/tech/ - Technology

Where proprietary software comes to die

Posting mode: Reply

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(18.15 KB 170x191 serveimage.png)
Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 13:37:23 [Preview] No. 5510
I have a whole free week on my hands and i want to make most of it by installing a fresh new distro. Since i value /tech/'s opinion, tought i'd ask you guys.

Been using Linux Mint fot a year, but now i want a distro that is clean and not full of software i don't need (like Mint is). Can't decide between Debian or Arch, help me maybe? I kinda have a life, so if Arch is really that high maintenance, it's out of the picture.


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 14:52:09 [Preview] No. 5513 del
>>5510
>Debian or Arch
I've got a little confession to make. I've used Debian (stable, testing, unstable, experimental), Crunchbang, Ubuntu and its many flavors, Trisquel, Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Archlinux, Antergos, Manjaro-OpenRC, Archbang, Parabola, Tails OS, RHEL, Puppylinux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Hiren's Boot CD. I have become accustomed to Parabola (and my Libreboot X200), but only after learning how to use multiple WMs and DEs. If you want low maintenance, I can't recommend you libre distros and preinstalled default bloatware. I would recommend Antergos with Openbox (no lxde shit) or Bunsenlabs. Both of them are easy to use but it's a step higher than Linux Mint in difficulty, Linux Mint really is for babies that deals with overmanagement of packages worse than Ubuntu. If you are going to use Archlinux, do it right the first time or fail trying multiple times until you have something mediocre. If you are going to use Debian, use stable first then slowly add testing repos and eventually move onto unstable and experimental, but it will always be less updated than Archlinux and using a old shit computer would make the transitioning to less stable repos as an impossible task somewhat due to no support. Whether you choose Debian or Archlinux, please learn to do a minimal install and install what you need. If you're using a 32 bit computer, I feel bad for you son.


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 16:04:56 [Preview] No. 5515 del
>>5513
nice fuckin answer, thank you


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 20:16:45 [Preview] No. 5518 del
Arch is a rolling release x86 distro with an above-average amount of manual work. It's not suitable for other use cases.

Debian is the "universal distribution". It has rolling release and stable variants, it can run on almost every computer architecture you could name, it has official support for three different init systems, it's friendly to new users while still having a lot of advanced features for power users, it's really easy to make freetard/FSF-compliant, etcetera etcetera.

I've used both and now I run Debian on everything. It's a distro that I know I can stick with even if my needs change, and it doesn't make boring things like system installation harder than they need to be.

I recommend Debian, but if Arch fits your use case it's good too.

>>5513
>it will always be less updated than Archlinux
With unstable and experimental this is not true. Debian often gets new versions earlier than Arch, and it gets them fast enough that there's never an important amount of delay between the distros.

>and using a old shit computer would make the transitioning to less stable repos as an impossible task somewhat due to no support
I honestly don't know what you mean by this.


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 21:05:27 [Preview] No. 5520 del
>I kinda have a life, so if Arch is really that high maintenance, it's out of the picture.
Actually, it's pretty much the opposite. From my experience, you have to invest quite a lot of time into getting everything setup (maybe even multiple days) but once you've got everything running, you won't have to do much at all, other than running pacman -Syu from time to time.


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 21:13:58 [Preview] No. 5521 del
>>5520
Note that Arch is notorious for breaking if you don't run that often enough.


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 22:12:10 [Preview] No. 5522 del
>>5513
I'd stay clear of debian testing/unstable unless you want to do some testing. Depending on the day those repos can be really broken (think of the wayland introduction, yikes)

If you just need one or two packages to be bleeding edge you should try to compile it yourself or use backports if possible or even another separate installation of a bleeding edge distro (like deb testing or arch)

>>5510
the current debian stable branch works without a hickup for me since release. You can disable a lot when installing debian to get a somewhat minimal setup (no desktop, no X11/wayland, no ssh/cups etc). From there you can build your system in a couple minutes if you know what kind of software you need.

>I kinda have a life, so if Arch is really that high maintenance, it's out of the picture.

