RedHat/GNOME/Freedesktop/systemd/Linux

I like the XDG Directory specifications. It gives programs a reasonable place to store dotfiles, it separates different types of dotfiles (config, data, cache) so you can just nuke one without affecting the other, and it can be configured on the fly through environment variables.

In the $CURRENT_YEAR this would actually socially benefit you.

i dont know about any free software that does so but if you use discord and install their programs then it will send such things to anyone who is on the "server" you are on. the solution is to just not use such things or at least use the browser version if you really have to.

I expected people to pick up that this wasn't a concrete example, but no dice apparently. I mean "do what I mean" garbage that tries to outsmart the user in general; problems that are caused by features, not traps.

< using a status bar
never ever ever

Attached: 2019-07-22-223540_1441x1079_scrot.png (1441x1079, 522.14K)

Open or Free?

lol ok dude

Free
I'm too much of a faggot to use Open

I have no use for any of their bloats. I was happy with how Linux worked in the mid 90's, before all their stupid desktop environment junk.

I haven't touched BSD for a while, but I never liked their setup of a ports tree and remote binary packages which did not play well with each other.

Synth did remedy most of those concerns for me
github.com/jrmarino/synth

*FreeBSD

OpenBSD -current

jesus

You do realize that desktop environments are a completely optional addition to Linux. If you don't like it, there is no need to have it.

Doesn't matter. Even if you run twm instead of those bloated shits, most distros force you to have other freedesktop related garbage. Only way out is gentoo and building everything from source. So basically you have to do a lot of extra work to opt out of their normie bullshit. I bet it's going to keep getting worse too.
In the 90's, you simply installed Slackware or Debian and didn't have to do anything to avoid that lame shit. So that's the difference.

What did you mean by this?

I have a really bad experience with it, because it is 5-10 years behind in therms of wifi technology. There is an ever growing number of 802 protocols that it can't work with even when you configure them manually.
It is also apparently full of bugs, but I haven't run into any, other than the icon not showing the correct status on tint2.

In otherwords, just use macos or windows? The problem with free software, is often that no one wants to use it.

>I want to take control of my computing let somebody else do everything for me exactly the way I want so I can feel like I'm in control of my computing
Get a servant then, I guess. Otherwise know that your idiotic attitude is what caused this decay in the first place.

Try thinking.

>deciding to use pozzed and (((coced))) cancer
wew

git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8a104f8b5867c682d994ffa7a74093c54469c11f

It means Linux became even more like Windows, where you have to remove a bunch of malware and/or constantly fight against the OS and the direction its (((maintainers))) are taking it in order to make it halfway decent. It means it's for normies and people that don't value their time.

Using (((linux))) like the good goy that you are.

What did you mean by this?

So what you're saying is that you have to modify your system in order to make it do what you want it to do? How unconscionable!

Why would you use pozzed services you don't know the use of? Running as few background tasks should be the goal of a bloat-less operating system.

Attached: 2019-07-24-200017_1076x815_scrot.png (1076x815, 206.76K)

Perfectly sums up the state of "minimalism"

they are right though, if you don't know what something does and how it works, do not run it
only run what is necessary

How do you take something perfectly usable and fuck it up beyond all recognition? Ask the Gnome team.
How do you take something fucked up beyond all recognition and make it perfectly usable? Ask the Mint team.

You can only know so much. Putting the limit of an OS as the limit of your own brain is pointless. I thought computers were supposed to extend our brain. I guess McLuhan was right again.

This. If you don't know exactly what every process is doing and why it's running when you look at htop, you might as well be running windows.
If there's a single service on your system that isn't running as a direct consequence of your behest, it shouldn't be running in the first place.

I approve of everything running on my Lingux based machine. I don't know exactly what every process is doing, I haven't looked at it. I assume it's all good.

>oh no no no you can't possibly know what processes are running on your machine and for what purpose, goys

The moment the (((coc))) slid in.

Yes. I read a rant in another langoage where it was said: " if you dualboot windows and linux you are doing a [thin, poor] favour, people will always boot into what they know, windows, and if they forget they [dualbooted] linux they will be angry when they accidentally boot it, head breaking... if you singleboot linux, like i did, you are making yourself a longtime favour [?, perhaps to realize linux's true unstability, flux and ruin] the first week ... i hated it ... the second one, too ... the third one, also ... after 15 years did you expect me to say that it is good? NO, it is a shitty hell where you have to recycle yourself at a demential pace, where concepts don't last more than a week, ... to even consider the question "what distro to recommend?" means that this won't EVER work. where there a ton of programs that compete, that fragment, that divide... Windows is a finished product. It [may be/is, i forgot what was exactly said] the worst at 1000 things, but it's a recognizible product, where graphists, analysts ... earn their money, and statistians, animators, studios... also do too ... the only distros that earn money are the big ones and below them there's a bunch of kambophala chants around a firepit, millions of angry nerds frothing at the mouth..." and so on and so on.

Use OpenBSD then. Better than Linux anyway.

Think, seriously.

The nature of Linux is to be modified and hacked into what you want, like Gentoo and LFS do it to some extent.

Another part of the rant:
"It will worsen with time ... I don't foresee [Linux's] situation getting better, it is actually getting worse..."

What did you mean by this?

Are you a leftover retard from when the moderation was just a pile of lazy niggers (and probably still is)?

