Read about it here:
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/25/06/28/054245/x11-fork-xlibre-released-for-testing-on-systemd-free-artix-linux
Are you sick of these distro bastards like Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, etc., etc., etc., limiting your choices and forcing things like systemd and
Wayland down your throat?
I don't use any distro so I am totally immune to that scourge.
But one GNU/Linux distro, namely Artix, which eschews the abominable
systemd, is now offering Xlibre, the new fork of X11, as an alternative
to the equally abominable Wayland.
Read about it here:
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/25/06/28/054245/x11-fork-xlibre-released-for-testing-on-systemd-free-artix-linux
Both systemd and Wayland are unnecessary, useless junk that are being
foisted upon GNU/Linux users by the grubbing major distros (and they
are grubbing).
If you can't roll your own with Gentoo/LFS, then at least liberate
yourself with Artix.
If you can't roll your own with Gentoo/LFS, then at least liberate
yourself with Artix.
It is just simpler to use binary-blob systemd ...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:11:08 +0530, Not Necessary wrote:
It is just simpler to use binary-blob systemd ...
What is this “binary blob systemd” of which you speak?
Well, systemd is notorious among init script enthusiasts that it isn't a
set of plaintext configuration files like rc scripts, but a bunch of inter-connected binary files that take over nearly the entirety of
system management, from initializing the kernel to system logs.
Are you sick of these distro bastards like Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian,
etc., etc., etc., limiting your choices and forcing things like
systemd and Wayland down your throat?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:52:36 +0530, Not Necessary wrote:
Well, systemd is notorious among init script enthusiasts that it isn't a
set of plaintext configuration files like rc scripts, but a bunch of
inter-connected binary files that take over nearly the entirety of
system management, from initializing the kernel to system logs.
It makes me retch almost immediately.
What sentient being would ever desire to relegate control of his
personal computing machine to a foreign entity?
F**k systemd! F**k Wayland!
On 30/06/25 1:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:11:08 +0530, Not Necessary wrote:
It is just simpler to use binary-blob systemd ...
What is this “binary blob systemd” of which you speak?
Well, systemd is notorious among init script enthusiasts that it isn't a
set of plaintext configuration files like rc scripts, but a bunch of inter-connected binary files that take over nearly the entirety of
system management, from initializing the kernel to system logs.
Computers internally can't understand plaintext; that is an abstraction
for humans.
Plaintext is just human-readable information codified into a binary
format for the hardware to parse / store / transmit.
Software is explicitly binary where it connects logical pathways etched
in hardware for electric current to flow in a certain way.
Also GUI is just one of the many paradigms of computing interfaces.
More than that, plaintext is amenable to automated tools for finding differences and applying those differences as patches. Those are things
you would not want to do just by eyeballing it -- not at the scale at
which many Open Source projects work these days.
The difference between “computers” (by which I assume you mean the hardware) and the software that they run isn’t that clear-cut anyway. It’s
all abstract machine built on top of abstract machine, at least until you
get to the GUI. Then you’re stuck.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:59:31 +0530, Not Necessary wrote:
Plaintext is just human-readable information codified into a binary
format for the hardware to parse / store / transmit.
But you said “computers can’t understand plaintext, they understand binaries”. But if they’re the same thing, then why would computers understand one but not the other?
But you said “computers can’t understand plaintext, they understand binaries”. But if they’re the same thing, then why would computers understand one but not the other?
So do “microcode” and “firmware”. Are they part of the “software” or the
“hardware”?
It’s the one layer of abstract machine that is not designed for additional layers to be built on top.
On 30/06/25 10:07 pm, Nux Vomica wrote:
What sentient being would ever desire to relegate control of his
personal computing machine to a foreign entity?
Is your kernel also a bunch of init scripts, lol? Computers internally
can't understand plaintext; that is an abstraction for humans. Computers understand *binaries* (that's zeros and ones for your information).
The clearly stated issue, for humans anyway, is user control versus
foreign (i.e. systemd) control. That is all.
IOW, there is no difference between the human mind and the machine.
The machine is only much faster.
The human mind `thinks' in
objects;
the computer reacts to states.
For init scripts with generic configurations, they require udev in
kernel space to manage devices.
Otherwise, all your devices are static,
and you've lost the ability to use simple USB drives without
re-booting!
Systemd is the successor to udev.
On 01/07/25 8:20 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
But you said “computers can’t understand plaintext, they understand
binaries”. But if they’re the same thing, then why would computers
understand one but not the other?
The characters or glyphs we see are ultimately mapped according to the encoding format, which represent a numeric value for that character or
glyph. The computer can't understand the glyph; we do. It can only use
the numeric value associated with it to store / parse / transmit it.
