What would happen if I were to remove these dot files?

Dot files usually store state information, user customisations and other data such as e.g. shell history or a web browser's cache.  They're not installed from a package, but created by the user.
Deleting the lot would usually be a bad idea.

Deleting seemingly redundant ones may also be a futile exercise as the programme will simply regenerate them when it starts up again.

FOSSuser wrote:

You are forgetting BSD, it is what was used prior to Linux development, is still available freely, & is totally free of the systemd bug.

Do you mean like OpenBSD and FreeBSD? Me and a friend were digging into various OSes to see which ones don't have systemd.

I eyeballed Alpine whilst my friend eyeballed OpenBSD and Gentoo. Surprisingly enough, all had traces of systemd. Alpine doesn't have systemd initially (great if you like 1980s text command interface with no real functionality, I guess?), but the moment you install XFCE (seemingly the only desktop environment you can get working on there), udev dependencies come flying in along with systemd references. In the case of OpenBSD I was told by my friend that folders (/lib/systemd etc) were found on there, and in the case of Gentoo systemd was a running process(!).

In both Alpine and Gentoo's case they make a point of stating they're systemd-free, so it's quite surprising. OpenBSD not so much, but I regularly hear how BSD is systemd free.

I probably should download an ISO of FreeBSD and take a look. Perhaps people's ideas of 'systemd-free' is different to mine; I mean in the sense of absolutely no dependencies, files or folders referencing such a thing (even if such a thing isn't installed per se), what I'd call 'certifiably systemd-free'. If there's still a file poking it's head up, for all I know it might be creating yet another system vulnerability that just hasn't been discovered yet.

(Call me paranoid if you will, but paranoia kept me from moving onto a systemd based OS, and the DNS remote code execution and admin root privilege 'it's a feature not a bug' along with... other questionable practices means paranoia gets more screen time when it comes to OS decision making.)

If you are into systemd free OSes (well mostly linux distros) the this may help:
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments … or_can_be/
https://systemd-free.org/

I keep my laptop systemd free and currently running Slackware, Funtoo, Devuan, FreeBSD, HardenedBSD, OpenIndiana.
Was using OpenBSD, NuTyX, Obarun, Artix, CRUX, Gobo linux, Sabayon and Alpine (I dropped Arch in 2005 long before systemd arrived).
BSDs are using BSD style init
OpenIndiana is using SMF

more here
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems

From my perspective, unless something really stands out I would not bother. While I can understand Debian Devuan split, I find it bizarre that there is so many Ubuntu children which differ only in WM/DM. 
Same goes with a lot of derivatives of Arch, Slackware, Debian.
Sometimes it is difficult to find real (technical) reasoning behind new distro. Except free choice.

pretty simple:
check out what will happen with your ~/ after deleting all .* files. Just loosing some config settings. Mostly though these are cleaned anyway.

FOSSuser wrote:

That surprises me about OpenBSD, it's Canadian based, & when I use it, it is with Fluxbox & Firefox, it must be the programs that are added bringing it in.

There is no systemd in OpenBSD (or any of the other *BSD derived projects).  You might find some cruft in the way of redundant directories or configs in certain ports (some ports may even spit out redundant dot files), but none of it is functional or of any use.

What would happen if I were to remove these dot files?

There is no systemd in OpenBSD (or any of the other *BSD derived projects).  You might find some cruft in the way of redundant directories or configs in certain ports (some ports may even spit out redundant dot files), but none of it is functional or of any use.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts, & welcome to Devuan.

That surprises me about OpenBSD, it's Canadian based, & when I use it, it is with Fluxbox & Firefox, it must be the programs that are added bringing it in.

There is no systemd in OpenBSD (or any of the other *BSD derived projects).  You might find some cruft in the way of redundant directories or configs in certain ports (some ports may even spit out redundant dot files), but none of it is functional or of any use.

That surprises me about OpenBSD, it's Canadian based, & when I use it, it is with Fluxbox & Firefox, it must be the programs that are added bringing it in.

Quite a few things pull it in implicitly. Udev is a big culprit, but XFCE and KDE leave hanging libraries for it too.

I don't suspect BSD up to no good, I just don't think they realise systemd is trying to get in via the backdoor IE via higher system packages.

Edit: I'm told initially OpenBSD didn't have it initially with it's default desktop, but because it (the desktop environment) was 'unusable' ('comically unusable' - their words) they had to install XFCE (which had hanging dependencies for systemd - unclear if it's actually there). They argue might be useful as a server (without the XFCE desktop environment), but from a desktop user POV not ideal.

