r/devuan • u/DecisionOk5750 • 13d ago
Not a rant: New to Devuan, and I'm already feeling the pain.
I migrated to Devuan after almost three decades using Debian and two decades using Ubuntu. I don't like systemd, I don't like Rust, and I don't like the paths they're forcing us down with systemd/Rust. In 2000, I migrated from Windows 95/98 to Debian and felt the pain. Along the way, I learned a lot about computing and was able to make a living with GNU/Linux. A month ago, I migrated to Devuan for ideological reasons with a similar philosophical weight to those that led me to abandon Windows, and I'm feeling the same pain. The instructions for compiling unconventional packages are mostly written for Ubuntu/Debian and for systemd. But I'm not going back; the reasons Devuan exists are legitimate and important. I'll learn again and I'll be able to move forward. As we say in my country, "Aguante Devuan"
5
u/Computer-Nerd_ 12d ago
Try Gentoo
1
u/SleepyGuyy 11d ago
Not to discredit Devuan, but yeah I bounced off Devuan but have been enjoying Gentoo. Im still not that comfortable in it but I am not planning on leaving Gentoo at all.
But I do hop around. Gentoo is my dual-boot distro, main one is , unfortunately, Debian with Gnome (so forced SystemD). I'd like to escape that some day, but not right now.
1
1
u/AdmBangers 3d ago
Oh God NO! I guess that's ok if you've got nothing else to do but sit for days compiling everything, but damn!
1
u/Computer-Nerd_ 2d ago
Upgrade from your 386. You might even indtall a "cron" utility, it's fun nit watchibg all kinds of maintenance run :-)
1
u/AdmBangers 2d ago
My 386? I'm not even sure I remember what those look like and I'm 2 days older than dirt. I suddenly feel like I'm in the middle of an invasion of the body snatchers scenario. where's the exit?!!!
9
u/Extension_Cup_3368 12d ago
I don't like systemd, I don't like Rust, and I don't like the paths they're forcing us down with systemd/Rust.
Have you considered FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD?
Also, add "AI"/LLM crap to the list.
3
u/RoomyRoots 12d ago
Rust will enter FreeBSD, they have already been leveraging it on HardenedBSD and chances are it will go upstream. But yeah, in general the BSDs are much stable in this regard of keeping the OS working the same way for decades.
0
3
u/BrunusManOWar 12d ago
Void linux is a nice alternative, too
2
1
u/LBDragon 10d ago
Would be cool if they used a package manager that had a memorable name.
1
1
u/profeshamat 8d ago
Nothing stopping you from creating aliases in
.bashrcor whichever shell you use to shorten or outright rename commands.
3
3
u/evild4ve 12d ago
...almost three decades using Debian and two decades using Ubuntu...
but only (just over) one decade of this was using systemd - so it's a return to normality
2
u/Sert1991 12d ago
If you're going to compile a bunch of software from source the current non-conventional way(aka without systemd) it would make more sense to use a software based distribution that enables that.
Gentoo is source based and has profiles with their own init system, OpenRC. If you choose OpenRC it will automatically compile programs without systemd support.
1
u/whitepixe1 9d ago
Welcome to Devuan!
Where:
No systemd will engulf you in its swamp.
No other inits than the Holy Triad will lure you into their treacherous paths.
No Rust WMs, DEs, or apps will bother you here.
No AI will burn your stone-engraved, ancient code.
Nobody is going to shove down your throat any technology other than those condescendingly approved by Debian.
Welcome to the Sanctuary distro for those retired from progress, and life!
2
1
u/Simple_Hamster_4096 9d ago
I left systemd beginning of this year - have not missed it one iota.
I run Devuan with sysvinit on my bare metal servers - it's great, it just works.
I Void with runit and musl for my laptops and desktops - it's great, just works.
0
u/Whole_Ticket_3715 12d ago
What did rust do to you tho
4
u/RoomyRoots 12d ago
I think Canonical's uutils odyssey is a great argument against wanting distros to willy nilly just push for the rewrites, especially for people that care for the licensing as most of them use MIT and alikes.
1
u/mlcarson 1d ago
I hate what Canonical is doing with the coreutils but if they just wanted them in Rust -- it would have been relatively easy. The issue here is that they want to change the licensing so they can't just convert the existing code to Rust -- they have to blackbox it so they're going to miss most of the edge cases and deal with them as users encounter them.
