I'm planning to move over to Guix over NixOS, as soon as my current situation improves and possibly import a new libre respecting laptop (Star Labs is thankfully available in India). I do have a very old laptop with a Celeron processor and 4GB of RAM with Guix installed already, and what has come to my attention is that it uses shepherd.

I'm not actually against or for systemd, in fact, I am not really sure why I should even care - maybe it is because I'm still not on to the level of a power user. Since I'm starting to learn kernel basics to prepare for GNU/Hurd contributions in the nearest possible future and shepherd seems to be what the GNU folks will be using, is there any reason why I should even care about the freedom of init system?

Edit: I'm asking this because I came across this blog - What is systemd and Why Should I Care? and also because Guix uses shepherd, and I'm not sure how I'll be affected.

  • Frato@lemmy.ml
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think the init system matters A LOT! Systemd is anti-unix-style and making it a "new default" and forcing it, by depending on it, is breaking the best os-design there is: the unix-like system. (who changes it will be forced to reinvent it...better stay close to the original vision in the first place)

    • alt@lemmy.ml
      ·
      8 months ago

      the best os-design there is: the unix-like system.

      Couple of questions:

      1. Is there even any scientific basis to this statement?
        • If yes, would you be so kind to cite sources as I got trouble finding peer-reviewed articles on the matter.
        • If not, would you be able to make a logically sound argument on why that is the case?
      2. Why Unix-like and not Unix? Wouldn't Unix be the actual "original vision"?
      • Frato@lemmy.ml
        ·
        8 months ago

        1. There is not a scientific proof YET, but i think it can be done: for that we would need to program the "corner-stone", which would be the *nix-program #1 - something that could show practically what the pioneers of the *nix system envisioned. This practical proof is possible, if we deep dive into the POSIX definition to analyze for what it was made.

        2. unix is a trademark, but what counts is the architectural vision behind it (D. Richie&co.) I think it would be better to avoid the tradmarked word (sry for using it) - *nix may be a proper word (although it implies that it is a whole group)

          • Frato@lemmy.ml
            ·
            8 months ago

            The more you learn about the original vision,. .. it is kind of terrifingly brilliant and powerful. The architects knew exactly what they were doing. That's why in the late 70's they tried the keep it from the public! (you can send thx to rms - he opened it up for us)

          • Frato@lemmy.ml
            ·
            8 months ago

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

            "...This style was based on the use of tools: using programs separately or in combination to get a job done, rather than doing it by hand, by monolithic self-sufficient subsystems, or by special-purpose, one-time programs."

    • Frato@lemmy.ml
      ·
      8 months ago

      the *nix system up to the shell enviroment needs to be clean, libre and true to the vision - everything beyond may be. .. whatever...