You are not logged in.

#1 2014-04-15 08:42:28

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Alternate init versions

Just wanted to say that while I have enjoyed the challenge of building isos systemd free, I am under no illusion of the amount of work required to support them. Am quite prepared to share what I have done/found and support to the best of my ability anyone who wants to continue with them. Need to focus on summer release which is not that far off....

Arch now is systemd based and that will not change, it is possible to run with out it but for how long or what will work in the future I cannot say. As a user you are free to use whatever distro or init system or packages you like.

Mr Green


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#2 2014-04-15 11:24:54

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 3,594
Website

Re: Alternate init versions

Are you using the reduced (to openboz)Gui installer of Evo/lution/Antergos for the summer release?

Regarding systemd, I hope that someone or a group with great programming skills and a lot of time and perseverance will eliminate the Trojan Horse one day.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#3 2014-04-15 11:51:59

oliver
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-04
Posts: 2,209

Re: Alternate init versions

pablokal wrote:

Regarding systemd, I hope that someone or a group with great programming skills and a lot of time and perseverance will eliminate the Trojan Horse one day.

For anyone looking for an alternative right now, archBSD might be a good option... they have openbox/tint2 in the repo and systemd is not (and probably never will be?) supported.

No installer is available right now so I'm not sure of *how* you might might go about it - but something to consider.  I assume it's the same as a regular Arch install but using a different base

http://archbsd.net/

Offline

#4 2014-04-15 11:57:24

The Black Fox
Member
Registered: 2014-04-06
Posts: 44

Re: Alternate init versions

ArchBSD is hopelessly broken from what I can see, I am experienced with FreeBSD but could not get it to work properly, also the developer was extremely rude and intoxicated when I was on IRC and trying to figure out what the heck I was doing wrong. Not to get my personal mishaps involved with this, but I definitely think there are better options for people wanting the Arch philosophy. Starch Linux seems like a good idea, but I don't see much activity out of them. OpenBSD is probably what a lot of Arch users would like as its code correct and very simple, but some may be put off by the lack of bleeding edge (The BSDs aren't known for bleeding edge anyways)

Offline

#5 2014-04-15 13:50:26

oliver
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-04
Posts: 2,209

Re: Alternate init versions

The Black Fox wrote:

also the developer was extremely rude and intoxicated when I was on IRC

Just re-creating the pure Arch magic :-)

I should have added that I've not actually *tried* it - so I appreciate the input

Offline

#6 2014-04-15 14:00:15

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

http://kwort.org

Might take a look, openbox based....


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#7 2014-04-15 17:53:11

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

The Black Fox wrote:

ArchBSD is hopelessly broken from what I can see, I am experienced with FreeBSD but could not get it to work properly, also the developer was extremely rude and intoxicated when I was on IRC and trying to figure out what the heck I was doing wrong. Not to get my personal mishaps involved with this, but I definitely think there are better options for people wanting the Arch philosophy. Starch Linux seems like a good idea, but I don't see much activity out of them. OpenBSD is probably what a lot of Arch users would like as its code correct and very simple, but some may be put off by the lack of bleeding edge (The BSDs aren't known for bleeding edge anyways)

  I hear you,
thats why, other than AB, I do reminisce with GhostBSD, and/or PCBSD, especially OpenBSD - (and btw -it's not that it's not bleeding-edge, but maybe you won't like it(OBSD)anyway,  'cause they do NOT like Closed/Proprietary/Binary Drivers'), not even Nvidia, and, opppositely, that's one of the minor reasons why Linux attracts it's Users. right. -get it ?
Hence, why, I was/am still hopeful for a truly "OpenRC" with Linux?  smile,
But don't get me wrong, and I ain't no "fanboy", 'cause we all know *BSD is ALWAYS gonna be here to stay anyway, no matter what, - Many (Unix/C) Devs, programmers, Admins. ..., still sharpen their "learning" teeth with it, not to mention, (proprietary)MacOSX ...,  would not have been possible, but for the gratefully and utterly "FREE" (Unix)BSD/OS.
But you gotta remeber, Apple also stole off with most of  the "cream" of the FreeBSD devs,..., way back then to build their OSX. -well money talks, and ppl walks, what's new ?!.   but that's ok, new ones are comin' up again -and that's a good thing.

ArchBSD was all wonderful at the beginning, but I agree, they were more interested in "padding" his resume, or whatever,...,
until something else came along that was better $ ? -I dunno, it's all f_kin' sad, and yet, I definitely don't blame them.
In other words, were they actually IN it for the Long Haul ?   mmm.
- and,  that was my last impressions with it, before it sadly fell by the roadside, too bad.
-imho.

