Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
operating systems without systemd
Re: operating systems without systemd
Giving PCLinuxOS Mate and LXDE versions a test too, already tried the Mate, it's actually not too bad, I'm giving it second place in my Debhat alternatives list. The only real problem I have with PCLinuxOS is it's aimed at n00bs, has tons of GUI tools and settings which I personally don't need. I'm still leaning heavily towards Salix Xfce because it 'feels' the most like a Debian Xfce install. PCLinuxOS's repository has plenty of refined (tweaked to 'blend' really well with PCLinuxOS) apps to offer, all 3 DVD apps for example (DeVeDe, Bombono and DVDStyler), pysolfc was already installed and working in the Mate edition.
My conundrum:
PCLinuxOS (Mate)=will fit on a CD, stable, can be a little bit dated at times but very little maintenance (almost none) required, being rolling is a plus, lots of popular apps in their repository (you'll want to change the icon set, see below), tons of GUI tools for n00bs.
Salix (Xfce)=small ISO download but won't fit on a CD, DVD required, also rolling after install, can be more up to date (apps installed through Sourcery), very lean and fast, has a 'just enough' apps/tools policy, a bit less repo apps options than normal, a few packages refused to compile and install with Sourcery (DeVeDe and Bombono installed fine, DVDStyler did not, nor did pysolfc), nothing of huge importance but it still sucks a little (there are other solitaire apps, I'll live, lol), binaries almost always install without problems (in general, any distro). Binaries are limited but other apps available through Sourcery, which is easy to use but a roll of the dice if your chosen app will get installed or not (Sourcery has a tendancy to nag for dependencies installed through Gslapt, but unlike single instance apt in Debian, you can have both of them open and go back and forth between them).
I only recently discovered pysolfc and I really like it, not only that, DVDStyler is handy to have as a 3rd option to DeVeDe and Bombono, also liking the idea of a headache free install (PCLinuxOS will auto install a proprietary video driver if it can, Salix uses the GPL for live and install), although I'm not a huge fan of Mate (prefer Xfce), it's gtk, btw, the 'elementary' icon set is available in the PCLinuxOS repo as an install (as opposed to downloading the elementary icon zip from github and manually copying to /usr/share/icons), the default icon set are ugly as sin in the Mate version of PCLinuxOS, you'll want to change them right away, unless you like a minimalist European-ish look, they're strange looking indeed.
Bottom line, PCLinuxOS Mate is like having Stella (old Gnome 2.x) on your machine but way more tweaked, modern and pretty, with more supported and available apps (the only readily available transcoder in Stella is Handbrake, yikes), the only plus for Stella in this head-to-head, it'll install on a fakeraid. Stella is basically frozen in time and based on CentOS/Redhat 6.6 (NO systemd), which does rub me the wrong way a little, the whole idea is to run from Redhat, not embrace it, old version or not.
Edit: After reading my own post several times (lots of proof reading, lol), I'm going to put PCLinuxOS Mate as my Debhat replacement frontrunner, it's polished, way more apps, rolling and stable, I may not even bother 'testing' PC-BSD, it wiped an old storage drive without warning me during a recent install attempt, this is NOT ok. Besides, ZFS is a handful to deal with.
My conundrum:
PCLinuxOS (Mate)=will fit on a CD, stable, can be a little bit dated at times but very little maintenance (almost none) required, being rolling is a plus, lots of popular apps in their repository (you'll want to change the icon set, see below), tons of GUI tools for n00bs.
Salix (Xfce)=small ISO download but won't fit on a CD, DVD required, also rolling after install, can be more up to date (apps installed through Sourcery), very lean and fast, has a 'just enough' apps/tools policy, a bit less repo apps options than normal, a few packages refused to compile and install with Sourcery (DeVeDe and Bombono installed fine, DVDStyler did not, nor did pysolfc), nothing of huge importance but it still sucks a little (there are other solitaire apps, I'll live, lol), binaries almost always install without problems (in general, any distro). Binaries are limited but other apps available through Sourcery, which is easy to use but a roll of the dice if your chosen app will get installed or not (Sourcery has a tendancy to nag for dependencies installed through Gslapt, but unlike single instance apt in Debian, you can have both of them open and go back and forth between them).