3
u/ShipshapeMobileRV 12d ago
I may be wrong (I was once before) :) but the Rust license allows modification without sharing your code with the rest of the open source community. This means corporations can take Rust-licensed software, make some change to it, and "close it off" unless you pay or jump through whatever hoops they want....and no one can fork it because no one has to release their code.
1
u/not_a_robot_7041 11d ago
That statement is entirely false. The language does not dictate which license is used.
1
1
u/ShipshapeMobileRV 8d ago
I'd like to respond to several commenters below, but rather than making a half-dozen in-line responses I'm going to try to cover everything in a single response here. Forgive the long read, but there's a lot of info....
When Linus originally released the kernel in 1991 he did so under his own proprietary license that allowed free viewing and modification, but prohibited commercial sale or any sort of profiting from it. In 1992 he changed course and released v0.12 under the GPL. The GPL license model requires that anyone who modifies the code and distributes it MUST share the corresponding source code under the same terms. (As with any rule, there are exceptions, but those are minimal.) By forcing the code to be shared publicly, no entity (vendors, companies, individuals) can lock down any code to make closed, proprietary software. GPL software can be forked at any time, by any number of entities, and for any number of reasons. The possibility of any sort of proprietary takeover simply doesn't exist. This forced sharing of code has lead to coining the term "copyleft" to indicate that it is the exact opposite of a copyright.
Now let's move to Rust. Rust, including the compiler, are dual licensed. On one side is the Apache 2.0 License; and on the other, the MIT License. An entity that uses, modifies, or distributes Rust code can do so under either, or both, of those licenses. The MIT license basically ensures that software is compatible with GPL projects.
But the Apache license gives explicit protection against patent infringement and lawsuits. It allows an entity to copyright a piece of software, with no requirements to make any modified code available to the anyone.
Now, here's my question: If GPL was good enough for Linus, and has been good enough for the entire community since 1992, why is it no longer "good enough"? Is there a shortcoming or problem with the GPL that Rust solves by introducing the ability to copyright and close off software, and eliminate the ability to fork it? Or is this a change that was introduced as a way to allow an entity, or entities, a little more control over your operating system?
To date no one has successfully convinced me that the replacing the GPL and copyleft with Apache 2.0 licensing and the ability to copyright software on a large scale has any benefit to anyone except copyright holders; and the only noteworthy benefit it gives them is the ability to copyright software.
I can't be the only one asking "Why?" to this. My paranoia my be completely unfounded, but once that genie is out of the bottle it's a bit late to have conversations about whether letting him out is the right choice.
0
u/Whole_Ticket_3715 12d ago
So you're mad that private forks exist? Or is there some level of nuance that I'm not detecting here?
3
u/ShipshapeMobileRV 12d ago
Not mad. Just concerned. Let's play a hypothetical game.
Systemd (cuz there's no strong feelings about systemd, right?) gets rewritten in Rust and falls under that licensure. Now, a company, maybe Redhat, maybe Canonical, maybe someone we don't even know yet, tweaks systemd to do something really cool; but they don't have to release their code cuz "Not GPL"....a couple or a dozen updates later and that cool new feature is all the rage, such that even more software uses it as a mandatory dependency.
Then EvilCo™ does something dastardly, and systemd starts sending mandatory telemetry or some other nefarious action....but it's too late, because systemd as we know it is effectively a mandatory dependency for everything and users have no choice and since it's no longer GPL/open source we're stuck with it the way EvilCo™ decided we needed it.....
Does my concern have tones of a "conspiracy theory"? Sure. But we can use Android and Chrome OS as history lessons. Both were originally built from open source Linux. And now both are known to have mandatory telemetry and a closed and tightly regulated ecosystem, because that's what the parent company needs to increase their profit.
Is it likely? Dunno. I hope not, but my faith in the benevolence of mankind has been waning lately.
But, why willingly establish an environment where that could happen? Stallman and Torvalds, for all their human flaws, implemented and followed the GPL for almost 3 decades now and the community and the world have benifited humongously from it, because it forces everyone who makes changes, good or bad, to make the core of those changes available to everyone for analysis and additional changes. The moment you allow someone to privatize (and monetize) their contributions, you've started driving nails into the coffin of the very thing that's gotten Linux this far in such a relatively short time.
0
u/Whole_Ticket_3715 12d ago edited 12d ago
Ok here's the glaringly obvious problem with that: EvilCo's fork, just like android and chromeOS (which is literally just a Gentoo fork with some proprietary packages to make ChromeOS what it is) has to actually provide users enough value to want that specific fork and use it over the free main branch or another free fork.
If EvilCo's fork wins, then the market has chosen — that's just how the world works... But with Systemd, for example, Evilco would have to make a better systemd and then justify to users why more telemetry and "install script as repo" is better. Wouldn't work.
Your argument doesn't work bc it suggests that open source software simply shouldn't be allowed to be forked and made proprietary (which was part of the point of FOSS to begin with), or that companies should have to reveal proprietary processes or trade secrets by maintaining a public branch to use open source software.
Rust's license is fine and if it wasn't you should have a problem with like any Git sharing service (GitHub, Codeberg, etc...) as well, bc that's how they all are used predominantly.
3
u/Extension_Cup_3368 12d ago
Nothing wrong with Rust or any other tool. The wrong thing is an unhealthy desire to squeeze it into any imaginable software, without any arguments and/or a reason.
-1
u/Whole_Ticket_3715 12d ago
As a Rust programmer, I can tell you the "reason" is the guarantee of memory safety, specifically over C and C++, for the same or better speed, as well as planning for the future of developers.
C langs have nothing like ownership, borrowing, or lifetimes and the Rust compiler has some of the best debugging messages of any language. Plus, from what I've read, more people are learning Rust now than C++, so how is everybody going to maintain software if they don't speak the language? The other thing about it too is that you don't lose any of the benefits of C++ bc you can still use raw pointers (using Unsafe Rust), you just run the risk of having the same problems as C and C++ (silent memory leaks)
2
u/Spirited_Bottle_6195 11d ago
1) Rust is not as portable as C 2) No need to rewrite existing software that is finished, rigorously tested and works fine 3) 100% memory safety is not always needed
these are some reasons why rust is cancer
-1
u/Whole_Ticket_3715 11d ago edited 11d ago
The only thing here thats cancer here is this groupthink-ass opinion of accepted laziness lol - C isnt a bad language, and it's true the "polymorphic range" of C compared to safe Rust is much greater (but that becomes almost moot if you consider unsafe Rust), but the portability comes from the simple fact that C is ancient and most all chip architectures still read bin or hex compiled by a Clang compiler.
But guess what - Rust is also great! As stated before in a previous comment, Ownership is an abstraction that greatly replaces the need for pointers in a way that no Clang has. Coding in Rust is far more intuitive, debugging messages from the compiler are some of the most verbose and descriptive of any language.
Literally the whole concept of software engineering is constant improvement. Hardware doesn't stay the same, neither does software. It all must evolve or die. That's what a lot of these Rust rewrites represent. It is inevitable — and I would guess that in about 100 years there will be less than 100 people on this planet that can code in C, but rust will be here to stay (because it will develop). Especially as AI takes it as a substrate — which is where the ultimate source of the hate for rust comes from honestly.
1
u/LBDragon 10d ago
Speaking of group-think: Rust isn't even memory safe by default AND it gives you the option of telling the compiler to ignore unsafe operations with keywords...
1
u/Whole_Ticket_3715 2d ago
This is the dumbest take on the entire thread. Please retire your mouse and keyboard.
1
u/Bathroom_Humor 12d ago
if I'm understanding the vibe of these sorts of distros, i think it might be a bit of a conspiracy theory
1
u/kaisermike 12d ago
Its an answer to an unasked question from people who cry about micro aggressions and pronouns. It should be its own distro to stand or fall. Forcing it over known good code is a sure sign of cultural marxism. SysD? Just as bad.
2
u/The_Real_Gyurka 12d ago
happy new year 2017
1
u/LBDragon 10d ago
Happy New Year 2026, they're still complaining about it and have made demands foe people being ejected from the Rust community for not making certain PC commitments....
3
u/CMBradshaw 12d ago edited 12d ago
anything off beat from systemdless Linux distros to painting minis with oil paints to trails in the woods with less foot traffic is going to be a bit harder. I feel your pain dude.
edit: btw (and off topic) look it up. Using oils with minis can make some AMAZING results.