This ia all getting hopelessly painful now, yet again.
sigh sad


Why can't Linux/BSD BOTH get along and FIGHT the good fight together, against the common (closed/proprietary/monopolization)GREEDY Foe(s).   ???????????
-that's the eternal easy question.

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-15 19:47:09)

Offline

#8 2014-04-16 15:16:08

jeff story
Member
From: Shelton, Wa
Registered: 2010-10-09
Posts: 8
Website

Re: Alternate init versions

If you guys would like to use the modified cnchi, Evo/Lution installer, let me know what you need and I'll help you out any way I can.


I'm also looking into an alternative and mostly unknown GUI installer. Email me for details on this.

Keep in mind, Antergos is currently working on what looks like an all new installer.  With this in mind, I feel it's just a matter of time before the Lution installer will be rendered inoperable due to:

1)  Lack of maintenance and my very limited programming skills.

2) Upstream moves very fast with often profound changes.

Last edited by jeff story (2014-04-16 15:29:45)

Offline

#9 2014-04-16 15:30:13

Dan
Member
Registered: 2013-02-02
Posts: 30
Website

Re: Alternate init versions

jeff story wrote:

If you guys would like to use the modified cnchi, Evo/Lution installer, let me know what you need and I'll help you out any way I can.

Now that would be interesting....

Offline

#10 2014-04-16 23:38:36

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

@jeff story did look at cnchi it seems to do just about everything. Much more than abinstall. Maintaining it for a small team like us would be near impossible. The problem we have is that we currently do not support efi during install. Not sure if cnchi allows fresh packages ie netinstall.


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#11 2014-04-17 02:45:20

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 3,594
Website

Re: Alternate init versions

Hi Jeff, thanks for your contribution. I hope Mr Green will take this up:

I'm also looking into an alternative and mostly unknown GUI installer. Email me for details on this.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#12 2014-04-17 02:49:11

jeff story
Member
From: Shelton, Wa
Registered: 2010-10-09
Posts: 8
Website

Re: Alternate init versions

Mr Green wrote:

Not sure if cnchi allows fresh packages ie netinstall.

I have it set up as a live installer, downloads all installed packages. It will do either static or live install.

If you're looking for a slick and different Arch GUI installer, check out: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bbqlin … t/download.

And https://github.com/bbqlinux/bbqlinux-installer.

I just stumbled across this gem, did a test install and must say I was very impressed. It isn't as feature rich as cnchi, but it may be perfect for AB with just one DE/WM.

I asked Daniel if he would be interested in adding features and maintenance, and to send me a cost estimate.... He turned it down, so I'll be investigating it further myself.

I really need to get with the program and learn Python.

Last edited by jeff story (2014-04-17 02:50:28)

Offline

#13 2014-04-17 04:11:45

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

@Jeff will look into it ;-)


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#14 2014-04-17 10:19:50

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

Actually, the older Cinnarch/Antergos installer had both a Live and Netinstaller built in, I remeber modifying the basic (Net)installer, successfully doin' it for both, to create a Netinstall-AB/Openbox Desktop, but that was just before Arch's big "/lib", and "systemd", and "installer", ..., changes.
Notwithstanding, it might be easier if we do Evo/Lution for the Live-AB, and a seperate revamped (evo/lution) netinstaller-AB. However, it would obviously mean two seperate AB .iso's, but, then again, would it be overcomplicating everything ?
An AB-netinstaller would be the ultimate way to do AB -afterall, we are talkin' 'bout the ever-changing-upstream Arch here, where NO ONE knows where they're goin', and sometimes, not even Arch-Upstream ?

Still, the AB-Live is a must have. !

Haven't we been here before ?
wink

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-17 10:32:36)

Offline

#15 2014-04-17 11:06:56

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

Many times. Abinstall was from 2010, we have modified to keep it running as best we could.  We still lack efi support. Am not mad on the idea of a GUI installer, think of all the extra packages required just to run it.

Might be an idea to create a package, repo which would allow you to install installer...


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#16 2014-04-18 05:58:56

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 3,594
Website

Re: Alternate init versions

Haven't we been here before ?

Yes, both are fantastic to use the livecd but also as abnetinstaller is priceless of course. In an ideal world we have both; and that isn't to complicated to bring over, to communicate to new users.
But just too much to ask of Mr. Green who has to do all the tedious chores.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#17 2014-04-18 06:50:25

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

I am too busy messing around with various init systems ;-) looking at servman-git at the moment. Writing a netinstaller would not be that difficult, things get complicated when you add aur into the mix.

Setup (time,date,partitions,mount points)
Install (Base, Our Package set, Aur!!!)
Overlay (our configs)
Configure (User/Root{passwords}, various system settings)
Bootloader (Grub{efi}, Syslinux)

We could use arches own arch-install-scripts to provide base,fstab,chroot etc..