I only recently discovered pysolfc and I really like it, not only that, DVDStyler is handy to have as a 3rd option to DeVeDe and Bombono, also liking the idea of a headache free install (PCLinuxOS will auto install a proprietary video driver if it can, Salix uses the GPL for live and install), although I'm not a huge fan of Mate (prefer Xfce), it's gtk, btw, the 'elementary' icon set is available in the PCLinuxOS repo as an install (as opposed to downloading the elementary icon zip from github and manually copying to /usr/share/icons), the default icon set are ugly as sin in the Mate version of PCLinuxOS, you'll want to change them right away, unless you like a minimalist European-ish look, they're strange looking indeed.
Bottom line, PCLinuxOS Mate is like having Stella (old Gnome 2.x) on your machine but way more tweaked, modern and pretty, with more supported and available apps (the only readily available transcoder in Stella is Handbrake, yikes), the only plus for Stella in this head-to-head, it'll install on a fakeraid. Stella is basically frozen in time and based on CentOS/Redhat 6.6 (NO systemd), which does rub me the wrong way a little, the whole idea is to run from Redhat, not embrace it, old version or not.
Edit: After reading my own post several times (lots of proof reading, lol), I'm going to put PCLinuxOS Mate as my Debhat replacement frontrunner, it's polished, way more apps, rolling and stable, I may not even bother 'testing' PC-BSD, it wiped an old storage drive without warning me during a recent install attempt, this is NOT ok. Besides, ZFS is a handful to deal with.
Linux Registered User 533946
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 2013-06-19 05:09
Re: operating systems without systemd
I just wanted to add my 2 cents that I'm really happy this discussion is happening. The GNU ideology has seemed to show that KISS is the way to go when writing software, and an init system should be no exception. I think if we want systemd to go that's going to take a collective effort to use distributions/kernels that do not support it or will not adopt it, otherwise package maintainers will probably become lazy and not bother to support other init systems. It's been a really political takeover of linux and I'm very upset about it I hope debian realizes that it's not too late to create a new init system or move to another one before it's too late.
Much opinionated.
Some abrasive.
No systemd.
Wow.
Some abrasive.
No systemd.
Wow.
- oswaldkelso
- df -h | grep > 20TiB
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
- Location: UK
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 60 times
Re: operating systems without systemd
Mate is all geared up for systemd so you need to be sure it will still run without it or your wasting you time
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian
Re: operating systems without systemd
thanks for the info.
so is there some list about DE without systemd?
--
PS: to avoid such lockdown(vendor-lock) scheme,
i am using dwm/openbox/plan9port.
in LMDE, using cinnamon, not sure how far going on.
so is there some list about DE without systemd?
--
PS: to avoid such lockdown(vendor-lock) scheme,
i am using dwm/openbox/plan9port.
in LMDE, using cinnamon, not sure how far going on.
Re: operating systems without systemd
Thanks for that info, will have to look in to it, and there's always the PCLinuxOS LXDE version, it too is gtk, I've tried LXDE before and I know my way around it, I just prefer Xfce. If PCLinuxOS stays non-virusd, they'll have to drop their Mate version if Mate caves to virusd too.oswaldkelso wrote:Mate is all geared up for systemd so you need to be sure it will still run without it or your wasting you time
Maybe I'll give PC-BSD Xfce another shot, this is depressing the $#1+ out of me.
Edit: FreeBSD 10.1 released! Release announcement here, read specifically the dvd1 section:
There's a separate DVD for UEFI users, I have my machine set to legacy BIOS on purpose. FYI, dvd1 has Xfce and KDE packages included, Distrowatch's package list here. I like this, this is good, downloading now.This contains everything necessary to install the base FreeBSD operating system, the documentation, and a small set of pre-built packages aimed at getting a graphical workstation up and running.
Edit 2: What Texstar (Bill Reynolds of PCLinuxOS) said about systemd (December 10, 2013) here in this forum post.
Linux Registered User 533946
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28
Re: operating systems without systemd
Not exactly DE, rather software in general, but you might want to look anyway:mmix wrote:thanks for the info.
so is there some list about DE without systemd?
http://www.debianuserforums.org/viewtop ... ac99c261e6
Also the actual testing release of refracta.
Give me convenience or give me death.
Re: operating systems without systemd
The Lumina desktop is developed for BSD so it'll never be tied to systemd. It has been ported to Linux so whether you're running a Linux distro, OpenBSD or FreeBSD the Lumina desktop should work.mmix wrote:thanks for the info.
so is there some list about DE without systemd?
in LMDE, using cinnamon, not sure how far going on.