Because you are coming from Mint even debian might give you a headache ... I wouldn't even think about Arch right now.

If you experience hardware compatibility problems (usually missing firmware) remember that debian (unlike Mint) is a free distribution and that you have to fetch proprietary software from an external repo (non-free).


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 22:14:36 [Preview] No. 5523 del
I would recommend you go to FreeBSD, it's simple to install. PC-BSD is even simpler. The advantage of BSD over linux is that you have less bloat, better code quality, stability and, generally, better security (in case of freebsd you should look to hardenedbsd instead).

I would *not* recommend you Debian experimental or Archlinux. They will break your toy and let you crying.
Debian stable is good, though, but has >systemd


Well, try these on a VM and them decide yourself. I still hold that you would be better with BSD, since it's very stable.


Anonymous 06/26/2016 (Sun) 03:20:05 [Preview] No. 5525 del
I was using Debian for two years before I got sick of .deb in general, and that was from around 2012 to 2014 or whenever Systemd first came along in Debian Testing. I might be wrong about all this now.

>>5518
There's x86_64 support for Archlinux and I've used to have Archlinux and Debian Unstable installed in separate computers and every time something new came out like a kernel, Debian was behind a day or three.

>>5522
Debian Testing as a bleeding rolling release distro is much slower than Debian Unstable.

>>5523
Almost all "real" BSDfags are anti binary port users and if OP can compile all of his packages, good for him, but mixing compiled and binary packages is not suggested (by BSDfags that I've came across with that helped me install FreeBSD on a single core netbook) so it's either full binary or full compiled packages. Yes I will say that there's much more advantages in compiling everything, but some people don't have the liberty to deal with that. I'm not a *BSD fan so disregard this whine.


Anonymous 06/26/2016 (Sun) 07:05:14 [Preview] No. 5526 del
There's actually zero reason to use Arch, ever, period, fullstop.
If you want to go Linux-libre, you need to know how to compile missing dependencies and download them yourself, as well as have hardware support, many software you want to run will not be able to run on Linux-libre most likely.

Just how good are you at using Mint? What can you do on it? Moving to Devuan and Debian is very safe and recommended. Are you sure you can tackle rolling releases? It takes quite a lot of time and learning.


Anonymous 06/26/2016 (Sun) 16:06:54 [Preview] No. 5532 del
>>5525
>There's x86_64 support for Archlinux
I see x86_64 as a subset of x86. I should have clarified that. My point was that if your computer doesn't run x86 it doesn't run any official version of Arch.
>and I've used to have Archlinux and Debian Unstable installed in separate computers and every time something new came out like a kernel, Debian was behind a day or three.
A lot of packages go through experimental first, a repository you add on top of unstable.


Anonymous 06/26/2016 (Sun) 19:44:42 [Preview] No. 5535 del
>>5513
>>5525
>>5532
In Debian packages usually go from unstable to testing with a little delay (usually 2-10 days).
in unstable maintainers just test the basics, like if a package can be installed and uninstalled properly. So you have to expect that your system breaks beyond repair.

Then further testing is done in the Debian testing, so this branch is a little safer to use but still scary. At least you know that you can more or less safely install and uninstall broken packages.

experimental is where people can test broken and experimental/unfinished software.
This branch is usually horribly (and intentionally) broken and completely unfit.

Right now the testing branch is usable but still there are a lot(!) of bugs like windows not popping up or PIN-widgets losing focus while you type a password.

>tl;dr
Debian Experimental -> Don't use it.
Debian Unstable -> Expect a completely broken system
Debian Testing -> System may run and boot but software might be broken

use Debian Stable (+ optional backports)


Anonymous 06/27/2016 (Mon) 01:09:39 [Preview] No. 5547 del
At this point, we're not recommending OP Debian but Devuan and no linux-libre stuff and maybe PC-BSD and non libre non systemd systems that isn't made by Apple, Google, and Microsoft that's still within the range of the linux newbie's reach in terms of the difficulty curve.


Anonymous 06/27/2016 (Mon) 14:08:32 [Preview] No. 5566 del
Thank you all, i'll go with Devuan


Anonymous 06/28/2016 (Tue) 09:37:28 [Preview] No. 5593 del
>>5535
You're exaggerating.

I've run Debian Unstable on multiple systems for two years without issues like the ones you're suggesting. I sometimes install a few packages from Experimental, and it has worked out fine. You're not supposed to upgrade to Experimental, only install packages if you need the new versions.

I've had slightly less breakage on Debian than on Arch.


Anonymous 06/28/2016 (Tue) 19:07:58 [Preview] No. 5600 del
>>5593

>You're not supposed to upgrade to Experimental, only install packages if you need the new versions.

No, you are not supposed to load anything from this branch ever (as a normal user).

>>5535 is correct, read again
/experimental is NOT where you find bleeding edge software ...

it is for
>broken software

big difference


Anonymous 06/28/2016 (Tue) 19:10:31 [Preview] No. 5601 del
>>5600
Experimental is for software that has a higher than average chance to be broken, not for broken software.


Anonymous 06/28/2016 (Tue) 21:48:06 [Preview] No. 5602 del
>>5601
>Experimental is for software that has a higher than average chance to be broken, not for broken software.

>I don't think there is anything such as an average chance of software to be broken. Anyway, here is a little more info on that subject, some might find it interesting.

>Normally, packages are uploaded into unstable.

>Active development is done in the unstable distribution (that's why this distribution is sometimes called the development distribution).

>If there is a chance that the software could do grave damage to a system, it is likely to be better to put it into experimental.

>software which isn't likely to damage your system can go directly into unstable.

>[experimental] is meant to be a temporary staging area for highly experimental software where there's a good chance that the software could break your system, or software that's just too unstable (sic! no assumption) even for the unstable distribution

>all bets are off for the experimental distribution.


TP~* 06/28/2016 (Tue) 22:36:58 [Preview] No. 5604 del
Manjaro 16.06 ? ( Gnome, Cinnamon, Budgie, i3, JWM, Deepin, Xfce ... )


TP~* 06/28/2016 (Tue) 22:41:57 [Preview] No. 5605 del
Do you know a distro named KALI?

https://www.kali.org/


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 05:37:02 [Preview] No. 5612 del
>>5605
Kali is honeypot


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 08:01:52 [Preview] No. 5621 del
>>5612
how so?


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 08:40:35 [Preview] No. 5626 del
>>5621
its download website, and wiki requires javascript to be viewed, and both the site and netinstall hops to israeli and american hosting company associated with the military, same thing with protonmail.

https://cryptome.org/2015/11/protonmail-ddos.htm


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 12:56:47 [Preview] No. 5631 del
OpenBSD https://www.openbsd.org/ and Cubes OS https://www.qubes-os.org/ are the only ones i know of which promise "security and privacy by default" installation.


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 13:07:24 [Preview] No. 5632 del
>>5631
SubgraphOS, Tails OS, Tin Hat Linux


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 16:17:38 [Preview] No. 5647 del
>>5632
OP is coming from Mint, he plans to install the OS instead of running it from an external device and he "kinda have a life". So Tails and Tin Hat probably not for him.
Supgraph is still in alpha and currently doesn't fit the "easy to maintain" requirement.


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 17:32:12 [Preview] No. 5648 del
@5647

Exactly!

Manjaro Gnome 16.0.6 ( and the Linux trauma is not so hard ).

TP~*


Anonymous 06/29/2016 (Wed) 22:17:17 [Preview] No. 5654 del
>>5647
Adding onto that, I wouldn't recommend using OpenBSD because it can be a little difficult to maintain.

Qubes OS is a good idea, though. I've been using it for a week and it seems nice.


Anonymous 06/30/2016 (Thu) 04:28:09 [Preview] No. 5657 del
Arch Linux, in my experience, is the easiest in terms of maintenance, but getting comfy with it can suck.


Anonymous 06/30/2016 (Thu) 06:32:53 [Preview] No. 5658 del
Debian.


Anonymous 06/30/2016 (Thu) 06:33:51 [Preview] No. 5659 del
DEBIAN I'd say. I like PointLinux because it has a minimal installation that is a breeze, with ability to add on more software as needed.


Anonymous 06/30/2016 (Thu) 06:47:51 [Preview] No. 5660 del
Qubes is also honeypot


Anonymous 06/30/2016 (Thu) 06:53:35 [Preview] No. 5661 del
On the Devuan meme topic, do they have a liveCD yet?


Anonymous 06/30/2016 (Thu) 15:24:07 [Preview] No. 5670 del
>>5660
Any reason to believe this?


Anonymous 07/01/2016 (Fri) 15:03:31 [Preview] No. 5687 del
>>5670
No.


Anonymous 07/01/2016 (Fri) 19:29:50 [Preview] No. 5695 del
>>5660
i knew it, their site looks too good


TP~* 07/01/2016 (Fri) 23:43:58 [Preview] No. 5699 del
Why? What do you think as sysadmin, developer, hacker, coder, engineer, geek, nerd?

Because they use a lot of non-free software?

http://mirror.lug.udel.edu/pub/kali.org/kali/pool/non-free/


@All

Software Honeypot

This means a software exist only as trap for a specific group of criminals.

Tor = Pedophiles, Drug Dealers
Kali = Hackers

99% of all childporn producers are TrueCrypt / VeraCrypt + Tor user.

99% of all hackers know or use Kali.


Anonymous 07/03/2016 (Sun) 21:44:21 [Preview] No. 5734 del
>>5699
>99% of all hackers know or use Kali.
99% of all script kiddies know or use Kali.
Fixed that for you.

Also, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Hacker


Anonymous 07/09/2016 (Sat) 08:40:58 [Preview] No. 5791 del
>>5631
no Whonix?


Anonymous 07/09/2016 (Sat) 11:33:50 [Preview] No. 5792 del
>>5791
is Whonix really for a daily use as a primary OS? i don't think so


Anonymous 07/10/2016 (Sun) 09:40:37 [Preview] No. 5795 del
+1 vote for Cubes OS. Though every distribution will have some software you don't need.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>>5699
>99% of all childporn producers are Tor user.

Can you provide the source for that? Tor only gives probabilistic anonymity, and because child porn is a crime in most countries and can be investigated by the Interpol, the change of staying anonymous through Tor is close to 0%. According to our stats, in 2015 there were still much more underage content on DC networks and infected machines than on hidden services.

>99% of all hackers know or use Kali.
Can it be just another 99% popped out from your head?!


Anonymous 07/10/2016 (Sun) 15:18:29 [Preview] No. 5797 del
>>5699
tp pls


Anonymous 07/10/2016 (Sun) 16:54:56 [Preview] No. 5799 del
>>5797
i'm sorry but he left


OP here Anonymous 12/07/2016 (Wed) 20:38:01 [Preview] No. 7593 del
(15.14 KB 254x70 systemd-free-arch.png)
I actually ended up with Arch OpenRC and after using it for a few months now i have to say i really enjoy this systemd-free setup.


Anonymous 12/08/2016 (Thu) 18:38:51 [Preview] No. 7597 del
>>7593
Is there anything you like about the lack of systemd in particular?


Anonymous 12/10/2016 (Sat) 10:18:22 [Preview] No. 7603 del
>>7593
you could also use devuan... its basically 100% debian but without systemd.. they use sysvinit.. and it alreadt hitted beta 2... its stable and i use it as daily driver


Anonymous 12/10/2016 (Sat) 13:07:14 [Preview] No. 7605 del
>>7603
What makes it better than just uninstalling systemd from Debian?


Anonymous 12/10/2016 (Sat) 16:45:43 [Preview] No. 7606 del
>>7603
Devuan was already mentioned in this thread, for me Debian is "too stable" for a personal computer, i wan't something that is updated more frequently and is more closer to the edge.