What did you mean by this?

Badly programmed bot.

Learn to read.
What's the hard limit on the capabilities of your computer when you insist on knowing what everything is and how it works? It's not the computer hardware.

I'm not insisting on knowing how everything works (I'm not ).
Merely knowing what processes you have running and why is another matter though.
It's not hard.

I like some reasonable specifications they made, for example XDG Directory specifications as mentioned.
There's also the case for /usr/ merge, although being a part of systemd, I think this is a good way to clear Unix braindamaged directories.
freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
Wayland seems to be ok too, at least better than X.
Freedesktop also hosts a lot of useful, mostly independent packages, like free drivers etc. only systemd and things related to it are cancer, the rest is modest and there are some good projects. Cancer comes from RedHat and GNOME.
One thing that stopped having systemd as its dependency is flatpak, they had probably been scared people won't use it. But even after that, flatpak is still a tool providing only opaque binaries, it isn't a good solution. Don't know who invented it, but by reading their history, both GNOME and RedHat.

All of them are cancer.

I didn't say that. I said only one, small part of it, which isn't even software but an idea, is good.
Why is /usr/ merge cancer? It is backward-compatible and clears up the directory tree. Instead of having /bin/ and /usr/bin you have only /usr/bin. Probably a better solution would be merging everything from /usr/ to /, but that would break backward compatibility. Do you even know the history of tree structure on UNIX? They ran out of memory, so they mounted a new tape at /usr/. That's clearly a not elegant and braindamaged solution.

What distro do you use? How did you made such minimal setup?

Not him, but I have something similarly-sized on Gentoo. It just takes a bit of tidying up; check what alternatives to certain bloat exist and whether you even need one in the first place. You don't have to do it all at once either, just refine it every now and then whenever you have time or some shitware is pissing you off.

heh

it's most likely some BSD
you don't see the kernel process in htop on linux distros

*BSD

I could kill Compton, Openbox, and moused (technically bloat) , cron (then I get no periodic ntpupdate) and run cwm or something, but I just like Openbox too much. O
< Also Alacritty is not minimal. I just like teh terminal.

Because Linux doesn't use SystemV for it's init anymore.

no, it's simply because htop doesn't show the kernel as PID 0 like it does on BSDs for some reason
if you boot with init=/bin/bash and run htop, bash and htop will be the only two processes shown

that can't be 800M, htop doesn't know how to calculate memory usage on *BSD properly
on linux, it would show 200M at most for the same set of processes

That's a quirk of Linux. All other UNIX likes and real UNIXes have the kernel in PID 0.

This entire post is ZOG botnet. Don’t trust it

oh, look at the (((kike))) (((redhat))) shill attempting to patrol today.

lmao check it out I even have bloat botnet dbus running

Attached: openbox.png (838x1036, 35.75K)

You do know there are different methods to determine "used" memory right?

Attached: 2019-07-25-220343_1082x588_scrot.png (1082x588, 173.73K)

lol I'm not surprised

The only real argument against systemd in my opinion is that it has heavily out played it's welcome and branched into domains that other projects were made to handle.
The "botnet" argument never made sense to me, it being a huge project made in C doesn't mean it's ebil. GNU is a large overblown project made in C that doesn't need to be big and bloated and everyone always sings it's praises.
Linux is a big overblown project made in C with many MANY exploits and bugs, remember that recent one where you could just use tcp to perform a privilege escalation just in the kernel?
For this reason i don't believe gnu/linux was ever made with the intention of following Unix standards/phillosophy. It's main goal from the start has been to rapidly gain functionality by any means possible and has been growing at a extreme rate to beat out windows (something they will only be able to achive with mass marketing at this point)
It's a test bed of many hacked together projects and if something gives them the means to take advantage of or make something faster, then they'll use it no matter what... That's what systemd has become.
It has in a way become the standard for bootprocess and process handling(handshake, w/e) It's what everything interfaces with not because it's good, but it's easy and widespread.. that's the whole point.

The problem with systemd is clear, it has intentionally driven itself deep into the ecosystem and made things hard depend on it specifically, rather then through a layer of abstraction as a true Unix-like/posix system would.

Stop using linux, gnu and systemd all together, their very existance goes counter to Unix/posix.
Use something with actual integrety like BSD, and not a shitty halfbreed BSD like freebsd that attempts to jerk off with Linux.. an actual BSD like openBSD.

You're confused. The GNU OS exists for its own purpose, it doesn't exist for the purpose of "beating out Windows". The GNU OS exists because before the GNU OS, there was no other OS that was dedicated for the purpose of being completely free software. Its purpose is to be a "full featured general purpose and free operating system". This means implementing features that some users would find useful.

As a free and full featured OS, it's expected that if you want your copy of GNU to function differently, you are expected to modify it to your wishes. If you find there are features you don't need for yourself, then you have to go ahead and remove those features from your copy of GNU.

Congratulations on missing the point.

I don't really care about your point. I was just interested in correcting the record about GNU.

There's nothing stopping Linux from shipping non-GPL software (The GNU Operating System). FreeBSD does this. You will not even find gcc on a FreeBSD system.

All net/open users are just salty that FreeBSD is easy to use.

No, FreeBSD is fine with bigger userbase and CoC-suckers. I'm glad they latched onto that OS instead of OpenBSD or NetBSD.

...