Re: operating systems without systemd
Thanks for that, PC-BSD has Lumina as an install choice. I'm waiting for PC-BSD 10.1 to be released, FreeBSD 10.1 was just released so it won't be far behind. Just a tip to anybody trying PC-BSD, do yourself a favour, open your case, disconnect the drive(s) PC-BSD is NOT being installed to, PC-BSD's installer has a tendency to do whatever it wants sometimes, and if possible, use the UFS file system, I've been reading ZFS can be a bit of a resource hog, etc.thenewguy wrote:The Lumina desktop is developed for BSD so it'll never be tied to systemd. It has been ported to Linux so whether you're running a Linux distro, OpenBSD or FreeBSD the Lumina desktop should work.mmix wrote:thanks for the info.
so is there some list about DE without systemd?
in LMDE, using cinnamon, not sure how far going on.
Linux Registered User 533946
Re: operating systems without systemd
@linadian: For PCLinnuxOS there's a TDE build, too: https://wiki.trinitydesktop.org/LiveCDs
Re: operating systems without systemd
If you're installing PC-BSD then there is no UFS option, they are ZFS only since several PC-BSD utilities assume ZFS is present. You could install FreeBSD with UFS and then install all the PC-BSD packages if you wanted.
However, there really isn't any reason to do that, ZFS is not a resource hog. I've been running it for years on machines with less than 2GB of RAM. In fact, I run a bunch of old used-to-be-desktops-now-file-servers with 1GB of RAM or less and they all are running with ZFS. Based on my experience you can run PC-BSD with Lumina and ZFS then the operating system will run smoothly on machines with 2GB of RAM.
However, there really isn't any reason to do that, ZFS is not a resource hog. I've been running it for years on machines with less than 2GB of RAM. In fact, I run a bunch of old used-to-be-desktops-now-file-servers with 1GB of RAM or less and they all are running with ZFS. Based on my experience you can run PC-BSD with Lumina and ZFS then the operating system will run smoothly on machines with 2GB of RAM.
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28
Re: operating systems without systemd
Tell me as soon you find an OS which can run with 512 MB RAM, or less.
Give me convenience or give me death.
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: operating systems without systemd
fruitofloom wrote:Tell me as soon you find an OS which can run with 512 MB RAM, or less.
Archlinux.org wrote:System requirements
Arch Linux should run on any i686 compatible machine with a minimum of 64 MB RAM. A basic installation with all packages from the base group should take less than 800 MB of disk space. If you are working with limited space, this can be trimmed down considerably, but you will have to know what you are doing.
deadbang
Re: operating systems without systemd
Puppy Linux - but you were probably expecting this answer.fruitofloom wrote:Tell me as soon you find an OS which can run with 512 MB RAM, or less.
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28
Re: operating systems without systemd
Humor doesn't seem to work well ...RU55EL wrote:Puppy Linux - but you were probably expecting this answer.fruitofloom wrote:Tell me as soon you find an OS which can run with 512 MB RAM, or less.
My point was that 2 Gigs is anything but low. Obviously that opinion is slightly old-fashioned.
I wouldn't hesitate to run any OS out there on a machine with 1 Gig of Ram.
Well: to say it more clear, to me a Gig sounds like quite comfortable.
But thanks for your answer, my fault not being clear. Puppy is fine too, of course.
Give me convenience or give me death.
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28
Re: operating systems without systemd
@Head on a stick:
I had a now broken laptop with 64 MB and 4 Gigs of harddisk.
It ran fine as long CLI only, GUI was a bit ... well: you can imagine. Not really fun.
Debian, of course.
I'd still call 128 too little.
256 is fine, as far it's me
384 and it starts being fun.
512: outstanding, but gnome and kde can give a wee bit of trouble
1 Gig: whatever you want.
More than that: pointless.
I had a now broken laptop with 64 MB and 4 Gigs of harddisk.
It ran fine as long CLI only, GUI was a bit ... well: you can imagine. Not really fun.
Debian, of course.
I'd still call 128 too little.
256 is fine, as far it's me
384 and it starts being fun.
512: outstanding, but gnome and kde can give a wee bit of trouble
1 Gig: whatever you want.
More than that: pointless.
Give me convenience or give me death.
Re: operating systems without systemd
? Machines in use here with 512 ram and single-core cpu, running squeeze, wheezy, jessie, sid with xfce4, TDE, openbox.Tell me as soon you find an OS which can run with 512 MB RAM, or less.
