1 |
> William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> > waltdnes wrote: |
3 |
> >> Question... when Sun made OpenOffice depend on Java (also a Sun |
4 |
> >> product) did Gentoo developers run around suggesting that Java be made a |
5 |
> >> part of the core Gentoo base system? I don't think so. If a user wants |
6 |
> >> to run GNOME badly enough, he'll switch to systemd. I don't see why the |
7 |
> >> rest of us (i.e. non-users of GNOME) should have to follow along and |
8 |
> >> reconfigure our systems. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > I don't interpret what he is saying that way. I think what he is |
11 |
> > talking about is that we are trying to get teams to support non-systemd |
12 |
> > setups when upstreams do not, like with gnome. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Gnome now has a hard dependency on systemd (for gnome newer than 3.8). |
15 |
> > Some folks want to use gnome without systemd and are putting that under |
16 |
> > the gentoo is about choice banner and want us to support them. |
17 |
|
18 |
I haven't seen anyone say that in this entire discussion, but I might have |
19 |
missed something. "If a user wants to run GNOME, he [can] switch to systemd" |
20 |
is clearly not saying that, so we're left with an enigmatic "some" who haven't |
21 |
posted to this thread, afaics. |
22 |
|
23 |
It's clear to me that users have been forced through lots of changes over the |
24 |
last 5 years, even where we just want to carry on using our machines the way |
25 |
we always have. Isn't that what convenience layers are about? So Walter's |
26 |
point stands. |
27 |
|
28 |
I for one have become very wary of accepting assurances that "nothing will |
29 |
change" for existing users and their use-cases (since it's never proven |
30 |
accurate from this upstream.) Especially when one init-system of several for |
31 |
a niche operating-system becomes "the rest of the world." |
32 |
|
33 |
> >> Fabio Erculiani wrote |
34 |
> >>> So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world? |
35 |
> >>> (It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their |
36 |
> >>> own reality check. |
37 |
|
38 |
Gnome can depend on w/e upstream require. How is that the whole world? |
39 |
It's not even the whole Linux ecosystem, and I can't see Qt giving up cross- |
40 |
platform independence, just to work with systemd. That was never going to |
41 |
happen, so it was never going to happen in KDE either, however enthused a |
42 |
few of its volunteers were, since KDE is a showcase for Qt. |
43 |
|
44 |
You're right: reality-checks are clearly needed all over the place. |
45 |
|
46 |
> >> You are effectively calling not-using-GNOME isolationist. Let's just |
47 |
> >> say I disagree with you on that. BTW, see my sig. |
48 |
|
49 |
It's clear to me that systemd devs are the real isolationists: everyone |
50 |
else has to do everything their way, or they'll throw their toys out of the |
51 |
pram, including the ones they stole. The real trouble with "N+1 True Way" is |
52 |
the contortions it forces them through, as they explain why "this time" they've |
53 |
got it right, and how badly they got it wrong last time. |
54 |
|
55 |
That wouldn't be an issue-- everyone makes mistakes-- if they hadn't rubbished |
56 |
everyone else who pointed out issues along the way. After a few years of that, |
57 |
sorry but enough already. |
58 |
|
59 |
Matthew Thode wrote: |
60 |
> If upstream gnome has that dep on systemd then I kinda think we should |
61 |
> too (technical decision, not one I like personally) |
62 |
|
63 |
I think we should too: all anyone has said is "Gnome is not Linux". Presenting |
64 |
its choices as representative of every DE and upstream project is simply |
65 |
misleading. |
66 |
|
67 |
Claiming that making it easier to use systemd is in everyone's interests is |
68 |
clearly untrue as well, since many of us our interests are caught up with a |
69 |
modular system we can build and configure how we require. That's why we came to |
70 |
Gentoo, and why we stay. |
71 |
|
72 |
But I'm sure someone will declaim about how systemd doesn't force anything on |
73 |
anyone (leveraging udev builds against your explicit word, doesn't count, nor do |
74 |
any of the other changes like requiring an initramfs where none was needed before: |
75 |
those are just things you should do because we tell you to) and Lennartware |
76 |
hasn't already forced major changes and upgrade pain, for no tangible benefit to |
77 |
the desktop-users it was purportedly aimed at. |
78 |
|
79 |
I certainly haven't seen any new apps which weren't possible before, let alone a |
80 |
class of them, which is what I'd expect in exchange for such intrusive breakages |
81 |
of userspace. In fact, KDE works *better* without nubkit/ucrapola. Funny that. |
82 |
|
83 |
By all means use your machines how you want, with whatever software you like. |
84 |
Just respect our right to do the same: which includes the freedom NOT to use |
85 |
software. If you cannot respect that choice (constantly trying to second-guess |
86 |
our use-cases instead of accepting that actually we know them better than you, |
87 |
and we don't want to have to file a bug and go through your mill every time we |
88 |
want to do something "esoteric", that's why we use _soft_ware) then you cannot |
89 |
expect much respect in return. |
90 |
|
91 |
Courtesy, perhaps; if you don't spend an entire email belittling someone's |
92 |
experience instead of answering the substantive points. |
93 |
|
94 |
-- |
95 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |