that would be disgusting ! ! ! and the R U I N of slack . . .

You know, since I stopped using NetworkManager, which was constantly messing up my configuration behind my back, and bluetooth audio, which just does not sound as good, even with expensive phones, I can atually just get rid of all the RHEL cruft. Something to spend a few hours on. Fantastic.

As was stated above by Gerard Lally, the system.d folder that I searched for there is not related to systemd, but rather a configuration folder for the system. There's a lot of things in there you most likely wouldn't want to remove like ConsoleKit2, cups, dbus, polkit, udisks (1 and 2), upower, wpa_supplicant and probably others. Don't remove them just because they use /etc/system.d/ to store their configuration files. Make sure you research any program you're considering removing to hopefully ensure it won't have a negative impact on your system.

If you want to remove specific programs that have systemd files, you'd want to use:

However, be aware that most of these packages simply contain .service files that allow systemd to start it. They aren't actually systemd programs. This is no different than the programs that include rc. files. They are just trying to cater to a wide audience by supporting multiple init systems.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the heads up.

I do not use a full desktop environment like KDE or XFCE, and prefer /etc/fstab for mounting filesystems. I assumed I have no use for many of these packages, but this probably calls for a test installation in a spare partition, and more than "a few hours" of work.

Oh, well.

Edit:

So I got libcgroup, rpm, eudev, hplip, and gvfs.

Away with hplip and gvfs. Eh... don't know how significant eudev is, or what a libcgroup is. Off to run ldd on every executable in /usr/bin and grep for libcgroup.

Just by eyeballing from a safe distance, the kernel people seem to reject many useful things for unsubstantial reasons.

I am not sure how much of an external influence the board members of the Linux Foundation and others exert on kernel development, but I would love to know, even if I won't like the answer one bit.

2 members found this post helpful.

eudev is fairly essential. It's how your system loads device firmware and manages device drivers.

eudev was forked from udev when systemd subsumed udev, so that distributions could avoid systemd.

3 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the info.

I should pick up that Linux from Scratch project I haven't finished in years. Might help fiddling with how a basic system comes together.

> I should pick up that Linux from Scratch project I haven't finished in years. Might help fiddling
> with how a basic system comes together.

You are not the only one.

I try to track KDE and GNOME stuff and make it available, via yaml files, in one of my
ruby projects:

https://rubygems.org/gems/cookbooks

While the project is written in ruby (the primary programming language I use since a very long
time), the yaml files are obviously not dependent on any given language. They are language
agnostic.

The default yaml files that I use in that project are short variants, so they are not very
useful for other people by default.

They can be expanded automatically though, albeit it may be a bit ugly, via:

cookbooks --expand

That way you can get the sanitized information of these yaml files. I can also batch-upload
these to some remote website but I'd only do that if there are people interested. Otherwise
I keep on using these yaml files for my own use case.

I track several projects such as KDE or Gnome, while trying to conform for the most part
to LFS/BLFS. LFS and BLFS are really great projects, the maintainers deserve all the
credit (I am not involved in these projects but I benefit from their time investment
of course).

They also went a good route - they offer both the systemd variant and the better
systemd-free variant. Oldschool never die, we multiply!

Imagine if the distributions that forced systemd onto its users, would have given
people THE CHOICE. But Red Hat does not believe in choice, which we all know by
now. Oddly enough, debian also flipped the middle-finger to the users - this is a
move that I still do not understand as to why. Did the developers who dictated
the change onto the users, work for red hat or were otherwise associated with
it in one way or another?

The default LFS/BLFS take quite a bit of time. It's good when you want to learn AND when
you have time, but I found that maintaining a system can be a bit harder if one follows
the LFS/BLFS approach. For example, how do you uninstall something if you use the FHS?

That is why I am using GoboLinux. It is not necessarily a simple distribution for
newcomers, but it is simply beautiful (I contribute to GoboLinux sometimes too, but I
am not among the core developers either). Want to switch to another version of a program?
Just change a symlink. Uninstall something? Remove the versioned AppDir. It's awesome,
but it is not really for newcomers. You need to have a bit of knowledge already, at
the very least using oldschool *nix commands - and you may have to use some programs,
some of which are unfortunately not ideally documented (but don't give up, I am sure
the project's documentation will improve; github provides simple wikis and the current
wiki that gobolinux uses, is better than the old wiki, from the INFORMATION content.
Not necessarily layout-style wise :P ).

The gentoo folks also deserve a lot of credit by the way. While it is true that slackware
still has resisted the systemd-infiltration initiated by greedy Red Hat and that group
of developers around Poettering who want to sell their services to fix systemd-related
problems ( see here: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/b...er/README#L301 now you
can also understand why systemd was really created ), slackware itself does not have as
many clever hardcore oldschool hackers such as gentoo. The thread here mentions eudev,
which was created and is maintained by gentoo folks. Also there is a non-systemd gnome
variant that also was bootstrapped and is maintained by gentoo.

I myself do not use gentoo, largely because it was partially to complicated, also because
it is uses python rather than ruby (sorry, I love ruby - there is no way I can use a
distribution where python is at its center), I think the gentoo folks deserve a lot of
praise. Look at Arch, they instantly forced systemd onto its users, without any
discussion - then again, don't use arch, use voidlinux which is the real arch these
days. The gentoo folks welcome people who use gentoo in these days; there was a plea
for supporting gentoo on the webforum by one gentoo dev (who used the catchy phrase
"gentoo is dying" - it is not true per se, but it is true that gentoo has lost users
over the last ~8 years or so).

Devuan also has to be mentioned of course, which keeps on maintaining the the real
debian spirit.

I also think that, personally, the MUCH more important question is not whether systemd
sucks (it does) or does not suck - what is more interesting is how it assimilated
some distributions without any discussion at all whatsoever by the people who use the
system. In other words, abuse of users.

Awesome!

I've noticed that Gentoo, LFS, Slackware, and Arch users seem to have a lot in common. I went with Slack a long time ago, and am too comfortable with it by now to switch to something else. But I greatly appreciate the work these distros put in to preserve some semblance of sanity in our beloved OS.

I share the sentiment. Though the more I am involved in discussions within the GNU/Linux ecosystem, the more I come to realize that it has been controlled by corporate interests for a long time. I just wasn't paying attention.

1 members found this post helpful.

Very inconsiderate observation, honestly I find it insulting. Archlinux is the last thing I would like to be associated with, personally.
You act as if all users are clones for you to put in the same bag, I assure you there's nothing I could possibly have in common with these people.
May as well generalize how mac users, windows users, and android users have a lot in common. with the exact same effect.

Wow. I was not expecting such a reaction. I know little about these distros other than superficial observation, and that was a casual remark, not a political statement.

Out of curiosity, what's the matter with Gentoo, LFS, and Arch? Other than Arch using systemd, obviously. I do not personally use any of these other than toying with LFS once in a while.

I'm not sure where elcore is coming from either. LFS, Slackware and Archlinux users -do- seem to share some commonality, both socially and in our attitudes towards technology.

Perhaps to some people the differences are more significant than the similarities? The differences are real (and good and healthy) but it's the similarities which bring us together.

1 members found this post helpful.

Yeah, if you look closely enough you'll see stability of slackware as strength, not weakness.
I'm sure there's plenty of users who value that strength, yet you state they have a lot in common with the least stable distribution in existence.
This sort of comparison can be classified as bait, unless you really know no difference between stable production systems and bleeding edge rolling release model.

I simply care too little about these to either love or hate any of them. As for Slackware, I am aware of its strengths. This is the reason I have used it for many years.

Slackware's stability is indeed its dominant distinguishing advantage. It compares favorably to any other Linux distribution in this regard, and it is the main reason I use it.

Nonetheless, outside of this, LFS, Slackware and Arch users share a lot of common ground.

Looking through Fat_Elvis' post, I'm not seeing anywhere any claim or implication that Slackware's stability is a weakness. Perhaps elcore is making assumptions about FE's intentions not in evidence?