So why just keeping Debian free from systemd? There are derivates doing this like antiX or Devuan. And they all use packages being to be discussed within repositories - Steam anyone? Being one kind of "universal distribution" does not mean to integrate everything with a sticker "Running under Linux!" on it. And I know this is shortened, but please let's wait for the final voting of the community from Debian until further work. INIT-freedom is so important as freedom within repositories is. Furthermore: What about Gnome and their integration of proprietary services? What about flatpak as the "free software"-community didn't manage to create any alternative to the so-called official "application-repository"? Just the argumentation: You just don't have to install proprietary applications!

Come on: That's a lame excuse for being pragmatic onto proprietary content and licensing from companies with no other goal as marketing.

Well, sorry for writing such a long posts and rants at things, but i feel very surprised when i read about devs from Hyperbola have been developing so far and reading about something like HyperbolaBSD is great too, as because of the anti-systemd debate i grow a bit tired of being linux user... Although i am only beginner... But the way i use my laptop now has changed drastically past 3 years... I stopped using non-free software so much, now i have more time for myself... Today i have purchased some book called lords of food by Stefano Liberti... I have read today in this book that Brasil is one of the largest suppliers of soya these days... And that most of it goes to china that becomes global pork producer...
It's only a shame that with money i am very poor so i can't help financially... I feel like that if HyperbolaBSD ever goes live i want to be on the board and it will probably mean that i am going to say goodbye to linux kernel...

When i am online i usually read about bad stuff happening to the planet and society... Being here changes this :-).

Purism and being believable: A very bitter lesson to learn. But again: Where is the real pure, free hardware? Nothing to be found here, nothing more to see here as it is again some more news from the same: More free with a little bit proprietary firmware-blobs needed.

https://puri.sm/products/librem-server/#specs

And there it is, what free software should be.

We need five freedoms not four.

The latest newsletter about Defective by Design (DRM) is interesting reading, but please, FSF: You should priorize updating the worst offenders. Where is Intel and their inclusions within the Linux-kernel? Where is Google as they also being part of them?

https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide/worst-offenders

Free software is also about questioning privileges and sharing them, so everybody is able to participate. No exclusions to be made, the absolute principle for having equal rights and freedom for every being here on the blue planet called "earth"! This starts with questioning language, goes over with habits and ends all with accommodativeness, because this has got a price to be paid and it is getting way too high. Just because you are not offended by some wordings being called does not mean everybody else is also not offended. Questioning can be inclusion and contrary to exclusion, being just exclusive as proprietary software is and patents are all the time. Stop with ignorance as it is time to get out of accommodativeness!

Do you think being just with an alternative ROM in usage is getting you free from dependencies? No, at last having Coreboot or even better Libreboot installed is getting you a little more independent from proprietary firmware-blobs. But at last the whole x86-platform (including x86_64) is completely damaged and won't recover from all the flaws companies like Intel and AMD has done for so long.

And the Linux-kernel is dying, a very slow but painful death. What does this mean? Well, it'll become more and more part of just an open-source ecosystem, far away from free software. We should face the facts: The time is up and the plans for HyperbolaBSD are needed. Throwing many packages away as they are just enforcing dependencies instead being minimalistic.

I hope GNU will remain and will transform into a more decentralized structure, being independent from some "big names" and being more into critical thinking of individuals, being in contact and trying to have discussion about without forgetting the basics: Freedom and privacy for every being, not only for "selected" ... just for everybody. Being modular and small in dependencies! And if this means to stay away from the so-called upcoming challenges like "big data" (buzzword bingo), it is a good one. So the freedom not to use packages and programs instead of enforcing even more dependencies.

It is not about hating something. It is about being for inclusion instead of exclusion. That's the point and when using systemd it is about exlusive and last but not least exclusion. The freedom to deny the usage of one module in favor of another one, without any further negative or positive impact. Just about the favor and freedom of usage, just because every package and included maintainers can decide otherwise for the future getting corresponding packages more away from security, privacy and freedom.

When we talk about being "against" systemd it is about technical facts and the major issues are the concurrent handle in our global society. Instead of listening for criticism ignorance is coming up, talking about being PRO or ANTI. Well, speaking about myself: I couldn't care less about systemd! I just don't want to use it as it brings me far away from a small and minimalistic system.

There was a time when Linux (without GNU) and BSD could cooperate very close. But with systemd and many enhancements especially within the Linux-kernel both driven away more and more. So today we've got a mess of problems. In the end you are going to be ignored if you don't have a big "lobby" or you are speaking loud. So this is another wording for ANTI: You are ANTI when denying "progress", the reasoning behind is most without further interest. So I try to get away from being PRO or ANTI: I have just no interest in systemd and I have no interest getting proprietary software, being pragmatic is another thing I don't care of because best principles are lost on that way. And better to have an operating-system away from pragmatism instead of having the easy way.

As an addition and speaking about myself: There is no further balance. Even though I'm using old(er) proprietary classics this is just a shortening from myself and the exclusion I've made for myself. But in the end: Every pragmatic touch will get me away from freedom, privacy and security. That's my point of view as "balance" won't help getting away from vendor lock-in and this is really a threat towards free software. Further names of distributions like Ubuntu or Manjaro don't represent the sphere of all possibilities and that's again a symptomatic of our times: Shortening of information. Linux is the kernel, GNU is a whole toolset and an approach towards a free operating-system and the distributions are some possible results, more or less better and sometimes worse like Ubuntu for example.