Anonymous 12/10/2016 (Sat) 16:59:17 [Preview] No. 7607 del
>>7605
>What makes it better than just uninstalling systemd from Debian?
So you don't have to install Debian and only then replace systemd with sysvinit. If you already have Debian installed then there's no point in installing Devuan, you can just replace systemd, as you said.


Anonymous 12/10/2016 (Sat) 22:49:26 [Preview] No. 7609 del
>>7606
Just upgrade to Testing or Unstable. Note that it's called "Unstable" because the packages change all the time, not for any crash-related reasons.


Anonymous 12/14/2016 (Wed) 21:52:23 [Preview] No. 7619 del
>>7607
It's not that easy it breaks a lot of things like polkit. Devuan forked specific packages to make it work


Anonymous 12/17/2016 (Sat) 18:31:03 [Preview] No. 7651 del
Is the systemd botnet thing for real or is it just a meme?

Sorry if it's a stupid question, I'm just getting into this stuff..


Anonymous 12/17/2016 (Sat) 20:39:01 [Preview] No. 7652 del
>>7651
It's an uncommon claim that's typically bait or coming from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Systemd doesn't have any privacy issues.

Many other kinds of complaints about systemd are more than mere memes/shitposting.


Anonymous 12/17/2016 (Sat) 23:07:50 [Preview] No. 7655 del
>Systemd doesn't have any privacy issues
Is that fixed in upstream?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1449001

0/10, made me use that shitty "block bypass"


Anonymous 12/18/2016 (Sun) 17:20:56 [Preview] No. 7667 del
>>7651
i have switched over to freebsd because of that systemd shit.... its taking over the whole system wtf... it will be systemd-this systemd-that systemd-porn or whatever... im lucky that my hardware is 100% compatible with freebsd out of the box... i used Gentoo, altough gentoo's default init software is sysvinit+openrc but you can feel systemd everywhere... you cannot run decent/modern desktop these days without systemd


Anonymous 12/18/2016 (Sun) 17:59:37 [Preview] No. 7669 del
>>7667
this, i haven't come over to Linux for this shit


Anonymous 12/18/2016 (Sun) 23:53:17 [Preview] No. 7685 del
>>7651
it is not a botnet but it is terrible software.

it simply does too much. defies unix philosophy. "do one thing and do it well".

it has become middleware. i admit init scripts aren't the most fun but simply put systemd is cancer


Anonymous 12/19/2016 (Mon) 01:23:30 [Preview] No. 7686 del
>>7655
Sorry, my bad. It doesn't have any fundamental privacy issues, though. Most complaints are about very different things.

>>7685
Do you honestly believe there are parts of GNU and Linux that don't defy the unix philosophy? If proper unix is what you're looking for you're using the wrong operating system whether you happen to have systemd installed or not.


Anonymous 12/19/2016 (Mon) 01:26:53 [Preview] No. 7687 del
>>7686
>defying the unix philosophy
But look at how grand and critical this piece is. It's more of the location, adoption and use then they broke a rule. They broke this rule grandly.

They essentially decided to make a c daemon for a bunch of shell scripts. This goes against any minimal or simplicity principle.


1/2 Anonymous 12/19/2016 (Mon) 12:37:56 [Preview] No. 7691 del
How would anyone have ever guessed this ingeniously designed plot!?

>windows 10 released

>ignorant uninformed people keep using it, even though it steals your wifi and social networking passwords

>smarter
yet still a multitude of levels more stupid than I, freedom seeking
people attempt to flee this evils grasp and beg for knowledge online to
the best of their pathetic ability

>mint and ubuntu shills pop up and fool a percentage of them promising ease of use

>meanwhile
other shills scare them away from linux entirely by throwing noobs
right into the grinder "installll gentoooo, installlll archhhh,
installlllll fedoraaaa, installllll redhattt"

>meanwhile
yet again, systemd spreads through linux like a virulent plague,
infecting and un-freedoming multiple linux distrobutions, forcing users
to run around trying to remove it or find another distro with no
systemd.

