compared to CUPS.

------
kazinator
No, no, no. Stupid name.

In the name of tradition, you want a name which is an acronym that says "is
not that other thing" or something like that and is perhaps infinitely
recursive.

How about _WildOS_?

    
    
       "WildOS is like Debian, omitting systemd"
    

Or some other "-ild" word besides "wild". Gild? Mild?

Definitely not DildOS though. :)

 _Debrogas_ :

    
    
       "Debian rid of gnome and systemd"
    

Retains the Latin flavor of Devuan, in any case.

Rejected bloopers, from my personal cutting room floor:

 _BSDOS_ :

    
    
       "Because systemd, of course, sucks"
    

_Windows_ :

    
    
       "What-I-need Debian: out with systemd"
    

# # #

However, in the end, I think a really good name for this fork would be:

    
    
       Defiant!
    

But: not pronounced like the word "defiant" but with emphasis on the first
syllable, so it sounds like debian: 'DE-fih-ənt.

"What are you running on that server?"

"Defiant six dot three!"

"What? Debian?"

"No, Defiant! D-E-F-I-A-N-T, spelled like the word defiant."

I _love_ this one. It captures defiance (getting upset and making a fork),
sounds indistinguishable from Debian when uttered by a drunk hacker through a
G.711 ULAW speech codec, and has an unusual pronunciation so we can endlessly
correct people who just say "de-FIE-unt", who instantly identify themselves as
not-in-the-know outsiders. Remember all the fun with Lie-nucks versus Lee-
nucks versus Li-nucks.

Lastly:

    
    
      Deviant
    

(Also pronounced differently to sound like Debian.) PRO: changes only one
letter in Devuan, and deletes one. CON: less abrasive than Defiant. It's
deviant because it's forked; it deviates from some originally intended path.

------
JoshTriplett
On the one hand, this seems wildly misguided; the Debian distribution for
people who don't want to run systemd is still just Debian, and that'll remain
the case through at least jessie, and for as long as people continue putting
effort into keeping it working. So it's sad that the effort going into this
fork doesn't instead go into maintaining the necessary infrastructure in
Debian. I'm sure the maintainers of systemd-shim and cgmanager would welcome
additional contributors.

On the other hand, perhaps this will provide a more useful outlet for the set
of people who keep claiming they'd use a fork if available, so that they can
actually go use one and stop griping on Debian mailing lists.

Nope, sorry, couldn't keep a straight face while saying that.

~~~
dredmorbius
There are several arguments I can see in favor of a fork.

1\. Ensure that there _will_ be a systemd-free variant of debian even beyond
jessie.

2\. Provide a tangible metric of the interest in such a variant.

3\. Provide a platform on which alternatives to systemd can be developed and
promoted. After all, systemd it must be said, addresses some legitimate
concerns, largely concerned with service tracking and a generally far more
dynamic computing environment. The recent Future of FreeBSD presentation by
Jordan Hubbard is actually one of the more eloquent arguments in this light
(noting that FreeBSD is both Not Linux and Doesn't Have Systemd).

The primary argument against forking is that it divides efforts. My
counterargument is that forking _makes the existing divide between views on a
given approach tangible and explicitly visible_. Free Software, particularly
under the GNU GPL or equivalent copyleft, also explicitly preserves the right
to _merge_ projects which have forked, as has in fact been the case in several
notable instances -- GCC/EGCS, the long-running TK

For a specific study of the topic, see "A Comprehensive Study of Software
Forks: Dates, Reasons and Outcomes" by Gregorio Robles and Jesuus M. Gonzalez-
Barahona

[http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf](http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf)

It cites: GCC/EGCS, xpdf/poppler, GNU Emac/Xemacs, the numerous OpenOffice
forks, X.org/XFree, NetBSD/OpenBSD, Wireshark/Ethereal, Gerequi/Amarok,
MySQL/Miriadb. In total the paper explores some 220 forks, analyzing them by
software area (e.g., networking, web apps, development, etc.), year of
initiation, and reason. "Technical" accounts for the most at 27%, "differences
among technical team" is sixth at 7.3%.

Resolution of forks is of particular interest:

Successful branching: 43.6%

Discontinuation of original: 29.8%

Discontinuation of fork: 13.8%

Discontinuation of _both_ original and fork: 8.7%

Re-merging of fork: 3.2%

Other: 0.9%

As a critic of systemd and proponent of the concepts of Free Software,
including the Freedom to Fork, I'm in support of this and similar efforts.

------
krylon
Assuming this actually going somewhere, I have mixed feelings about this. On
the one hand, it might allow us to get over those intense - and usually
pointless - arguments (to put it politely) about systemd. (Personally, I don't
have very strong feelings about systemd, but I get the impression it could use
some time to mature before becoming the centerpiece of a GNU/Linux system.)

If the fork gave people the choice between "Debian with systemd" and "Debian
without systemd", and if that was all there was to it, that would be _really_
sweet. But given the circumstances of the fork, it is not exactly clear how
the two distros would coordinate their development, possibly resulting in
eventual divergence.

Also, if the project catches on, this might lead to a kind of brain drain on
Debian, replacing one - up until now - great distribution with two less
impressive ones. (This is of course a worst-case scenario. There might be,
three years from now, a lot of sharing of code and people between the two
distros. I sure hope so.)

It is surely a very interesting development, but it remains to be seen whether
this is good or bad news or even news at all.

------
Aloha
I'm for sure not feeling the love for systemd, it seems un-UNIX and a solution
looking for a problem, and change for the sake of change. That said, not so
big on the idea about a fork, I'd rather see debian do the normal debian
thing, and support both things, maximizing freedom. That said, if that can't
happen, a fork is inevitable - for the love of god pick a better name.

