Being based off ...
Being based off ...
I don't think that that's a correct use of English. It should be "based on ...", may-be "based off of ..." which is already a barbarism, but "based off ..." doesn't seem to exist at all.
Devuan 5.0 "Daedalus" is derived from Debian 12 "Bookworm", but with the controversial systemd init replaced by the user's choice of sysvinit, openrc or runit. The latest release of the distro, codenamed Daedalus, came out at the start of the week, just shortly before Debian's 30th birthday. Being based off Debian 12 "Bookworm …
It's fascinating, innit? How languages can evolve over time, that is. Go back even a couple hundreds years, and while you may be able to understand the words being spoken, the way in which they're used would be completely foreign to you. Then there's the major breaks like Old English to Middle English and Middle English to Modern English, and it almost feels like we're living through the transition to... I don't know... Post-Modern English?
Even just within Blighty, look at all the regional dialects that have survived well after the fall of feudalism for a relatively small country compared to say Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil, etc. Someone who grew up in London and then suddenly moves to Manchester might need a couple months or years to acclimate and pick up some of the differences in the local dialect. Let's not even get started on New Zealand and Australia.
First time I watched Red Dwarf, the entire first season I could only catch maybe every 3rd word (if I was lucky) spoken by Lister. Took me a good while to learn to filter that accent, though now I barely even hear it. Derry Girls I do sometimes need to use subtitles with. The British kid in the show I can understand no problem, the rest can sometimes get to talking just a little too fast for me to be able to process... so far. I'm sure if I keep at it I'll learn.
What's worse is this site, and many of us commentators too, are now old enough to have seen a subtle but very real change in the evolution of language.
For example, I'd not even picked up on 'being based off' as it's a fairly common usage these days.
A lot of tech people forget that a computer language, with it's formal specification, is not the same as a spoken/written language, where the specification (if it exists at all and is accurate) has been written retrospectively by looking at the outputs. (a bit like the early SMB documentation).
Thing about language is: once you've successfully got your thoughts and ideas across, the notion of correctness doesn't really matter.
Perhaps not entirely relevant, but English prepositional verbs are notoriously difficult to learn for foreign language speakers - there is really not much rhyme nor reason to them. My partner is a native Spanish speaker, and while her English is pretty good (certainly better than my Spanish), she is totally flummoxed by "in" vs "on" (it's the same word en in Spanish). I think she flips a mental coin every time - and invariably gets it wrong.
While I'm here, I need to get this off my chest: what the hell happened to the word "ground" in British English??? "I dropped my phone on the floor." WHAT FLOOR?? WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOODY FIELD.
That field is at the same level as the ground floor of a building, so it's the floor. Made of ground.
But to answer seriously, "floor" meant "ground" (in the sense of the bottom of a valley or lake; the "floor" of such) before it meant the structural levels of a building, which is a meaning it only took on some time in the late 1500s.
> English prepositional verbs are notoriously difficult to learn for foreign language speakers
Or, quite possibly, f*cough*.
As it happens, I am not only a native English speaker, but also a professionally qualified English teacher as well. (CertTESOL, 2013).
The term you are looking for is "phrasal verb", not prepositional verb.
I used "based off" to indicate disconnection: Devuan feeds off Debian, but it is off, as opposed to on: the changes are not fed back upstream.
Whereas for at least one Debian generation, if you went into "Software Settings", and picked Help|About, bingo, there was the Ubuntu logo. Ubuntu's changes are fed back upstream.
Ubuntu is based _on_ Debian, because stuff flows back. Devuan is based _off_ Debian, because changes do not go back.
But I appreciate that this was impromptu and might be a nonstandard use of the word.
To be honest, I thought the terms were equivalent (they do seem to be used interchangeably, if erroneously, rather frequently). This article explains it nicely. My understanding from the article, though, is that my in/on example would indeed reference prepositional rather than phrasal verbs (e.g., "get in the box", "get on the bus"), while your "based off" is phrasal. In the interests of pedantry, I'd be happy to rephrase my statement as: English phrasal/prepositional/phrasal-prepositional verbs are notoriously difficult to learn for foreign language speakers.
By the way, I was not actually complaining about your usage of "based off", so the remainder of your post is misdirected.
> Or, quite possibly, f*cough*.
I appreciate the humor, honesty and clarification. English being my 5th language, I understood you the first time, being based off has that feel of detachment, being based on has the feeling of varying degrees of attachment, being based in would have the feeling of strict attachment. I don't actually understand how being based of would be relevant since that would mean Devuan is related to Debian but not strictly so as each could independently exist
> It CAN be easy
Point missed in subject line error.
Let me explain: it seems to me that what you are saying is that you wrote a preinstalled image onto media and booted it?
So, to summarise, neither of the distro's two separate and different installers gave you any problem because you didn't run either of them?
To summarise the summary: installation is easy if you don't do it?