SystemD is a plot to scare the
people away from using major linux distros and move to a very limited
set of options or rather ultimatums in which they can be effectively
spied upon.

So
I Welcome you all… to the NSA/Prism hotel where there is a Mint under
every pillow and a pervert voyeur looking through your Windows.

You can check in but you can't check out, so enjoy your stay because you are never getting out! -√¿#΅ςγζτεηη–εггôř΅∞8∞8∞8∞8


2/2 Anonymous 12/19/2016 (Mon) 12:38:29 [Preview] No. 7692 del
Another
thing to note is that systemd is four-hundred-twenty-five-THOUSAND
lines of code for just an init system. systemd is a plot to windows-ize
linux and ruin it for everyone who loves freedom. systemd is being
shoved down everyone's throats. systemd is massive for an init system.
systemd is bloat. systemd is a Linux kernel coup attempt. Systemd tries
to incorporate way too much. Many previously isolated components are
all carelessly blobbed together which not only widens the angle of
attack but also makes the system as a whole less reliable, because one
small error and whole system goes down HARD.

Systemd
is being pushed by obviously malicious people. Consider the following:
The reason developers have decided to depend on systemd is stated to be
that it solves problems with device management, for example. However,
several tens of thousands of people have worked for decades without
addressing or even mentioning the existence of such a problem. if the
problem existed, it would have been mentioned. If the problem existed,
people would have worked on it. Mentioning a problem costs literally
nothing and would have been effectively mandatory in dev mailing lists
and ircs e.g. when discussing a specific implementation, interface, or
approach taken or to be taken by a project. The systemd-backing people
almost exclusively use emotions-based arguments to support systemd: "The
only other option was sysvinit! If you don't like systemd, you're a
sysvinit fanatic! The only people who oppose us are the men in the linux
community that have a deep hatred for women!"

The
project is strongly endorsed by various feminist groups that have
nothing to do with technology. The system is headed by a developer
reputed for making low-quality software. If literally any other piece of
software had the kind of bugs described in the various systemd issue
trackers, they wouldn't even be accepted in distro repos, yet systemd
has been widely adopted in a matter of months, breaking compatibility
and not offering upgrade paths even on the likes of strong server OSs
like debian or centos. SELinux - a NSA project - developers are strongly
for systemd, nevermind the numerous bugs and undoubtedly numerous
security vulnerabilities. Speaking of, there has been NO audit of
systemd even though everyone is accepting systemd no matter how
security-sensitive the distro is meant to be. It's pretty evident that
something is really wrong with systemd's adoption. basically the
bastards who want to enslave the world decided that the best way to
control opensource is to create their own and promote it until it's the
standard even though it shouldn't be.

new
people would fall for it and the more knowledgeable are facing a lack
of support for their alternatives. The project to create an
all-encompassing system that can be easily infiltrated by, at will to
provide root access and spy on arbitrary non-backdoored systems is being
funded by, and is being promoted by the, global elite across the entire
community. It's clear that the adoption of systemd is not normal and
there's something hiding behind it. Nobody has ever been specific about
what kind of problem systemd solves, nobody has ever even mentioned
having a problem before systemd appeared, and suddenly it spreads like
wildfire.

systemd's
design is flawed intentionally to increase its attack vector and make
it vulnerable for outside attackers to break it more easily. There is a
reason why systemd is pushed by Red hat, an American company with very
close ties to the N$@. Red hat controls Fedora, so Fedora adopted it
first, then Red hat enterprise linux and because Red hat funds most of
debian, they also caved in. Basically all of the major distros are
controlled by Red hat one way or another. Everyone hates Gnome, yet it
is still here, why you ask…… it is Red hat. Red Hat wants control of
Linux. Anyone who opposes systemd is in the way of them controlling
Linu


Anonymous 12/19/2016 (Mon) 13:09:00 [Preview] No. 7694 del
>>7603
I use Devuan testing on my daily driver and other than the occasional nvidia related headaches (not really their fault Nvidia is so fucking slow at updating when a new Xorg release is out or the kernel changes) that are common with Debian its been great.