Re: operating systems without systemd
Thanks, I did check it out quite some time ago, it was still fairly beta-ish back then. My only issue is, will it jive with PCLinuxOS repos? My goal is to find something long-term supported too, I just want my f#%king computer to work, without any proprietary choke-ware (virusd). Downloading it anyway, gunna give it a spin, for schizz n giggles, who knows, it may work.twoflowers wrote:@linadian: For PCLinnuxOS there's a TDE build, too: https://wiki.trinitydesktop.org/LiveCDs
That's good to know, what I said about ZFS was not my opinion/experience, it was what I read. But since you endorse it, I will give it a cold steel bricks and mortar install try anyway when PC-BSD 10.1 is released (with ALL other drives disconnected, lol), who knows, PC-BSD Lumina could be the answer to my (our?) problem (virusd). But why not just use PC-BSD Xfce (if anybody is already a fan of Xfce)? Will Xfce be caving to virusd too? In all honesty, anything BSD based would probably be the last to cave to virusd, this is also something to consider.thenewguy wrote:If you're installing PC-BSD then there is no UFS option, they are ZFS only since several PC-BSD utilities assume ZFS is present. You could install FreeBSD with UFS and then install all the PC-BSD packages if you wanted.
However, there really isn't any reason to do that, ZFS is not a resource hog. I've been running it for years on machines with less than 2GB of RAM. In fact, I run a bunch of old used-to-be-desktops-now-file-servers with 1GB of RAM or less and they all are running with ZFS. Based on my experience you can run PC-BSD with Lumina and ZFS then the operating system will run smoothly on machines with 2GB of RAM.
I would say Salix Xfce fits this bill, it's still a very close second place in my Debhat replacement choices because it's lean (and rolling as a bonus), but at this stage of the game, both my old and new machines could handle any bloated distro, but that doesn't mean I like or will tolerate bloat, I actually don't like it (hence my disgust of KDE now), I hate being 'smothered'. PC-BSD remains a distant 3rd choice because I'm not sure I'm ready to make the jump to BSD yet, binary availability and a whole new tweaking learning curve (and I'm still a little miffed its installer wiped an old storage drive). FreeBSD 10.1 is really cool...if you have the time and patience to set it up and trouble-shoot it, which I don't, but I'm not throwing away the DVD just yet.fruitofloom wrote:Tell me as soon you find an OS which can run with 512 MB RAM, or less.
Linux Registered User 533946
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 2014-10-27 21:28
Re: operating systems without systemd
Well: I got machines with more ram too.dzz wrote:? Machines in use here with 512 ram and single-core cpu, running squeeze, wheezy, jessie, sid with xfce4, TDE, openbox.Tell me as soon you find an OS which can run with 512 MB RAM, or less.
Thing is: none of them uses more than +/- 300 (with claws, firefox, pidgin and tilda running). Most of that being used by firefox, of course.
Not that sure what would be the point to get more ram .... so that more sits idle?
Give me convenience or give me death.
Re: operating systems without systemd
That's easy. Maybe size does matter! As in mine is bigger (therefore better) than yours. A geek's compensation for lack of self-esteem.fruitofloom wrote:Not that sure what would be the point to get more ram .... so that more sits idle?
May the FORK be with you!
Re: operating systems without systemd
Linux will use any available spare RAM for caching disk blocks. This can greatly speed reloading of programs, libraries, and data files.fruitofloom wrote:Well: I got machines with more ram too.
Thing is: none of them uses more than +/- 300 (with claws, firefox, pidgin and tilda running). Most of that being used by firefox, of course.
Not that sure what would be the point to get more ram .... so that more sits idle?
For example:
Code: Select all
root@thevenin:~# free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 428 406 22 0 215 129
-/+ buffers/cache: 60 368
Swap: 534 0 534
root@thevenin:~# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@thevenin:~# free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 428 35 393 0 0 9
-/+ buffers/cache: 26 402
Swap: 534 0 534
root@thevenin:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=hundredmb bs=1M count=100
100+0 records in
100+0 records out
104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 0.766156 s, 137 MB/s
root@thevenin:~# free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 428 137 291 0 0 109
-/+ buffers/cache: 27 400
Swap: 534 0 534
root@thevenin:~# time cat hundredmb >/dev/null # with file cached in spare RAM
real 0m0.192s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.176s
root@thevenin:~# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@thevenin:~# time cat hundredmb >/dev/null # file must be reloaded from the disk
real 0m1.927s
user 0m0.003s
sys 0m0.226s
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan