[sf-lug] Debian Project's up-to-date proposals re: init systems

[Michael Paoli]

Well, hopefully reason will prevail.

Debian's always quite been about freedom, ... and choice.

And yes, for better and/or worse, Debian's *default* init system is systemd,
however it continues to offer many choices.  So one can run Debian, and
with a non-systemd init system (I've been doing so for years - quite pleased
with it).  Or, "of course", one can use systemd on Debian - as that's the
default (I also have multiple hosts where that's the case ... and those
particular hosts haven't yet given me serious systemd grief, so I've not
yet had motivation to banish systemd from those hosts ... unlike another host
where it did give me serious grief, and I've banished systemd from that host).

Or if one really hates systemd that much, sure there are distros where  
not only
is systemd not the init system, but running systemd isn't even an option.

Likewise, if one really that much hates all things non-free, proprietary,
closed-source, binary blobs, etc., one can pick a distribution where one
doesn't even have the option to install anything non-free.  E.g. look to see
what (very few) operating systems GNU endorses a being completely free, and
their projects not even having links to anything non-free.  How's that
hurd kernel going for you?  Okay, I think they have a (very) few other
choices/options too, that they endorse.  You'll probably need to change
your firmware and Wi-Fi card, and use hardware that has some open firmware
that works on it.  Have fun with that!  Seriously, do!  Someone's gotta
push those envelopes, and show it can be done (or how much can be done
going that "pure").

Oh, and if you want to be guilted about any non-free stuff on Debian,
Debian also offers the package vrms - virtual Richard M. Stallman
  The vrms program will analyze the set of currently-installed packages
  on a Debian-based system, and report all of the packages from the
  non-free and contrib trees which are currently installed.
  .
  In some cases, the opinions of Richard M. Stallman and the Debian project
  have diverged since this program was originally written.  In such cases, this
  program follows the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
...

$ uprecords | head -n 3
      #               Uptime | System                                   
    Boot up
----------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
      1   228 days, 02:13:28 | Linux 4.9.0-6-amd64       Sun Feb 25  
21:42:49 2018
$ sudo ls -l /proc/1/exe
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Nov 21 14:58 /proc/1/exe -> /lib/sysvinit/init
$ dpkg -S /lib/sysvinit/init
sysvinit: /lib/sysvinit/init
$ echo $(lsb_release -d) $(uname -m)
Description: Debian GNU/Linux 9.11 (stretch) x86_64
$
Oh, ... and that's a *laptop*!

> From: aaronco36 <aaronco36 at SDF.ORG>
> Subject: [sf-lug] Debian Project's up-to-date proposals re: init systems
> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 21:22:28 +0000 (UTC)

> Well, it turns out that some fairly-obvious systemd init supporters  
> came out with a bit of a sleight-of-hand runaround 'Proposal D  
> Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress' in  
> today's "Debian Project General Resolution: Init Systems and  
> systemd" [1]
>
> Directly quoting from [1]:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> NON-INIT-RELATED DECLARATIVE SYSTEMD FACILITIES
>
> 9. systemd provides a variety of facilities besides daemon startup.  
> For example, creating system users or temporary directories. Current  
> Debian approaches are often based on debhelper scripts. In general  
> more declarative approaches are better. Where - systemd provides  
> such facility - a specification of the facility (or suitable subset)  
> exists - the facility is better than the other approaches available  
> in Debian, for example by being more declarative - it is reasonable  
> to expect developers of non-systemd systems including non-Linux  
> systems to implement it - including consideration of the amount of  
> work involved the facility should be documented in Debian Policy (by  
> textual incorporation, not by reference to an external document).  
> The transition should be smooth for all users. The non-systemd  
> community should be given at least 6 months, preferably at least 12  
> months, to develop their implementation. (The same goes for any  
> future enhancements.) If policy consensus cannot be reached on such  
> a facility, the Technical Committee should decide based on the  
> project's wishes as expressed in this GR.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> As I previously wrote in [2], there are still the Debian-based,  
> non-systemd distros MX Linux, antiX, Devuan GNU+Linux, etc, which  
> one hopes Ian Jackson and his Proposal D Seconds will not be able to  
> get their "declaratively approaching" grubby hands on in order to  
> "enhance" and subsequently disable/break :-\
>
> -A
>
>
> ====================================================
> References
> ====================================================
> [1]https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002
> [2]http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2019q4/014448.html
> ====================================================
>
> aaronco36 at sdf.org