~~~
lelandbatey
You seem like someone who's used a variety of init systems, so I have some
questions:

1\. Why is systemd considered "un-unix"?

2\. Why is sysv considered to "follow unix"?

3\. Can you provide or point to some explanations on the ideologies that
motivate the difference of opinions regarding sysv/systemd?

4\. Really, can someone provide some context and history for all this?

~~~
chubot
Those are good questions, but answering them won't fit in a comment. It takes
more like a book.

One of the best books on the Unix philosophy is "The Art of Unix Programming",
which is available for free. (I recommend getting a hard copy and reading the
whole thing.)

[http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/](http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/)

Other books include The Unix Programming Environment by Pike et. al., though
it's less explicit about the philosophy.

Here's one part of the argument: systemd breaks the Unix design style because
it's monolithic:
[http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2...](http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2877537)

But then systemd developers claim it's not monolithic because it's actually
composed of multiple processes. They say there is a misconception that all
code is contained in PID 1. There are many executables and many processes, so
they would say systemd is modular.

But the problem is that all the binaries are released together, without well-
defined interfaces. Moreover they are also tightly coupled to kernel features.

If you have 2 binaries A and B, but the interfaces between them is not
documented or stable, then it's not really modular, because you can't write
your own B' to work with A or A' to work with B.

The recent thread here about dbus is a good example. Traditional Unix is
simple text protocols. dbus is this weird text/binary RPC-ish mix which is not
documented.

There are lots of other issues with systemd and the Unix philosophy, but that
should give you a flavor.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Eric Raymond is not worth taking seriously except as a bad example.

That aside, poking around I found this:
[http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePo...](http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePortabilityAndStabilityChart/)
which looks like reasonably well-defined interfaces?

Also not really seeing the problem with a binary protocol, works fine for
tcp/ip.

~~~
chubot
If you don't think the content of that book is relevant to the systemd debate,
then you haven't read it. I'd like to see you point to a better book about the
Unix philosophy.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
I've been using unices for over 20 years now (first was ultrix, then truos,
sunos, solaris, hpux, aix, linux, netbsd, freebsd, osx) and I don't believe
there is such a thing as a unix philosophy.

~~~
chubot
Give the Art of Unix Programming and honest read, and I'm sure you will come
around.

If you have ONLY used Unices, then I could understand why the philosophy is
invisible.

If, like me, you had used Windows exclusively for a decade, and then Unix for
a decade, then the Unix philosophy would knock you up side the head. The
systems could not be more different. (Despite the fact that they run mostly
the same applications.
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html)
is the review that got me to read it).

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Of course I haven't only used unices, how is that even possible in this world.

------
orik
there was a lot of discussion on /r/linux about this yesterday.

concessions seemed to be that Devuan seems fishy, but I'll let you read for
yourself.
[http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2nm2u9/theyre_going_t...](http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2nm2u9/theyre_going_to_fork_debian/)

~~~
ohazi
consensus?

~~~
orik
thanks, dunno how I missed that typo.

------
theophrastus
See also: [https://devuan.org/](https://devuan.org/) as well as #debianfork
and #devuan on IRC/freenode

~~~
fredoralive
That site does seem to show an odd disconnect, it seems to mention "init-
freedom" alongside "...the first goal of removing systemd...". Surely true
"init-freedom" would be to give the end user a choice between sysvinit, bsd
init, sysmtemd, launchd, android's init, and so on.

Of course such true init-freedom would be near impossible. IMO people should
just pick one, forking appropriately, and stop having such huge arguments over
something the average user neither knows nor cares about. Just call Devuan the
sysvinit fork of Debian and see how it goes...

~~~
pekk
Removing coupling which effectively mandates the use of systemd is a
prerequisite for "init-freedom".

You can't offer a choice when everything requires systemd.

~~~
Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd
Compare to Gentoo. Gentoo defaults to their homegrown OpenRC. But Gentoo is
all about choice and so systemd is an option and works perfectly well. That's
"init-freedom". If someone doesn't like systemd and removes it from their
distro, that's OK with me. But calling that "init-freedom" seems weird. Maybe
they should call it something like "sysv-freedom", if that's what they mean.

~~~
digi_owl
Sadly the one thing that dissapears in this debate is that systemd has long
since gone beyond being a init.

For me the whole thing came to a head when i learned that consolekit (a
bothersome thing on its own) was depreciated in favor of logind. And logind is
tied to the hip of systemd.

There are also issues like journald that you need to have running even if your
primary logging facility is syslogd etc.

At this point in time, systemd as init is just a minor part of the issue in my
opinion.

------
zxcdw
Can someone TL;DR the problem with systemd?