So do “microcode” and “firmware”. Are they part of the “software” or
the “hardware”?
Microcode is software, and so is firmware.
It’s the one layer of abstract machine that is not designed for
additional layers to be built on top.
GUI is one of the paradigms of user interface, just like the CLI is. You can't build an interface on top of a CLI.
A program using a pseudo-graphical interface such as Emacs on the
terminal does not build ``on top'' of the CLI
-- one loses the ability to pipe and redirect data that they can do on
the command line.
Likewise a file manager such as Dolphin isn't build on top of KDE.
So where does the “computers can’t understand plaintext, theyunderstand binaries” come in?
What if it’s in ROM? What if it’s in the ROM of a power controller or management-engine chip that’s built into the motherboard or evencan even work?
integrated into the CPU die, that needs to start up before your CPU
Sure you can. It’s all abstract machines on top of abstract machines:you can build a more special-purpose CLI on top of a more
And at the final step, you can build GUI front-ends to CLI tools.
I’ve got news for you: Emacs has long had the option to run in its ownGUI windows, independent of any terminal (though it can still work
No you don’t. Emacs can run CLI commands that take input from editor buffers and return output to editor buffers. And of course there iscopy and paste between editor windows and terminal windows.
You *do* realize KDE is just a framework for implementing Dolphin and
other apps, right? So yes, they *are* built on top of KDE!
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:23:37 +0530, Not Necessary wrote:
For init scripts with generic configurations, they require udev in
kernel space to manage devices.
No they do not.
They only do so now because of the despotic decisions by the mainstream distros. X11 now requires libinput for keyboard/mouse control which
in turn requires udev.
Formerly, udev was only just another option until the mainstream distros enforced their delusions of "modernity."
Otherwise, all your devices are static,
As they damn well should be. For a personal workstation static
devices are the most sensible choice. But the mainstream distros
have managed to quash that choice.
and you've lost the ability to use simple USB drives without
re-booting!
No you haven't. If one understands how the kernel works it is
very straightforward to develop scripts that can handle "pluggable"
USB devices.
I understand the kernel. You do not.
Systemd is the successor to udev.
No it isn't. Systemd is an advancement in complexity only for the
sake of an advancement. Systemd does nothing that many other things
cannot do. Systemd has only seduced the mainstream distros which, regrettably, control most of GNU/Linux development.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:23:37 +0530, Not Necessary wrote:
The human mind `thinks' in
objects;
WTF does that mean? Fortunately, you can speak only
for yourself and not for all humans.
the computer reacts to states.
The computer only executes instructions that are
assigned to it by a human agent, and such instructions
do not differ from or transcend any already innate human
pattern.
On 28/06/25 10:32 pm, Farley Flud wrote:
Are you sick of these distro bastards like Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, etc.,You roll your own init scripts, write every logical statement and
etc., etc., limiting your choices and forcing things like systemd and
Wayland down your throat?
I don't use any distro so I am totally immune to that scourge.
But one GNU/Linux distro, namely Artix, which eschews the abominable
systemd, is now offering Xlibre, the new fork of X11, as an alternative
to the equally abominable Wayland.
Read about it here:
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/25/06/28/054245/x11-fork-xlibre-released-for-testing-on-systemd-free-artix-linux
Both systemd and Wayland are unnecessary, useless junk that are being
foisted upon GNU/Linux users by the grubbing major distros (and they
are grubbing).
If you can't roll your own with Gentoo/LFS, then at least liberate
yourself with Artix.
assertion customized for your hardware:
*great*! Most people won't be able to do that anyways!
The clearly stated issue, for humans anyway, is user control versus
foreign (i.e. systemd) control.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:02:09 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:
If you can't roll your own with Gentoo/LFS, then at least liberate
yourself with Artix.
Is it developed by the same people who created and maintain Linux Mint?
If not, what's the point of even trying it?
Le 01-07-2025, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
The clearly stated issue, for humans anyway, is user control versus
foreign (i.e. systemd) control.
With sysv init scripts ...
When, with systemd ...
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 30-06-2025, CtrlAltDel <Altie@BHam.com> a écrit :
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:02:09 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:
If you can't roll your own with Gentoo/LFS, then at least liberate
yourself with Artix.
Is it developed by the same people who created and maintain Linux
Mint?
No.
If not, what's the point of even trying it?
You see, you never tried anything else than Mint and your opinion is
based on nothing.
The problem I had updating Mint to a newer release goes to show why it's
a lot more mediocre a distro than the users proclaim, I had too much
baggage for an in-place upgrade, and then booting the installer to start fresh didn't even work, clearly it saw I had a still- supported version installed and just refused to load the installer to overwrite it. It's
a beginner OS, not for real enthusiasts of Linux.