I don't know about most ANTI-systemd news. Most of the time I'll try to get myself out of this as I like facts and being modular is one example is for me reasonable as I can just use any further alternative. Some example from myself:

Starting with Ubuntu
Migration to elementaryOS
First tryout of Trisquel
Installation of Debian
Next tryout of Trisquel
Knowledge about Devuan
Evaluation for Trisquel and Parabola as point of interest
Parabola as some tryout in combination with Libreboot
Migration to Hyperbola

I've learned much within the last nine (ten) years. And I have no problems with systemd itself. I just don't think this is healthy course for free software being aware of inclusion instead exclusion. Because after all you don't include proprietary services (speaking about Google DNS or Facebook and others): In time they will consume more and more of your base as you have to approve your own internals more fitting towards them. That's the problem with evolving proprietary software and services like we have nowadays. That's the point to compare older proprietray software like used with the DOS-era or ROM-files from old consoles: They don't evolve further. There is no problem having a steady code-base being as free as possible without any further firmware-blobs for example. But with the Linux-kernel getting more and more away from basic prinicples of free, libre software you have even more work to do: Therefore you have on the one side "Linux" and on the other side "Linux-libre". The first named is full with proprietary firmware-blobs, the second one is up for a removal of those unsettling security-flaws. But "Linux-libre" will always stay behind and is just seen even within the Linux-community itself as some kind of outsider.

I think the BSD-side will handle the same as freedom-issues are not seen as being "progressive" is most of the time important. And it is all of the same: Take it, it is free! Well? Yes, may be but it is also freedom using other modules and that is getting even more complicated under Linux upcoming: The pragmatism has high costs after all and it took also long for myself to understand where essential problems are. It's the about proprietary hard- and software in combination. Yes, many packages are "free as in freedom" but regarding hardware the catastrophe is forseeable and so the same way around, the hardware is free or "free as in freedom" but then software is proprietary or got a vendor lock-in as some authority decides what "we" should and could use and what "we" don't. And therefore the described problem results on bigger level: The first and major failure was and is to involve companies into the development of the Linux-kernel. Sooner or later you'll have additions like HDCP as those companies oppose the idea of freedom, privacy and security if there is a risk for their business-model and everything is mastered under the big wordings of capitalism. Progress is not for the beings on earth, progress is done for economy, for earning money and long after this there are some ethical thoughts perhaps - the big fail of everything. The reasoning is damaged and was damaged long before. With the Linux-kernel getting more famous it was just about time getting damages into the ecosystem itself as major distributions accepted bloatware-packages like PulseAudio, Avahi, D-Bus and systemd. Instead of being independent as most of them are being done by just one company itself and the dream of any standardization is another failure is this is not done on package-level. The same thought being completely nonsense about programming-languages: Java is not free and .net is just another failed one.

And one last addition when reading through a concurrent issue created for the removal of Java from the package gettext: The FSF has failed as the GNU-project itself is in a very problematic state.

The reasoning behind such hard sentence at all? The complete missed chance for asking questions, the right ones. Why including hard dependencies instead building on a modular base? Java was never free and libre software. Also the OpenJDK was never really free and the upcoming integration of web-appliances won't save us about major failures, really big ones in the future if we don't stop this course and take the chance for asking questions. First every individual on its own, second and furthermore organizatons like the FSF and the FSFE. And it won't help building some kind of free "Android" with Replicant - as the basic system itself is a failure - and a free application-repository is "nice" but even though also not following principles regarding freedom, privacy and security. Other way around applications and programs using YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others should have been removed long ago from the repositories of F-Droid. Until you speak up against the trending of using "APP(s)" instead of "Applications" and "Software", integrating even more proprietary frameworks and definitions into environments being free once and having more vendor lock-in upcoming with bloatware-packages and software, you should start questioning your own principles, FSF and FSFE.

Yes, the freedoms and their definition is important. But where is the fifth freedom these days? And I haven't even started argumenting about DRM.
And therefore it is not helpful for having such integrations like invidious as the base service is and stays the same proprietary inclusion - just with another interface above. Nice, but not helping on the freedom and privacy side as the wrong paradigm is furthermore hardened instead of being questioned. Creating so-called "alternatives" - we had this already here in the thread - is the same flaw and failure as it is creating just more of the same, getting the false paradigms even more within free, libre software, copying known ones instead of creating new ones: You want to "share" something on Diaspora or Mastodon? Just go ahead, mutiplying even more buzzwords and all for the users to click on "like". Well, if you think this is our future? Being some kind of "machine", a "human resource"? I just don't think so and fighting against this is very important! Own thoughts count instead of multiplying some of others for sharing some kind of video-content from "YouTube". In fact a desaster for everyone in the end as those anti-social networks won't do any good and instead bringing major issues even more up to be seen everywhere.

It's about investing as much time as possible and those services being created being that way you stay longer, just a little bit and then even more.