[sf-lug] Byfield's "Verdict" on systemd

[Rick Moen]

Quoting aaronco36 (aaronco36 at SDF.ORG):

> FOSS Force writer Bruce Byfield came out with a somewhat
> controversial article yesterday entitled 'The Verdict On systemd Is
> In'[01].

I think Bruce merely did a predictable and pretty harmless thing of
including some mildly provocative wording, including of course
'verdict'.  IMO, there's nothing particularly objectionable, it's 
just pitched in tone just a bit to gather Web hits.

> FWIW, I tend to concur with user Simon's first comment at [03].

That is almost certainly Simon Hobson of the Devuan 'Dng' mailing list.
He's a voice of reason, IMO.

> Even if the powerful DDs (to use Rick M's term for Debian
> Developers) still deign we mere mortals the ability to "easily
> convert [Debian's current and future versions] to use OpenRC"[04],
> still, IMNSHO it remains worthwhile to keep abreast of the somewhat
> popular distros that just won't drink the systemd Kool-Aid.

Among the things I didn't get into is that I have basically switched my
allegiances a couple of years ago from Debian Project to Devuan Project, 
because the latter is an apt successor in many ways and doesn't make 
wacky decisions that then require sysadmin time & effort to correct in
the field.  (As things stand, Devuan remains Lilliputian in staffing and
resource and scope, compared to Debian, mind you.)

In a different mailing list post I wrote somewhere last year -- can't
remember exactly where -- the way I described my view is that 'Debian' 
is most fruitfully seen as a system & software architecture philosophy
in addition to, and alongside, being also the name of a specific
organisation devoted to it.  So, there's 'Debian' as a way of running
and maintaining a system, in distinction to 'Debian' as half the name of 
Debian Project.

And my point about that is that I've cared since year 2000 about the
former, and, in general, not given two rat's whiskers about the lattter
-- because I don't take my marching orders from Debian Project, and I
might not even use their installation ISOs, but rather some
Debian-compatible ISO(s) I prefer.  E.g., the last few times I built a
Debian desktop system, I used Aptosid's ISOs that were based on Debian
testing/unstable, but with Aptosid improvements.  Aptosid as a project
seems to have died since then; last I saw, their dissident fork
Siduction was looking like it was falling behind, too:  Their latest
full ISO release to date was the one in May 2018.  Point is, there 
are usually more-satisfactory ways to install Debian (in the sense of a
system that follows the Debian design) than using Official Debian ISOs, 
the latter which are not exactly hot stuff.

And the larger point, reflected in my comment on Bruce's article, is:
At no time have Linux users been under the captive control of
distribution policy, and the obvious alterntive to feeling trapped by
one is to correct the problem outside that policy, either by yourself or
(preferably) as part of a group devoted to doing so.

The Sidux distribution of yore and its progeny Aptosid and Siduction
were & are a prime example of such a group ('Debian without certain dumb
things', in a way).  Devuan is another example.

And we've _always_ done that sort of thing in the Linux world.  Being at
the mercy of bureaucratic developers is a proprietary-OS pathology.