On 04 Jul 2025 19:58:51 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:bootscripts.html>
Le 01-07-2025, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :You assume, wrongly as usual, that sysv and systemd are the only two
The clearly stated issue, for humans anyway, is user control versus
foreign (i.e. systemd) control.
With sysv init scripts ...
When, with systemd ...
boot scripts available.
You, of course, are a total idiot. GNU/Linux has a plethora of init
systems available and any user is also free to write his own init
system.
For example, I base my init scripts on LFS, which I have modified:
<https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter09/
You, of course, being a lackey idiot, could never do this. Hence you
are totally dependent on systemd.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Without a distro and systemd you could only use Micro$soft Winblows and
you know it.
What a loser!
On 4 Jul 2025 22:51:10 GMT, vallor wrote:
So let's see the script you run as process id 1.No script is necessary. The kernel calls the "init" program after boot (unless overridden on the kernel command line).
The "init" program runs as PID 1 and invokes the scripts in
"/etc/inittab," which in my case points to my custom scripts.
[~]# ps ax
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
1 ? Ss 0:01 init [3]
I'm curious how it manages cgroups, reaps orphaned children, etc.Ha, ha, ha, ha! There ain't no stinkin' cgroups on my machines.
So let's see the script you run as process id 1.
I'm curious how it manages cgroups, reaps orphaned children, etc.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:02:09 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:
Read about it here:
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/25/06/28/054245/x11-fork-xlibre-released-for-testing-on-systemd-free-artix-linux
My fave quote from the, still nascent, comments:
'There appear to be a lot of Wayland evangelists out there that would like
to detain you into a Wayland-re-education camp, where everyone is forced
to worship Wayland every day. That camp is right beside the "systemd" and
the "pulseaudio" camp, though the inmates of the latter have recently been freed by a guerilla group named "pipewire".'
IAW, you're running sysv init? I thought you wrote your own init?
Ha, ha, ha, ha! There ain't no stinkin' cgroups on my machines.
Then they're crippled -- you aren't using the full capabilities
of Linux.
I'll bet you have Mandatory Access Control modules switched off, too.
Dumbass.
'There appear to be a lot of Wayland evangelists out there that would like >> to detain you into a Wayland-re-education camp, where everyone is forced
to worship Wayland every day.
I'm not surprised you like the comment you could have written. Nobody
want to force Wayland everywhere, they are the obsolescence aficionado
like you who want to stop things improving to stay well stuck in the
past. Nobody cares if you want to use X11 with system V and alsa. They
care so little about your expectations they don't want to help you and
so you feel alone believing they want to force you. But no, they just
don't care about you. If you want to stay in the past, you have to
manage everything by yourself, that's all.
On 02/07/25 3:51 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
So where does the “computers can’t understand plaintext, they
understand binaries” come in?
The computer does not understand the `glyph'; we do. Plaintext is the
glyph that we read and write with. Digital computing devices can only
use the encoding for the glyph, based on the software it is provided to
do so.
What if it’s in ROM? What if it’s in the ROM of a power controller or
management-engine chip that’s built into the motherboard or even
integrated into the CPU die, that needs to start up before your CPU
can even work?
You are conflating two different concepts: A sequence of zeros and ones,
even if it is etched permanently on to any integrated circuit is still software; they are instructions, not pathways. Current can only flow
through pathways. Instructions, even if they are part of the circuit
design and integrated within it, is low-level software.
Sure you can. It’s all abstract machines on top of abstract machines:
you can build a more special-purpose CLI on top of a more
general-purpose one.
Can you name a special-purpose CLI on top of a general-purpose one?
And at the final step, you can build GUI front-ends to CLI tools.
You are using a CLI tool as an API for your GUI front-end. There is no interaction with the command line.
I’ve got news for you: Emacs has long had the option to run in its own
GUI windows, independent of any terminal (though it can still work
through a terminal). It also includes the basics of a GUI toolkit, for
you to create custom interfaces to an Emacs extension.
I'm not referring to the Emacs GUI interface.
No you don’t. Emacs can run CLI commands that take input from editor
buffers and return output to editor buffers. And of course there is
copy and paste between editor windows and terminal windows.
If you use the terminal version of Emacs, you enter into the Emacs
editor interface, where you cannot pipe or re-direct data to the
terminal.
You *do* realize KDE is just a framework for implementing Dolphin and
other apps, right? So yes, they *are* built on top of KDE!
I hope you know that Qt is the framework ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 164:12:11 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,517 |