You are forgetting BSD, it is what was used prior to Linux development, is still available freely, & is totally free of the systemd bug.

Do you mean like OpenBSD and FreeBSD? Me and a friend were digging into various OSes to see which ones don't have systemd.

I eyeballed Alpine whilst my friend eyeballed OpenBSD and Gentoo. Surprisingly enough, all had traces of systemd. Alpine doesn't have systemd initially (great if you like 1980s text command interface with no real functionality, I guess?), but the moment you install XFCE (seemingly the only desktop environment you can get working on there), udev dependencies come flying in along with systemd references. In the case of OpenBSD I was told by my friend that folders (/lib/systemd etc) were found on there, and in the case of Gentoo systemd was a running process(!).

In both Alpine and Gentoo's case they make a point of stating they're systemd-free, so it's quite surprising. OpenBSD not so much, but I regularly hear how BSD is systemd free.

I probably should download an ISO of FreeBSD and take a look. Perhaps people's ideas of 'systemd-free' is different to mine; I mean in the sense of absolutely no dependencies, files or folders referencing such a thing (even if such a thing isn't installed per se), what I'd call 'certifiably systemd-free'. If there's still a file poking it's head up, for all I know it might be creating yet another system vulnerability that just hasn't been discovered yet.

(Call me paranoid if you will, but paranoia kept me from moving onto a systemd based OS, and the DNS remote code execution and admin root privilege 'it's a feature not a bug' along with... other questionable practices means paranoia gets more screen time when it comes to OS decision making.)

They despise people having any choices, want to further close the source and commercialize linux and give it unremoveable "branding", these people are the very antithesis of everything open-source stands for, and a clear and present danger to free software going forward.

Corporations have a vested interested in preventing systemd (didn't Google air some reservation over systemd?) because having it restricted defeats the point of both open collaboration (IE shared resources) and choice orientated (IE the ability to customise it to your particular needs). One of the major issues a lot of organisations are having with systemd is it's abusive practices on logging.

Specifically, systemd is such that it either 'logs everything' or it 'logs nothing' (my first reading of this is what prompted alarm bells it's surveillance state technology). For companies, this isn't acceptable, because logging more than you have to (IE user interactions) creates a legal liability, in the sense that if an agent turns up with a warrant, you can't honestly say you don't collect that information because all they'd have to do is point to systemd, point to the fact it logs everything (and if logging is disabled then good luck debugging anything) and handwave towards a judge.

If you had a pre-systemd configuration, you could set logging to specified levels and not capture what you're not interested in, so when a warrant turns up you can genuinely say you don't have that information on record.

Companies want less legal liability, not more. So why they aren't actively teaming up to defeat this monstrosity that is systemd (which will eventually pollute every specialist endeavour such as embedded systems and specialist services) is beyond me. Methinks the closed doors approach and removal of the ability of the average users to vote in how Linux as a whole is developed is part and parcel of this, and there's no denying there's clear vested interests involved (clearly both government and corporate), but if the other companies don't start siding with the anti-systemd crowd, if they're not careful, systemd might be the only 'viable' choice, between that and Windows 10.

I can always ditch my computer. Large scale server infrastructure? Not so much.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that he, (Lennart Poettering), is secretly working for Microsoft, seems all his software has bugs that he calls features.

I'd be more inclined to say Poettering is NSA, as they're the biggest funders of Red Hat if you follow the money trail (in-fact, Red Hat's biggest customers are all primarily US government, including the likes of DISA and DoD).

Microsoft has been trying to take out Linux for years, and it seems a bit suspicious that 'now' they would succeed when they're opting to adopt Linux technology (Azure, SONiC, Ubuntu in Windows 10, etc). It strikes me in reality that Microsoft have actually given up and finally gotten onboard with open-source (like a lot of corporations before them). The fact Lennart Poettering is explicitly telling you that the insecurity is an intended feature seems to be his very poor way of dropping a hint, IE that insecurity is by design. And there's only one organisation that dabbles in insecurity by backdoors.

(And no, it isn't Microsoft. They're only interested in profits at the end of the day. Bad security means bad PR which means a loss of profits. Unless of course there's government money to be had. Wonder how much they paid for Windows 10?)

Yuck, I feel like I just stepped on a pile of dog poop.