6 ms·

Look no further than Debian. After switching from Ubuntu I started to understand why people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty.

cf100clunk 4y ago
> people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty Look even further at Devuan, made by people who conder Debian as a bit dirty. (I use both as needed, I'm just riffing on your comment)
- super256 4y ago
  > I use both as needed In what case do you need to opt for a different init system than systemd? Genuinely curious, as I've been using debian with systemd for almost a decade now and haven't run into any issues regarding it.
  - cf100clunk 4y ago
    Asking why/why not to use systemd is covering very old territory here at HN and not the point of my earlier comment - I was riffing on someone using the term ''a bit dirty'' in regards to a Linux distro.
    - super256 4y ago
      I understand the point of your comment, and that why/why not is mostly a philosophical/political/whatever question. But really, the “I use both as needed” is the statement which pokes my interest. When do you need something else than systemd? What is the actual work which doesn't run with that particular init system? I'm honestly unsure if you were just joking or if there's really something more to it.^^'
      - msm_ 4y ago
        Another reading of that comment would be that they use Debian (with Systemd) when needed, and personally prefer Devuan for philosophical/personal reasons.
- greyw 4y ago
  I consider Devuan just under maintained Debian without systemd (I personally consider that a drawback but for some that is a big selling point).
  - temptemptemp111 4y ago
    [dead]
- shzhdbi09gv8ioi 4y ago
  Where Debian is a reputable distribution with a clear goal, the Devuan crew is solving a non-issue by means of almost religious levels of resistance toward systemd. If you want technological merit, chose Debian. If you want to join the conservatives of Linux, you should go for Devuan.
  - cf100clunk 4y ago
    Even during Debian's systemd adoption wars I'd never seen any argument calling into question Devuan as ''disreputable''. After all, it was a group of experienced Debian folks that made a systemd-less version of Debian that compares almost exactly with Debian's status and capabilities. I hope in your case you have not been forced to use Devuan.
    - shzhdbi09gv8ioi 4y ago
      Hit me up when you finally notice that enterprise and seniors embraced systemd years ago while you kept avoiding change.
      - cf100clunk 4y ago
        You implied that Devuan is disreputable.
        codetrotter 4y ago
        I don’t think that’s what they are saying. Debian is reputable because it is widely widely used for ages. Devuan is not disreputable. It is simply a fringe variant of Debian that has much fewer users and no obvious reason to adopt for most people. Debian has a good reputation. Devuan does not have much of a reputation at all, because most people that might use it have no problem with using Debian and systemd.
    - andrewshadura 4y ago
      > it was a group of experienced Debian folks No, it wasn't. There was only one ex-Debian person in their team.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Personally - I think the step away from systemd is a fairly huge mistake. I understand that legacy users and orgs may have vested interests in sticking with older init systems, but personally I think systemd solves a challenging problem space in a very easy to use manner. I much prefer writing a systemd unit file than having to wade into sysvinit or runit. Politics aside - I just find systemd far easier to work with.
- zh3 4y ago
  It's still pretty easy to replace systemd in Debian with sysvinit (we do it at moderate scale). Devuan works very well though, basically there's little difference between Devuan and Debian without systemd (all the packages are identical, except where a package has decided to require systemd in which case the Devuan version will just have the dependency removed). Long term though there's a query over support for anything other than systemd in Debian, hence the move towards Devuan.
morsch 4y ago
Ok, but which release channel? And can I convert an Ubuntu into a Debian by reinstalling it while keeping my home directory?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > Ok, but which release channel? For home use, Debian testing is usually a good balance between things not breaking and things not being ancient. For servers, Debian stable is probably a better choice.
  - 404mm 4y ago
    I’ve been bitten quite a few times by Testing so I run stable now. Even the current stable is fairly “new” so I don’t even mind.
  - stack_underflow 4y ago
    I think anyone who suggests daily driving Debian testing should also mention the fact that packages can disappear from testing for weeks/months at a time (and reappear later). It's recommended to configure `unstable` in your sources as well but set up apt pinning so that those packages are only pulled in if they're missing in testing. See: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting "Best practices for Testing users" In practice this means adding something like this to /etc/apt/preferences (along with adding entries for `unstable` in /etc/apt/sources.list) # use `n=` when referencing codename (i.e. buster/bullseye/...) Package: * Pin: release n=bookworm Pin-Priority: 550 # use `a=` when referencing archive (i.e. stable/testing/unstable) Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 520 That way apt will pull in any packages missing in testing from unstable, and once the package is reintroduced to testing, will prefer that version rather than continue to track unstable. Maybe I've been lucky but I've been running testing on my non-server desktops and laptops for 13 years now and have only rendered my system unbootable once (required having to boot up a live CD to reinstall an older working version of some bad libpcre update that had been rolled out).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