Well, yes, I expect that is indeed true, but it's not a terribly helpful point, is it?
My experience with a clean install was that I downloaded the install ISO image (the RC version a few weeks ago), dd'ed it onto a plain USB dirve (actually an SD card in a USB adapter) but none of your fancy mulit-boot stuff. It just booted with no faff.
It did complain about having no wifi drivers but found the SSID with no problems - the previous version did this too and so di Debian back in the days when it really didn't have the drivers and had to be connected by wire. Is this a bit of ritual hard coded in the Debian installer for old times sake?
What does annoy me is that for some reason it won't install to LVM2 logical volumes. Is memory playing me false in thinking it (collective "it" forDebian & Devuan) used ti? Or is it playing me false in overlooking something?
as long as Xorg remains the default desktop engine (or at least easy to select during install), there won't need to be any more forks.
(Wayland cultists can have their systemd and other Poettering clusterer-blanks along with Wayland in other distros)
in my last Devuan install (chimera) I added X and mate in a separate step and it set up as a console login using 'startx', rather than booting into a GUI. Much better I say.
> there won't need to be any more forks.
That ship has sailed.
So far, I am aware of Devuan, antiX, MX Linux, and Nitrux. I suspect they won't be the last.
> Much better I say.
If you want that, good for you.
I don't think it's a general solution for most people, though.
The fact that Arch lists no less than _eight_ text-mode login/display managers suggests strongly that it's not just me.
I have been running the (then testing) version on my laptop for a year or two now. The installation was easy, did set up dual boot, got my WiFi card working, used all screens I have on my desk. It just works. I'm quite happy with it.
Installers are weird nowadays, like the Debian graphical installer which refused to offer me a German keyboard layout when selecting the UK locale. Terminally stupid.
"it's hard to install, because that way, you can establish your geek credibility"
What an incredibly patronizing thing to say, and what an insight it gives as to your attitude towards free-software advocates. Do you *really* think people prefer to have it hard just so they can brag about it? I doubt you do, because you're not stupid people, so that was also disingenuous.
Some people really do care about not using blobs, proprietary code, or toxic software. They are, sadly, in the minority, and so have fewer people available to test and perfect their distributions.
The "inscrutable" reason for the lack of an executable flag is almost certainly..."oops".
But you know that. You're just being mean.
Do you *really* think people prefer to have it hard just so they can brag about it?
Yes. It's common across many fields, and is the basic premise of one of the most famous comedy sketches of all time. Ranulph Fiennes has made a career of it.
Well I was talking about one, very specific, case: installing an OS.
But maybe you're right.
"CD ROM? CD ROM? Luxury. In my day we had to copy 30 floppy disks and insert them one at a time. And after that we still had to manually configure X."
"We used to dream of floppy disks..." etc
> What an incredibly patronizing thing to say
Hi, welcome to the Reg. Thanks for reading.
We are a sarcastic bunch of so-and-sos, and are proud of it. Our sceptical and cynical tone of voice is one reason that people read the site. Or it is for me, anyway; I've been reading it since it was an email newsletter in the mid-1990s.
> what an insight it gives as to your attitude towards free-software advocates.
I think you are dead wrong.
FWIW, I have been a free-software user since the mid-1990s, and an advocate too.
Also, you should read my articles about systemd itself, which are sceptical and critical as well.
But more generally:
One of the many factors that has made Linux such a big success in recent years is its ever-improving ease of use, and its acceptance of standards and technologies from other sections of the IT industry.
Devuan, it seems to me, is founded on deep opposition to what many regard as improvements to the OS. The developers are not trying to make it better; they just reject others' efforts to make it better.
However dubious I am of systemd's merits, I don't think that's a good thing.
Sure, but Gentoo uses Portage or some such shit, and I already have a system running Debian using dpkg/apt.
I wanted to keep using Debian but I was not going to put up with systemd, therefore I went to Devuan.
I think most of the problems with the installer is because no one uses the installer to install Devuan onto a clean PC, they usually switch a machine from Debian to Devuan, which is a different process.
I've used Devuan since "Jessie" - I migrated from Debian before Debian forced systemd.
My Ship-of-Theseus file server-slash-MythTV box has been running fine on Debian, now Devuan, since 2006.
My desktop, after many years a Hackintosh, has been on Devuan since 2021.
The article author is welcome to use a bloated systemd/Linux distro.
Guys : Hopefully we're not reinventing anything at all , but in my experience , Devuan not only "just works " , in my particular case , gives me peace of mind , somehow , I forgot about the "other" Linux world. To be fair , some of what was pointed out , annoys me as well , but overall ,I like them .And I will keep using it .Thank you.
Skipped over to Devuan with the first release, Initially just the laptop to check it out. Had no issues at all and one at a time moved my other machines over. Since then I've upgraded with each new release. Works fine for me with no highly invasive mess crawling through everything. Oh and I also kill that other Poettering disaster, Pulseaudio - delete the server and no more snap, crackle and pop when I'm doing serious audio work.