For aur packages we have to decide on either using own our repo (saves a lot of time and loading of base-devel) or creating a install function for them (much more complex)

Right back to init


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#18 2014-04-18 08:56:43

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

Regarding  aur pkg installation:

If you pre-add the "yaourt" repo at the bottom of pacman.conf ...

[archlinuxfr]
SigLevel = Never
Server = [url]http://repo.archlinux.fr/$arch[/url]

yaourt can pull both any standard repo dependencies, as well as pull in any additional "AUR" dependencies, as long as they exist.
If you have sudo, for example,  try "yaourt flacon" just as any $User, and it will pull in any additional Repo dependencies,  and/or any AUR dependencies of the Aur package "flacon".
...just sayin' if it's of any help, however I have a funny feeling this would still have to be a post-installation thingy, which might be a drag.

yaourt is the first package I install, right after any AB-Live installation

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-18 09:30:00)

Offline

#19 2014-04-18 09:29:19

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

packer is the first thing I install after ;-) aur.sh can get the job done too I grab it via curl

http://aur.sh/

Take a look


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#20 2014-04-18 09:32:38

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

Well as long as packer can install, and/or upgarde any other req'd AUR pkg inter-dependencies as well, then it's fine too.
But I definitely know that yaourt can do it.

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-18 09:33:01)

Offline

#21 2014-04-18 09:39:48

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

Hey, ya'll wanna gang up on me that's fine.
@Pablo  "... just too much to ask of Mr. Green who has to do all the tedious chores..." what ?! - I didn't infer that Mr. G needs to add an abnetinsaller to his plate.
where did that come from.

@Mr Green I don't really care if AB has a netinstaller or not, obviously it's easy enough to setup anyway. Normal Arch Users do it all the time.

No biggie.
AB-Live! is fine with me, just the way it is, GUI/CLI it's all the same.
wink

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-18 09:42:51)

Offline

#22 2014-04-18 09:45:40

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

@scjet Put some cold beers on the table I will see what I can do ;-)


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#23 2014-04-18 09:56:02

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

Actually, I'm only here with "Arch/Linux" cause it has the latest/greatest (Linux)Drivers, as well as a plethora of latest/stable (Linux)Apps,..., whereas *BSD can't even boot my Asus K75D laptop. sad  <- (well, not right now anyway).

So ya, I admit, if it wasn't for that major fact, then I'd be back with BSD-4ever.
I ain't no expert/kernel/developer/coder, and unfortunatelt not many here are either, otherwise we'd be making big money, jus like "asshat". wink
So,  I gotta go with what works with my hardawre, but that's about as far as my love goes for ANY Linux distro.

As far as init's go, It'd be great to have a cross-platform OpenRC, or just leave the old BSD/inits in Arch alone in the first place?,
but we ALL know now, that is obviously NEVER gonna happen with Arch ever.

So lets not take it out on each other.

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-18 10:11:52)

Offline

#24 2014-04-18 10:00:50

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

Mr Green wrote:

@scjet Put some cold beers on the table I will see what I can do ;-)


u kidding, I can't wait 'till their cold, I'm hittin' the warm ones already. !
- but I know, how pathetic is that, haha.
wink

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-18 10:02:49)

Offline

#25 2014-04-18 10:04:59

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

BSD style scripts do still work (of course) they do not however like Arch as it is now systemd based. Can only suggest likes of crux, kwort or slackware. For kicks am trying to install Gnome under servman scripts (no systemd) am not under any illusion it will work but I need to see if networkmanager (dbus) actually works....


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

#26 2014-04-18 10:19:20

scjet
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,463

Re: Alternate init versions

Sadly, I fear, at this point, even Judd Vinet himself, with a 9-foot crowbar, would NOT be able to pry "systemD" out from Arch, anymore.
Mr. Green, your tenacity is always "half-full". -that's a good thing.
But alas, the glass is always half-empty to me.

Oh btw,  'talking 'bout "half-empty", it's time for my re-fill   wink
Cheers.

Last edited by scjet (2014-04-18 10:29:00)

Offline

#27 2014-04-18 10:56:57

Mr Green
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 6,688

Re: Alternate init versions

You can run Arch without systemd but it does take some work. Gnome would not run, using i3 at the moment without too many problems. As far as I can tell under my VM connman is working wired. Acid test would be using it via an iso on a real laptop. Busybox does all the init work for me, a simple rc script is all that is required to setup and start udev,dbus etc.. you are good to go.

From this weeks init fest I have had OpenRC, initscripts-fork, minirc, servman running.

Even managed to configure a wireless connection from command line ;-)


Comments, suggestions, donations please feel free to contact me mrgreen(at)archbang(dot)org

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB