Being a newbie to the Linux world and just having tasted a wonderful assortment of flavors in the last few months, this thread intrigued me to dive in and find out more information about the interest ReaperX7 has expressed. I have not completely left the windows world as 90% of the software we are provided by vendors at my job are windows driven. Having stated that the other 10% is ran on Slackware servers as this was the only way I knew to get a robotics med system to talk to our e Mar system and keep in compliance with each venders needs since our windows setup was getting hosed each time an abundant amount of data was being thrown at it; a few scripts to handle a few needed tasks and "BAM", it has been up and running for over 10 weeks with no flaws. Sorry, just a Proud Papa of this baby.

Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds to me that systemd is taking a step towards a M$ approach to software and hardware layer compatibility where one shoe fits all based on code that will not be able to be changed without changing the entire operating systems nature to handle system start-up in a readable form and in the same nutshell take away the levels of start-up requests that can be changed to suit the needs of the system and its maintainers. I could not have gotten the issue at work fixed if it were not for the current way Linux handles itself. I may be very out of line in my statements not having enough knowledge in this area, but systemd appears to me to be the Vista version of M$, "a low down dirty shame taking away the very essence".

I came to the Linux world because Windows has turned me into a "dummy terminal", and God himself knows how much bloatware M$ has become to accommodate quick development in the name of progress. I would hate to see that same happen in this OS, are we sure M$ isn't behind this along with hardware vendors?

I'm just a newbie learning the ropes and trying to understand, but I feel this change will take away the very essence of the UNIX concept and is the start to end the very idea of FOSS.

There has been a great deal of discussion about this already. You may wish to read through these threads to get a better idea (if you can get through them, that is, since they're both the size of short novels).


http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware-is-systemd-inevitable-4175460337/


http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ystemd-885228/


Somehow and for some reason I myself managed to finish both of them, which was either a great accomplishment or a monumental waste of time. But either way it was no small feat.

As you can see from these threads, this is a very cathectic topic in the Linux world.

1 members found this post helpful.

True, true. Bad joke, I know. Slackware itself seems like it should come from the heart of a mountain.
I think of Pat more along the lines of Gandalf the White. An all powerful, kind wizard.

If only more people were thinking along these lines software that could be for the better-ment of all of UNIX as a whole would exist rather than the mess that's being pushed from upstream down to the rest of us. You know the saying "Shit always rolls downhill".

Yes, systemd is a touchy topic for many in the Linux world. Some see it as a way to make Linux easier, but others like myself see it as a nuisance that is trying to hijack the system at the core and make it something it isn't, and even more-so an attempt at seizing control of Linux not just in the GNU OS but at the kernel.

Personally, I don't see how parallelization of service loading is going to ultimately help if they can't get dependencies loaded correctly. Faster boot process it may be, but if the system services are loaded without the proper dependencies, modules, etc. then it's a complete waste as nothing works. Even OpenRC provides parallelization, but even they have said it's experimental and not ready, and they've been tinkering with it longer than systemd has.

The old saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it, because you'll end up breaking it" come to mind with all this stuff regarding systemd and what it's ultimate goals are compared to SysVInit. Once systemd become a mainstay, it's either going to be, you'll have to end up using it, or create a whole mess load of patches to isolate it out, if you even can.

However, you got started in GNU/Linux at a key critical time, newbeliever. You're going to get to see what happens when too many cooks try to all stir the soup pot at once.

If only Patrick was standing on the underground bridge with Lennart saying the infamous line, "You shall not pass!"...

He does, I'm sure. In his own soft-spoken way. Which is fine by me.

We are in good hands with Patrick. I never worry about Slackware.

The good point about Patrick I've noticed over the years is he's very stoic when it comes to change affecting other distributions. It's hard for Patrick to flinch and say "Okay we need it". My biggest hope is that distributions like Slackware, LFS, and Gentoo can be the stalwart distributions defying the odds against systemd in their own says and proving systemd is no better than the current implementations of OpenRC, SysVInit, and BSDInit, and ultimately isn't needed, and is a true bad idea saying in unison, "No, we don't need it, nor do we want it."

I dare to say there will be a time soon when distributions like Slackware, Gentoo, and LFS become the focal point distributions when all others start having troubles that can be fixed, or won't be fixed.

However, today I've been digging deeper and deeper into my FreeBSD 9.1 installation and have been playing around with all the Linux binary compatibility tools and so far it's been painless getting Linux stuff working under FreeBSD.

FreeBSD reminds me a lot of Slackware with many of the same principles and focuses, especially the biggest one of them all... Simplicity works.

1 members found this post helpful.

BloomingNutria, I appreciate the links you gave to the "small novel's". I have not completed my reading as yet, but by the end of the weekend I may have them combed over, depending on the size of the links to read as well. Just wanted to reach out and say thanks.