"it's hard to install, because that way, you can establish your geek credibility."
What bollocks! It's prejudiced shit like that that undermines YOUR credibility.
I run Devuan because it just works. Format USB stick. Download and save off installer. Network install. Picked up my existing /home nicely. Rock solid Linux distro. End of.
You can keep your credibility barf for Game of Thrones.
> What bollocks!
I challenge you. Try to install it from Ventoy, just as I described. I am willing to bet you will encounter exactly the same issues.
> It's prejudiced shit like that that undermines YOUR credibility.
I submit that everything I have said is independently verifiable. Your comment merely states that you haven't tried it, and that you do things the old, slow, inefficient way and haven't encountered the problems I found.
That does not give you the high ground you think it does.
"you do things the old, slow, inefficient way and haven't encountered the problems I found."
You say that like it's a BAD thing ... His way, easy, ends up with a properly working system. Your way, not so much.
Have you informed the fine folks at Ventoy of your issues? They don't list Devuan 5 on their "tested ISOs" page ...
Devuan puts in a great deal of effort into massaging apps which claim SystemD as a dependency (even when it isn't), even including a dummy systemd file to reassure them. And where massaging is not enough, it does its best to find/fork alternatives. Ultimately, it allows you to pull in SystemD if you want to (though that just recreates Debian so there is little point). Now, what is the point of MX's "System-D free" init, if apps that do depend on it can still find it and leverage the spaghetti tangle we just pulled out of init? If you don't want the init spaghetti monster, why would you want apps that pull its tentacles? If you are happy with those extras in the MX repos playing that game, then as the Devuan folks point out, you might as well let init do it too and stick with Debian. Who is the MX solution actually useful to?
The only other big difference appears to be that Devuan offers MATE but MX does not. I find MATE the most friendly and most customisable desktop for the way I work. MX offers only what I have found from bitter experience to be barely-usable and ugly-as-sin horrors. Now I am aware that we are all different and that you probably find life the other way around. But please do not be so dogmatically high-handed when you make these proclamations. You don't want to sound like an old greybeard still seeking geek credibility, do you now?
[Author here AGAIN]
OK, let's dismantle these claims, then, shall we?
> the spaghetti tangle we just pulled out of init
Because MX doesn't use systemd as its init. So there is no tangle in there.
It is futile to complain about large and complex dependencies when we are discussing tools such as driver bundles in the hundreds of megabytes.
Now, if you want to exclude such things, and for instance say "no nVidia drivers because they are huge and complex and taint the kernel", then you have a case to make and I am sympathetic.
But if you are saying "I want my OS to exclude _package X_ because I don't like it, and I am willing to tolerate impaired compatibility" then that's a very weak argument.
MX includes systemd, but not as the init and effectively inactivated. But it makes things work that expect it. That's good; it's more compatible.
The tool you are praising excludes it, but inserts a dummy that fakes it. This, it seems to me, is liable to _reduce_ compatibility. I don't see that as a benefit.
> why would you want apps that pull its tentacles
Because I want to use my nVidia GPU?
> MX does not
False. It is in the repos. There's just no pre-rolled ISO.
> most customisable desktop
If you said "I like it", fine. I am all for choice.
But you assert it is more configurable. That's a claim of factual difference.
What can MATE do that Xfce can't?
I like David Hare's "Exe GNU/Linux", a packaging of Devuan and the Trinity (fork of KDE 3.5) Desktop. I have used this for many years, and never had a problem with installation from the live ISO-image or DVD. My (venerable) target machines being a workstation with Intel processor motherboard at least a dozen years or so old, and an HP Elitebook 8470p laptop. Also VirtualBox VMachines.
> I like David Hare's "Exe GNU/Linux"
A fair point. I probably ought to take a look at this -- and maybe compare it head-to-head with Q4OS, also a Debian with Trinity.
I have to say, though, that back when it was new, I didn't like KDE 3.x much. For me it was *way* too bloated compared to KDE 1.x, my favourite version and desktop of choice when it was current.
Corel LinuxOS, and later Xandros, managed to take KDE 2.x and turn it into a clean, attractive desktop... partly by removing the huge and very overcomplicated Konqueror file manager-cum-web-browser-cum-FTP-client-cum-swiss-army-knife, and replacing it with their own file manager and Firefox.
Xandros put out a preview release of KDE 3 but the company had found it too large and complex to similarly customise, and it was never released. After that, they switched to groupware servers instead.
I think they made the right call.
A few years back some chap ported KDE 1 to modern Linux:
That was a good fun project. I wish it had continued.
The one thing I love about running an OS without systemd is that my attack surface is so much smaller. systemd is this insatiable monster that eats up everything and gets more and more bloated. All the recent security flaws have depended on the OS using systemd, and me not running it, meant that none of them worked on my system.
So I raise a pint to all the Devuan developers.