The majority of people speak of junk/fast food 3 brands of soda, 2, 3 brands of coffee/tea, 2 brnands of tropical fruit ,3 brands of power-drinks, 3 brands of beer,
as nutrition, 2 brands of phone OSs, and it is all crap if not bad for you.
So what is your point?
What is popular is what has been marketed, and it is usually both dominant and a very poor alternative to what it sells for.
I am clearly speaking of the @linux bot constantly pumping systemd only distros, gnome, kde plasma, chrome, qt and other corporate trash that ubuntu mint manjaro debian have embraced as their devs are on the corporate payroll
Init is just one process, 98% of systemd is its logind, or its isolated fork called elogind, and its multilayered dbus labyrinth, which all those mentioned use. Running gnome and its applications without it is nearly impossible
@Rustmilian
The one article almost literally says if you don't like systemd go to F**BSD and away from linux!
But yes, there are those irrelevant 3 mentions in a site as old as systemd itself.
RedHat is/was to IBM what Qt is to Oracle, vehicles of domination into the open free ecosystem. Marketing dictates what "free" code to use.
Show me 1 ONE article in phoronics that "mentions" alternatives to systemd, and I will not speak of linux or foss ever again!
That would be #OpenRC #S6 #66 #Runit #DaemonTools #Synit etc.
@Rustmilian Now that is #marketing not #FOSS
And they have made money not by sharing but by monopolizing and selling, which makes them who they are.
You are a foul if you think a for profit (even non-profit) corporation will have an interest advancing Open and Free software. They are there to OWN code and trade names, MARKET trade names, to defeat alternatives that lack corporate/banking funding.
2 Do you honestly think one can just make a fake account up, register, and publish an AUR pkg with rogue code that easy? There are checks for code whether it is safe or not, whether it is asking for right elevation, altering the filesystem's rights, etc.
You are making it sound like registering for X and publishing a tweet.
3 The most dangerous software I see on AUR is browser bins by the BIG NAMES not the little script stuff.
People are afraid of people instead of large corps
@constantokra
1 If you take an average AUR pkg and read its content (PKGBUILD) the procedure of building an arch like pkg is not very much unlike the practice of building and installing from source as in the old days. The difference is that when a new revision or need for patch, or rebuild due to fresh libraries/dependencies is necessary through your AUR helper you will be notified.
Then what you consider automatic is a very unique perception of how things work.
In a car automatic transmission means it shifts on its own.
In a non automatic either you shift or it doesn't happen.
On most pkg managers YOU elect when to upgrade, the output is a list of "upgradable" pkgs, then you are asked whether to proceed or not. Nothing automatic about this.
Auto update would mean software has been updated on its own without you authorizing it.
In all the years I've used the AUR I only heard of one pkg violating security, it was recognized pretty fast and was removed within hours from going up. AUR pkgs have history/track/votes on them, with thousands using them it is just as likely an official pkg having rogue code as an aur pkg.
Also, aur pkg are not really software written for the aur, it is software packaged for the arch ecosystem, and several other distros are using them.
One out of five pkgs in AUR are so unmaintained they don't even build anymore.
Clieaning up junk is more urgent than screening what comes on.
@constantokra