Solid advice. I'm not sure why any distribution would default to ssh root login nowadays?

I seem to recall that Slackware was one of the last distributions to allow it by default.  There was some considerable uproar just before it may have been finally disabled, but perhaps it never was? The developer's stance was that it was there for ease of setup and up to the user to configure it and secure it. The online Slackware documentation covers securing ssh.

I'm sure that runit and OpenRC and a few more work very well.

Boot times may be issues for some, but I was never that concerned. If someone is going to go the lengths of changing init system to save 10 - 20 seconds on boot, then it's most likely they would be better served by upgrading to an SSD, or M.2 or whatever.

I don't think any init system is all about boot times. systemd did cite faster boot times in various propaganda, but that wasn't its main advantage/purpose.

The people behind systemd, were never concerned about those init replacements - they knew that sysvinit was what they had to undermine and defeat...

Commercial LLMs (plagiarising) being trained on FOSS code, is a far greater problem than a few flakey, "unsupported" clones of MS and Adobe products. You're missing the wood for the trees.

MS owns and controls github, one of the largest repositories of software projects on earth. They're not at all concerned about a few attempts at MS Office cloning. MS and others are moving to or have long since moved to the SAAS model. They have everything tied up, which is why businesses aren't running Linux workstations, roughly 20 years after Canonical (now an MS sellout operation) claimed it was possible.

"...It is written in Rust..."

By LLM.

From the locked thread:

"..this is a desktop OS for normies.  Not for us hardened sysadmins..."

Why are you working on and marketing a derivative to make it "easier" for Joe Average?

What's in it for you?

You're the "Spaced Linux dev", so you tell us...

Oppressive moderation wearin' ya down?

Then git yer ass over to the independent alternative Devuan forum!

What ya waitin' fer!?

*fires a few shots and rides off*

(Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the independent alternative unofficial Devuan forum which isn't a Devuan forum, despite having "devuan" in the domain name).

@rbit, #10 is a lot of babble, nonsense and ill informed opining. Not even worth your time.

"...this toxic blight covers the entirety of the Internet. These companies are the absolute worst f****** parasites our society has yet created..."

- the developer of xscreensaver, former Netscape developer and Mozilla founder.

There is a clear strategy of plaigarism among these big LLMs. For those of us who are not the morons on the "it's a great tool!" bandwagon, it's all too obvious.

It's also just a small part of a wider corporate strategy to undermine and destroy FOSS software - in particular that which is licensed under the GPL. If you can get an LLM to "assist" in rewriting some GPL software, then release it under e.g. the MIT licence - profit. There will be enough corporate schills promoting and supporting the "fork", to ensure the obsolescence of the original. Any copyright issues can be sidestepped by rewriting in a fashionable "memory safe" language. Which also adds some much needed security theatre.

The bad news is you broke it  - the good news is you get to keep all the pieces...

Lesson learnt on "AI"?

I would suggest that the derivative creators do what they do for very different reasons to someone who maintains packages in a major Linux distribution. If you maintain some obscure Debian/Devuan package and do it well, you won't get the recognition - release your own Linux distro respin however, with it's website, forum / community, where you're the boss, and you'll be surrounded by happy clappers, having your ego stroked. Of course, none of the fans care / know much about the real developers who made all of that possible.

@klein, do you have a source for that? Doesn't sound very positive if that's the case. Obviously it should be bootable in single user mode, set the root password, done. This was the whole problem with the Ubuntu sudo approach, "use it as designed / as we tell you to use it, our way, not yours". This is the kind of controlling behaviour inherent in corporate software or free software developed under corporate influence/funding - i.e. the user is an idiot. All problems start with the user, the user has to be guided, railroaded to doing things our way, controlled, restricted, provided the least possible configuration options, to ensure the "defaults" are mostly preserved.

I'm particularly averse to anything which embraces "flat packs" or similar. Those types of packaging tools come from the mindest that *nix is broken by design and needs Windows style installers. In reality these type of installers are favoured by companies who don't want to deal with multiple packaging formats.

"Vanity derivatives" also tend to generate technical support requests on the "parent" distributions support channels.

This one in particular seems marketing heavy and a lot of effort seems to have been expended on the website. It appears to have it's own support channel also, so perhaps ask there? (they also accept donations)

Ubuntu started out similarly - someone decided that Debian was boring, "vanilla", needed manual configuration and some willingness on the part of the user to use the command line, plus releases were too far apart, so they set out to make something more appealing to ex Windows users, and of course, they sought to monetise that somehow.

At the time Ubuntu wasn't really much more than a brown theme, a fancy logo, some wallpapers and some other preconfigured defaults. The real difference was in the marketing.

You find the same thing with many of the derivatives these days: Essentially, name it, stick a badge on it and a wallpaper - plus "I'm a nice guy, so I'm going to provide my own preconfigured Linux distro for you, so that you don't have to do it yourself".