~~~
gilgoomesh
systemd replaces a large number of startup and utility programs (specifically:
sysvinit, pm-utils, inetd, acpid, syslog, watchdog, cron and atd). It also
adds new daemons for logs, logins, locales, hostnames and a few other
services.

Most of this is a good thing. Faster. Newer code that is easier to maintain.
Less reliance on shell scripts favoring declarative config files instead.

But change has lots of difficulties.

The biggest resistance though is coming from people who are simply accustomed
to the old approaches and don't see a problem with them.

But there are other objections from people who think systemd is too big in
scope or too controlling or focussed on one technology or another or... some
kind of conspiratorial trap or something
([http://boycottsystemd.org](http://boycottsystemd.org)). I think these
arguments are a little hyperbolic since systemd isn't actually a single
monolithic system and is really an overarching project to update a lot of
major system utilities.

I'm personally more of a Mac user than Linux user. On the Mac, 10 years ago,
launchd replaced many of the processes that systemd is now replacing in Linux.
Particularly for things like cron and inetd (which were horrible to configure
and work with) it was a huge improvement. However, the Mac never replaced as
much all at once. It was a much gentler transition. In fact, discoveryd (which
does a lot of what systemd's hostname daemon's are trying to do) was only
introduced in the current Yosemite.

~~~
gone35
_But there are other objections from people who think systemd is too big in
scope or too controlling or focussed on one technology or another or... some
kind of conspiratorial trap or something
([http://boycottsystemd.org](http://boycottsystemd.org)). I think these
arguments are a little hyperbolic since systemd isn't actually a single
monolithic system and is really an overarching project to update a lot of
major system utilities._

Well, with roadmaps like this[1], one wonders if some of the criticism is
really that hyperbolic or unjustified...

[1]
[http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf](http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf)

~~~
digi_owl
Sadly it drags the whole debate into an argument over semantics. Yes, it is
not monolithic in the sense of one binary running everything. But at the same
time everything ties back to systemd running as init.

This in effect makes everything under the systemd umbrella tightly coupled.
Can i run journald on its own, or logind, or resolved, networkd? As long as
the answer is no, they mays well be one big blob.

And it is presented as such as well from a source point of view.

[http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/](http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/)

There is no separate tarball for udev, journald, logind, or any of the other
*d's that make up the systemd project.

~~~
the_why_of_y
> As long as the answer is no, they mays well be one big blob.

So to you there is no difference between sendmail and postfix, they are both
equally monolithic?

~~~
digi_owl
If i just need a small portion but has to download and run more, then yes.

------
anonbanker
I've been waiting for this fork. It means I can install a .deb-based
distribution again. Here's hoping this is as successful as Libreoffice or
X.org has been.

~~~
johnny22
huh? this is the first release to really require systemd. how could you have
been waiting for a fork when one wasn't even necessary until a release that
isn't even marked stable yet.

~~~
anonbanker
I've been waiting approximately 180 days for this fork. it's been over a year
since the General Resolution where systemd got voted on.

the fork, for some of us, has been necessary since we saw how toxic the debian
constitution was in practice.

------
arh68
I laughed heartily at the linked Fedora site:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141020161905/http://forkfedora...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141020161905/http://forkfedora.org/)

I am not sure anything will come of this, but I hope it doesn't fail.

------
na85
Awful name aside, I'm glad this fork went ahead.

~~~
Aloha
I agree about the name, I'm indifferent on the fork, but not really feeling it
for systemd either.

------
ahomescu1
Earlier submission:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669913](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669913)

------
TheCondor
Is there a single name associated with this? A single developer's name? And
they are requesting donations?

~~~
theophrastus
well, one single name can be got via "whois devuan.org":

    
    
       Franco Lanza
       Unixmedia s.r.l.
       Via Cosimo Del Fante 4
       Milano, Italy
    

hence the Italian pronunciation of Devuan to 'dev-one'

------
Animats
From their manifesto: _Dear Init-Freedom lovers, The Veteran Unix Admin
collective salutes you._ Does this group expect to be taken seriously? Read
Cory Doctorow's "When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth" and get over it.

------
pronoiac
Hey, I know that domain! I used to use the Dyne:Bolic live Linux CD to edit
video.

------
joemaller1
How is it pronounced?

DEV-on?

de-VWAN? (like Juan)

dev-oo-ahn?

~~~
theophrastus
The originators direct english speakers to pronounce the name as "dev-one".
but, hey, i've heard a lot of different pronunciations of 'linux' and even
'debian' over the years, so what ever floats yer penguin.

------
Nux
Good, interesting times.

------
agumonkey
Isn't this the largest fork ?

