Re: [gentoo-amd64] Boycott Systemd

[Harry Holt]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Actually, it seems like a pretty clear synonymous interpretation to me.
Also, I think you are using "literally" wrong in this context, as Frank
clearly "literally" just did so.


>
> 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.
>

SteamOS and Google Chrome are both created by companies that want to have
THEIR pieces of top-down control over YOUR computer.  They may have
legitimate (read: "Intellectual Property") reasons for doing so, but that
*is* nevertheless their goal, so if you're okay with ceding control to
these for-profit corporations, and paying in tangibles and intangibles to
do so, then fine.  If not, do not use their products.


> > 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
>
>