Re: [gentoo-amd64] Boycott Systemd

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote:
[ snip ]
> Check out page 18 of the 2014 GNOME Asia talk:
> http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf
>
> "Our objectives:
>
> Turing Linux from a bag of bits into a competitive General Purpose
> Operating System.
>
> Building the Internet's Next Generation OS.
>
> Unifying pointless differences between distributions."
>
> Can it be any clearer that the Gnome (RedHat) folks desire to
> usurp total control of the Linux ecosystem to serve their own
> ends?  RedHat needs Linux to make a profit and it will mold
> Linux to better attain this end.

Whoa. How did you jumped from "Turing Linux from a bag of bits into a
competitive General Purpose Operating System" to "usurp total control
of the Linux ecosystem to serve their own ends"? There is literally no
way you can start from the first and logically arrive to the second.

With Free Software you *cannot* usurp *anything*. The code is free and
is out there. Any large group of sufficiently talented developers can
take that code and do *anything* with it. Why it hasn't happened I
explain down below, but let me be very clear: that kind of talking is
nonsense.

> Is Linux currently just a "bag of bits."  A lot of people
> would take serious issue with this inane comment, but according
> to the Gnome (RedHat) folks they are here to save us all
> from the terrible shortcomings of Linux (whether we want it or
> not).

Linux *is* a bag of bits, meaning a lot of loose coupled components;
that's why when a third party developer wants to build something for
Linux they end up creating a whole distribution (SteamOS), or bundling
everything and the kitchen sink (Google Chrome). It is not demeaning,
is a statement of fact.

> Notice the remark about the "pointless differences between
> distributions."  This is nothing more than a disguised condemnation
> of the diversity, variety, and choice which has always been the
> strongest feature of the Linux world.

That diversity, variety, and choice is very well, but *someone* (in
fact, many "someones") needs to work maintaining that diversity,
variety, and choice. If there is a single tool that solves the
problems of many developers, they *will* rely on that tool, and stop
supporting any inferior/less featureful tool. You would like to keep
using the less featureful tool? Then help the developers of different
projects to keep using it.

> Now check out page 5:
>
> "What's systemd again?  ... The glue between the applications and
> the kernel."
>
> IOW, the kernel and the applications, once sufficient in themselves,
> will now require the product that they (RedHat/Gnome) make and control
> in order to function at all.  Don't like it?  Tough.  Try and find a
> distribution without it, and good luck re-writing all this stuff from
> scratch all by your lonesome.

As I stated in my previous mail to you, you are spreading FUD. GNOME,
systemd, *and* the kernel have developers from many companies and
projects. There is no Illuminati inside RedHat deciding the future of
no one but that company itself.

That's first of all; second of all, Gentoo doesn't require systemd.
You want to keep it that way? Help OpenRC, and eudev, and all the
alternative projects that don't want to rely on systemd. If you (and
all the others that don't want to use systemd) don't, then (I repeat)
don't act surprised when systemd is the only option in Linux.

> But why stop here?  All they need to do is get rid of Linus Torvalds
> himself.  After all, he's just a nuisance from a previous and obsolescent
> generation.  Let's have the truly progressive folks, like RedHat/Gnome,
> assume command of it all.

Actually, Linus seems to be OK with systemd[1]. It's probably not his
favorite project, but in that interview it ends up giving many of the
best pro-systemd arguments I've heard.

If you want to believe (or fabricate) conspiracy theories, that's
fine; I (and most Linux users) don't care about that. We care about
Linux and technological sound solutions and arguments. And that's the
crux of the matter: as I have previously stated, *any* large group of
talented developers can take the free software in all the Linux stack
(from kernel to userspace), and do *whatever* the hell they want with
it, as long as they continue to return the modified code to the
community. That's how Free Software works; that's *exactly* what
Google has done with Android.

Then why the alternatives are not attracting *huge* amount of
developers? Why uselessd is one guy, and OpenRC three or four, and
udev has a handful of developers trying to keep up with systemd-udev?

Some people will tell you that it's because of RedHat's money. And
that is so obviously wrong that is even laughable. In the kernel,
systemd, and all the other parts of the stack (including GNOME) there
are *many* companies involved. And not only small companies like
Collabora and Igalia; but *HUGE* ones like IBM and Intel. Why would
those companies let another one (RedHat) take "control" of Linux?

They don't. They *support* the idea of systemd, because (pardon me for
raising my voice) IS TECHNOLOGICALLY BETTER.

And that's what most systemd-haters don't understand. They scream and
throw tantrums about systemd, while most developers (the people that
*actually* gives us Linux, the whole stack) quietly check out the
benefits and downsides of using systemd, and in a large majority
decide that the right thing to do is using it.

That's why Arch, Suse, Gentoo-based Sabayon, Debian and even *Ubuntu*
switched (or are about to switch) to systemd. Why would Canonical
start using systemd in its distribution if it would help its rival,
RedHat, to take "control"? They would not; they switched because a
large majority of developers agree that systemd is the superior
option.

Rich Freeman (Gentoo developer, member of the Council) said better than I[2]:

"The argument about whether systemd is better/worse than sysvinit was
a debate back in 2012-2013.  Just about anybody actually contributing
to distros has moved on since then. That doesn't mean that there is
100% agreement on anything, just that at this point it seems unlikely
that things are going to change much either way on that front.  A few
distros are likely to avoid systemd, and the vast majority are in the
process of adopting it.

"With Gentoo you can run whatever you want for PID 1, just as you can
use whatever bootloader, kernel, syslog, etc you want.  Not all the
init options have equal support - upstart isn't even in the tree and
few packages supply scripts for runit.  But, nobody is going to get in
anybody's way if they want to introduce upstart, etc.

"The fact is among those actually contributing to projects like
openrc, udev, eudev, and systemd everybody tends to get along just
fine. There is plenty of interest in finding common ground and
collaborating so that anybody switching from one to another can do so
easily, and so that these projects don't diverge where it isn't
intended.  It seems like the heaviest fighting seems to involve folks
who don't contribute to any of these."

I will repeat the last sentence:

"It seems like the heaviest fighting seems to involve folks who don't
contribute to any of these."

You don't *have* to use systemd; but if you *want* something
different, then you *should* contribute to the alternatives. Otherwise
people (starting with me, for what it matters) will start ignoring
you. "Oh, another one that critiques systemd without contributing to
any alternative. Most likely, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Next."

Regards.

[1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/277512
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México