InitWare VS mu

Fear not. They get to be part of the future too.

> Yes indeed, I should've expanded to requiring user namespaces and other kernel magic I can't expect from any random box i wanna work on.

That's fair, do have to make sure to avoid to modules that do user systemd services.

Longer term, though, I am hoping https://github.com/InitWare/InitWare will help with the userland part. And I hope to personally help with things like

https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arch/2022-January...

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f8457e20-c3cc-6e56-96a4-3090d7d...

to get us more sane cross-platform system calls.

I know, but support is still in FreeBSD. My big long term plan is:

1. Work on FreeBSD cross in Nixpkgs, because I need a way to pin forks and run nice tests without going insane. (We already have NetBSD cross.)

2. Rig up a booting image that uses https://github.com/InitWare/InitWare, the fork of systemd.

3. Add support to CloudABI in initware.

4. Bang on drum for other OSes and upstream systemd to implement this stuff we can can good portable abstractions -- I think this is our best shot to get "portable containers".

I haven't bothered to have a beef with systemd, but some of us have discussed https://github.com/InitWare/InitWare to support non-Linux kernels. That would be really fun.

I'm the first to admit that I'm ignorant of the facts here, but seeing that a systemd fork ran on OpenBSD for the first time two months ago does not give me confidence that it's "an option" in the sense that you can trust it to work well.

And to be pedantic (this is an OpenBSD thread, after all), it's not "systemd", it's a fork of systemd called "InitWare", and the GitHub repo describes it as "alpha software".

Someone also pointed out in the discussion you linked that it doesn't seem to include journald. Here's a relevant PR: https://github.com/InitWare/InitWare/pull/27

The project GitHub is found at https://github.com/InitWare/InitWare

You may have heard of InitWare https://github.com/InitWare/InitWare. Discussions, note that one of the titles is misleading:

yes kkkkkk, the project mu have a strange way to build, and project mu have a not usable documentation, i think is because microsoft is microsoft, the project mu is a OEM Firmware as Service, the reason for not have a easy documentation can be for seal a service. in the past i have make a question about coreboot support https://github.com/microsoft/mu/issues/121

The stock edk2 menu has, like, two items.

System76 have built a more serious setup UI: https://github.com/system76/firmware-setup

Microsoft’s https://github.com/microsoft/mu also probably contains UI from the Surface line or something??