Giving the hard works that is currently taking to keep a Debian-based antiX as 100% systemd free as possible, I was wonder if there is a possibility that antiX cannot remind Debian-based and/or Linux-based in the long-term. If more packages ended up relying on systemd, could there be a possibility that antiX made have to start being based on BSD in the near future?

Just think of it as a raw idea and a rough draft if you will: antiXBSD

Just like regular antiX except its based on BSD instead of (systemd infested) Debian & Linux in general. And the best part is that like all of the current BSD distros, it's 100% systemd free.

Could this be possible? Better yet, would BSD even have enough packages in order for antiXBSD to exist?

I know, it's wishful thinking. But what do all of the longtime antix users think of this idea?

I've been trying to learn GhostBSD. It basically just kicks my butt.

If you want a BSD distro like AntiX.

try installing and running


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/"
linktext was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/"
====================================


BSD is so different from GNU/Linux. Don't hold your breath on a MX or AntiX version.
Being one who is at least trying to learn on his own time.
I can tell you everything you know about linux. You can use about 20% of that. The rest of BSD is so different.
You will find yourself breaking your system on a daily basis.

At least. That is my stumbling around in GhostBSD results so far.


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/"
linktext was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/"
====================================



========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/Configuration/"
linktext was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handb ... iguration/"
====================================


Have fun learning the Hammer file system and ports and other things that will make your head spin.

If serious about learning


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/varialus/"
linktext was:"https://www.dragonflybsd.org/varialus/"
====================================


To me. systemd is just another unavoidable thing I'll probably have to learn to live with eventually.
But learning Slitaz, Puppy, and Slackware has been easier for me to learn than any BSD.
At least they stick to stuff I have already learned. Like hd or sd instead of ado.

But what do all of the longtime antix users think of this idea?

Personally from user experience.
Pipe Dream.

A BSD endeavor might be cool, but it's also a huge undertaking. There have been a number of efforts to run Debian over the years on a variety of platforms. While there have been some usable implementations, both Debian and BSD are sufficiently large that there are quite a few things from one or the other that end up either missing or not working.

PC-BSD is a pretty nice desktop-based system for those who want to take on a BSD that comes from FreeBSD heritage. I can also tell you though that as soon as you get into BSD, you'd better consider having multiple disk drives. More often that not, BSD and Linux simply do not consistently play well together. Also, last I checked, PC-BSD is a 64-bit implementation, possibly why Roky experiments with GhostBSD.

BSD platforms certainly have their advantages. For servers, they make great platforms. My opinion - and hard core BSD followers may disagree - is that the desktop environment has better hardware support for Linux. The two cousins are similar in many ways, but though many utilities have either the same or similar names and roughly the same functions, at a kernel level and system infrastructure level, BSD and Linux vary considerably - especially system libraries, and that makes porting, while not impossible, certainly a very large endeavor.

My will to learn BSD is right up there with learning to fine tune a Deusenberg.....Maybe later in life(I'm only 63)

thought about bsd, i dont consider knowing linux too much, completely moved to linux for about 2 years, so just 20% knowledge is a big step

@LinixLighter, i know 30yo who cant use even windows, wich theyre supposed to have experience with, so age is just a number
if you want to fine tune a Deusenberg, that means you have one, do you still need to learn bsd ? __{{emoticon}}__

Some BSDs let you configure your system exactly how you want, others load lots of programs that someone thought you might want. __{{emoticon}}__

I like a system that does what I want, therefore, I use OpenBSD. __{{emoticon}}__

Mainly for the same reason, I use AntiX Base quite often, rather than AntiX Full, just don't need all those extra programs on my machines. __{{emoticon}}__

If you want an intro to BSD then play with Slackware on a spare partition or virtualbox. I think if all else fails regarding systemd and anti chooses to keep antix systemd free then Devuan or Slackware might be better options for base programs then Debian. Personally, I think Debian will keep the option to use sysvinit, and its not that difficult to recompile programs to remove systemd switch/hook.

Xfce is not going to systemd any time soon not by default anyway, and WM's have no need for it.

PS: PV Slackware dev. has"toyed" with the idea of keeping the Linux kernel and using BSD userspace, so perhaps.....antix could..... __{{emoticon}}__

Or, antix could combine forces with SalixOS (also based in Greece) and have a systemd-free party distro release. __{{emoticon}}__

ChuangTzu wrote:Xfce is not going to systemd any time soon not by default anyway

Visit
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.14/roadmap"
linktext was:"https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.14/roadmap"
====================================
and read for yourself: systemd is a stated dependency of the next xfce release

WM's have no need for it

What's your point in stating this?
No, the dependency likely won't touch xfwm4 (window manager component of xfce) nor the xfce-panel component
but as a standalone, xfwm+panel would be nearly useless.
The modules probably affected are: xfce4-session, xfce4-power-manager, thunar-volman...
and many of the modules which not directly affected are tightly coupled to those (are unusable without those).

skidoo wrote:

ChuangTzu wrote:Xfce is not going to systemd any time soon not by default anyway

Visit
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.14/roadmap"
linktext was:"https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.14/roadmap"
====================================
and read for yourself: systemd is a stated dependency of the next xfce release

WM's have no need for it

What's your point in stating this?

Meaning that an advantage to using WM's instead of DE's is they are less likely if at all to rely on hard dependencies like systemd. Xfce (see below) has absolutely no plans on making systemd a hard dependency. Some distros might, but they, meaning the Xfce team will not.

No, the dependency likely won't touch xfwm4 (window manager component of xfce) nor the xfce-panel component
but as a standalone, xfwm+panel would be nearly useless.
The modules probably affected are: xfce4-session, xfce4-power-manager, thunar-volman...
and many of the modules which not directly affected are tightly coupled to those (are unusable without those).

I thought this at first as well several months ago when it was released on the XFCE mailing list, however, after discussing it with some of their dev's and PV and Eric (Alien Bob) of Slackware this is not the case. Xfce are the maintainers of Consolekit2 (which is a fork of Consolekit) which does not need systemd, they are merely allowing Xfce to work with systemd for distributions that want to do so. For those that do not want systemd then Xfce will work just fine as intended with Consolekit2.

Hope that clarifies the point I was making in the original post.

RE:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150224.234320.bec37582.da.html"
linktext was:"https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 ... 82.da.html"
====================================

Thanks for restoring my hope by linking to that recent dyne.org message!

skidoo wrote:Thanks for restoring my hope by linking to that recent dyne.org message!

Your welcome. Here is the mainpage for Consolekit2:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://github.com/ConsoleKit2/ConsoleKit2"
linktext was:"https://github.com/ConsoleKit2/ConsoleKit2"
====================================


an interesting thread on Xfce forum:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=9396"
linktext was:"https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=9396"
====================================


FreeBSD thread regarding Xfce4:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/54674/"
linktext was:"https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/54674/"
====================================

Slight bit of precision about systemd: 1) it is listed as a dependency"tbd" and 2) is tied with an alternative of consolekit that is apparently being considered.

Nope, that's not correct. Posted the question on the Xfce Forum, got this reply from a dev:

1) I've removed the tbd. There's some talk of just targeting 3.20 as a minimum for Gtk, but we'll see.
2) Consolekit and Consolekit2 will be fully supported.
3) You can always raise concerns on the xfce4-dev mailing list or irc channel.

LATER: Now further clarification from another dev: that page appears to mean"Consolekit" or"systemd"