ReaperX7, Thank you for the kind word, I can see now the amount of turmoil this kind of change can instill.

I do however have a question that, well is for anyone to answer; "IF this change occurs which should I be concentrating my efforts so not to be confused / or in my case lost in between?"

My current plan is to keep my learning with Slackware 13.37 32bit and Slackware 14 64bit. I someday would like to contribute back to Slackware at least a bit of what I have gained from it already and I have not even began to scratch the surface yet. I haven't really put my finger on it yet but when that command prompt pops up I am in seventh heaven. Will the GUI eventually take over with the proposed change? IMO that S*xs.

This is a good plan. Go ahead and focus on Slackware for now, and keep an eye on this forum. If Slackware remains viable forever, then yay, we all win. If not, then there are plenty of other like-minded people on here looking at alternatives (including myself). We can put our heads together, compare notes, and decide in which direction to jump.

I expect people will jump in all different directions, but if you keep yourself in the loop, you can decide who to jump with, and get help migrating to the platform they have chosen. Since we will all be Slackware users, we should have similar terminology, assumptions, and issues with the new platform.

This sounds too much like Battlenix Distribution (a spin-off of Battlestar Galactica)... FTL style

We shouldn't have to be faced with the problem of finding a more sane UNIX-like distribution, period, much less even considering and thinking about it.

The model that Linux has followed up till recently, the SysV model, has been a fool-proof and future-perfect model that is time tested and workable under any situation. It's only been until recent that all this effort to push a radical change upon GNU/Linux and forcefully segregate Linux and Linux based software from *BSD, Solaris, Illumos, GNU/HURD, and other UNIX-like operating systems, which of the goal is to isolate GNU/Linux entirely from other UNIX-like distributions, but for what reason is unknown. In my humble opinion, which may differ from others, I see Red Hat making a power play with it's legions of developers to seize control of enough of GNU/Linux for their own purposes. Why is it the majority of the people working on all these projects to isolate and segregate Linux out of UNIX all are somehow linked to Red Hat in some way, shape, or form?

We all know Lennart doesn't think too highly of any other operating system but GNU/Linux, and Red Hat always has the problems of Freeware distributions and alternatives cutting into their profit margins of sales of a marketable Linux distribution.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, chances are it's probably a duck.

You're quite welcome. I hope you learn something.

I think that is a sound plan. I don't think you can go wrong sticking with Slackware. I've said it before and I'll say it again: of all the distros I have seen, none, in my opinion, is a better learning tool for those attempting to become proficient with Linux. Its simple file system layout, reliance on scripts, and emphasis on the command line encourage you to get to know and understand your operating system in a way that no point-and-click, "user-friendly" distros full of Windowsy wizards and GUI tools ever will.

But I do think someone should point out that it is extremely premature to be worrying about jumping ship due to possible "changes" that might, eventually, someday, be coming from the influence of a certain project which shall not be named. Sure, I hate Project X as much as anyone, but to imply that it could be the end of Slackware or Linux as we know it . . . well, that's a bit much, IMO. We don't need to worry about that yet, and I just don't see that doing so serves any productive purpose.

I've seen similar alarmism about other subjects in our neck of the woods in the past that have turned out to be nothing, and I don't really know why we insist on jumping the gun like this. I mean really, most of us are very intelligent people with above average reasoning skills (we're all geeks here, right? ), but give us the vaguest possibility of something unpleasant and we jump straight to apocalyptic scenarios. Do we just like overreacting? It may be that our particular niche in the computing world tends to attract personality types predisposed to a high degree of analysis and forethought which, under the right circumstances, can sometimes border on, well . . . paranoia. When you dissect an issue involving the unknown and consider every possible chain of events, perhaps it is natural to want to prepare for the worst case scenario. It's understandable. So maybe that is where some of this is coming from.

But seriously, folks, the sky is not falling. Slackware is still going strong after two decades and shows no sign of stopping. As far as I know, there have been no major changes in ideology in all that time, and like others have expressed, I trust Patrick to maintain this legacy and do what is best for Slackware, as he has always done in the past. Therefore, before I even think about jumping ship, I will have to hear it from him.

No one knows what the future holds. But I am going to go out on a limb here and say no chance in h***.

Edit: By the way, newbeliever, welcome to our forum. I think you will find people here extremely knowledgeable and willing to help. Have fun!

1 members found this post helpful.

We're not.

Agreed. I'm sticking with Slackware. I'm not concerned as the Captain has a steady hand on the tiller and his crew is used to storms.

Hear, hear.

P.S. On a side note, NoStressHQ--Batlestar Galactica Linux? Is that a real thing? That actually sounds pretty darned awesome.