> people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty Look even further at Devuan, made by people who conder Debian as a bit dirty. (I use both as needed, I'm just riffing on your comment)

super256 4y ago
> I use both as needed In what case do you need to opt for a different init system than systemd? Genuinely curious, as I've been using debian with systemd for almost a decade now and haven't run into any issues regarding it.
- cf100clunk 4y ago
  Asking why/why not to use systemd is covering very old territory here at HN and not the point of my earlier comment - I was riffing on someone using the term ''a bit dirty'' in regards to a Linux distro.
  - super256 4y ago
    I understand the point of your comment, and that why/why not is mostly a philosophical/political/whatever question. But really, the “I use both as needed” is the statement which pokes my interest. When do you need something else than systemd? What is the actual work which doesn't run with that particular init system? I'm honestly unsure if you were just joking or if there's really something more to it.^^'
    - msm_ 4y ago
      Another reading of that comment would be that they use Debian (with Systemd) when needed, and personally prefer Devuan for philosophical/personal reasons.
greyw 4y ago
I consider Devuan just under maintained Debian without systemd (I personally consider that a drawback but for some that is a big selling point).
- temptemptemp111 4y ago
  [dead]
shzhdbi09gv8ioi 4y ago
Where Debian is a reputable distribution with a clear goal, the Devuan crew is solving a non-issue by means of almost religious levels of resistance toward systemd. If you want technological merit, chose Debian. If you want to join the conservatives of Linux, you should go for Devuan.
- cf100clunk 4y ago
  Even during Debian's systemd adoption wars I'd never seen any argument calling into question Devuan as ''disreputable''. After all, it was a group of experienced Debian folks that made a systemd-less version of Debian that compares almost exactly with Debian's status and capabilities. I hope in your case you have not been forced to use Devuan.
  - shzhdbi09gv8ioi 4y ago
    Hit me up when you finally notice that enterprise and seniors embraced systemd years ago while you kept avoiding change.
    - cf100clunk 4y ago
      You implied that Devuan is disreputable.
      - codetrotter 4y ago
        I don’t think that’s what they are saying. Debian is reputable because it is widely widely used for ages. Devuan is not disreputable. It is simply a fringe variant of Debian that has much fewer users and no obvious reason to adopt for most people. Debian has a good reputation. Devuan does not have much of a reputation at all, because most people that might use it have no problem with using Debian and systemd.
  - andrewshadura 4y ago
    > it was a group of experienced Debian folks No, it wasn't. There was only one ex-Debian person in their team.
horsawlarway 4y ago
Personally - I think the step away from systemd is a fairly huge mistake. I understand that legacy users and orgs may have vested interests in sticking with older init systems, but personally I think systemd solves a challenging problem space in a very easy to use manner. I much prefer writing a systemd unit file than having to wade into sysvinit or runit. Politics aside - I just find systemd far easier to work with.
zh3 4y ago
It's still pretty easy to replace systemd in Debian with sysvinit (we do it at moderate scale). Devuan works very well though, basically there's little difference between Devuan and Debian without systemd (all the packages are identical, except where a package has decided to require systemd in which case the Devuan version will just have the dependency removed). Long term though there's a query over support for anything other than systemd in Debian, hence the move towards Devuan.

morsch 4y ago

Ok, but which release channel? And can I convert an Ubuntu into a Debian by reinstalling it while keeping my home directory?

jcranmer 4y ago
> Ok, but which release channel? For home use, Debian testing is usually a good balance between things not breaking and things not being ancient. For servers, Debian stable is probably a better choice.
- 404mm 4y ago
  I’ve been bitten quite a few times by Testing so I run stable now. Even the current stable is fairly “new” so I don’t even mind.
- stack_underflow 4y ago
  I think anyone who suggests daily driving Debian testing should also mention the fact that packages can disappear from testing for weeks/months at a time (and reappear later). It's recommended to configure `unstable` in your sources as well but set up apt pinning so that those packages are only pulled in if they're missing in testing. See: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting "Best practices for Testing users" In practice this means adding something like this to /etc/apt/preferences (along with adding entries for `unstable` in /etc/apt/sources.list) # use `n=` when referencing codename (i.e. buster/bullseye/...) Package: * Pin: release n=bookworm Pin-Priority: 550 # use `a=` when referencing archive (i.e. stable/testing/unstable) Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 520 That way apt will pull in any packages missing in testing from unstable, and once the package is reintroduced to testing, will prefer that version rather than continue to track unstable. Maybe I've been lucky but I've been running testing on my non-server desktops and laptops for 13 years now and have only rendered my system unbootable once (required having to boot up a live CD to reinstall an older working version of some bad libpcre update that had been rolled out).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]