I use Antix stable on my laptop though, since I need it for work and cannot afford to put up with bullshit on it. It is systemd-less but it uses their own repository on top of Debian's own to pull it off. I definitely recommend Antix if you want something lightweight (systemd-less at that) and works without wasting a week trying to figure out why something doesnt work.


Anonymous 12/19/2016 (Mon) 13:11:34 [Preview] No. 7695 del
>>7692
x. They will do whatever they can to make sure that Gentoo, Slackware, Void, and Alpine have the worst time possible by not solely supporting systemd. After red hat fully takes control with systemd, there is no need for different distros, because basically they will be all the same but with a different logo.


Anonymous 12/19/2016 (Mon) 14:55:46 [Preview] No. 7696 del
>>7687
It's grand and critical, but it's no less grand and critical than the kernel.

You have a Unix-defying kernel, compiler, init system, C standard library, shell (usually), set of Unix utilities, windowing system, bootloader (usually), and then you complain about the init system going the same way?

Do you know the difference between the size of the Linux kernel and the original Unix kernel? Have you ever compared GNU code to Unix code?

Linux and GNU really, truly don't follow the Unix philosophy at all. They make up most of your system. Most other parts you could name (X11, Qt, KDE, OpenSSL, vim) don't follow it either.


Anonymous 12/22/2016 (Thu) 21:16:32 [Preview] No. 7720 del
>>5510
>>5521
As far as I'm concerned this is a non-problem. Just schedule it and it will do it automatically for you.


Anonymous 12/24/2016 (Sat) 11:27:50 [Preview] No. 7728 del
>>7691
>>7692
>>7695
wow anon you really opened my eyes,
this writing style reminds me of that TP copypaster


Anonymous 01/19/2017 (Thu) 21:25:09 [Preview] No. 7876 del
>>7696

is it really fair to compare LOC of linux(that runs on virtually anything relevent these days) to comfy days of PDP?

linux kernel code's quality VARIES.

For portion where linus himself and experienced devs invest most of their time tend to be high quality software with lots of technical gems.

It's just vendor specific parts where codes of rather questionable quality get introduced.

Small companies throwing in whatever crap that happens to compile and hipsters who wants title of 'linux developer' spoils community and ultimately, kernel itself.

Theo might be autist but at least he applies autism for better quality most of the time.

I'm not sure what's Linus' plan with kernel anymore...what is he trying to focus on with this dumpster fire.


Anonymous 01/20/2017 (Fri) 07:09:35 [Preview] No. 7879 del
>>7876
Sure, Linux has reasons to be larger while sticking to the same philosophy, but not to this extent. It's also much larger because it's so filled with features. Its size is also the result of its very different design philosophy. And I don't think that's a bad thing, but I do think that it invalidates arguments that are just "this one other part of the system doesn't follow the unix philosophy either, therefore it's shit".


anyone from egypt Anonymous 02/17/2017 (Fri) 20:46:38 [Preview] No. 8040 del
anyone from egypt


Anonymous 02/18/2017 (Sat) 17:08:49 [Preview] No. 8045 del
>>8040
why do you ask?


Anonymous 02/26/2017 (Sun) 23:56:27 [Preview] No. 8121 del
>>5648
bumping this

Also Manjaro offers official OpenRC support and it's developed as a user-friendly distro while offering more or less the same power as archlinux. The core team clearly lacks an understanding in security, but it's the best we have that has the potential to grow as ubuntu/mint and "reach the masses"


Anonymous 02/28/2017 (Tue) 21:49:00 [Preview] No. 8136 del
>>7691
>>7692
>>7695
>They will do whatever they can to make sure that Gentoo, Slackware, Void, and Alpine have the worst time possible by not solely supporting systemd. After red hat fully takes control with systemd, there is no need for different distros, because basically they will be all the same but with a different logo.

This is the main reason why systemd is bad for linux.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply