Re: [gentoo-dev] The Beauty of Unix

Pp

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----

From: Gregory Woodbury <redwolfe@×××××.com>

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:30:56 

To: <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>

Reply-to: gentoo-dev@l.g.o

Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The Beauty of Unix



I agree with Paul Varner's comment.



There are places where a tight-coupling makes sense (the kernel) and places

where it doesn't (system admin and userspace development.)



My objections to the systemd plans is philosophical. There are some

folks who want to make Linux

into a Desktop System environment that works out of the box in the

manner of Windows. There are reasons to do this,

and there are reasons not to do this.  On the one hand, to compete

with MS Windows one must become MS Windows;

on the other hand. doing that cuts deeply into the things that make

Linux (and all the *NIX's) powerful and adaptable.



When SysVInit was developed (circa 1981) there were serious

limitations on the hardware it ran on in terms of speed

and memory. Additionally, there were missing software algorithms and

methods to solve some of the problems it

had to deal with.  A decision was made to punt some of the problems to

a capable human mind rather than to spend

precious time and resources trying to solve them computationally. This

is, of course, the need for the admins to look at

the services dependency graph and let them adjust the startup

sequencing by hand.



Hardware capabilities and software methods advanced quite fast and Sys

V Init (being standardized) did not keep

up with the times.  Various extensions and replacements for the

Init/startup methods were developed, and most

added dependency descriptions and automatic solving to the mix, while

trying to preserve the ease of using shell scripts

for getting things done.  OpenRC is one of the contenders and it is

highly adaptable as new technologies are

introduced (such as automatic device configuration a la eudev.)



Systemd's method, though, rips out huge chunks of many different

system components and replaced them with a

monolithic structure that takes control of everything between the

kernel's construction of the first process and the

startup of the selected desktop environment. It also imposes strict

interface requirements on the API of service

daemon startup and which desktop environments it wants to support.



The monolithic structure and resource requirements severely limit the

hardware that can be used (to fairly recent

amounts of memory and processor speed.)  This, like Microsoft's

methods, leaves a lot of not-so-old hardware

out in the cold in a forced obsolescence.



Additioinally, the development methods used, and the future plans for

systemd, make it clear that its objective

is to make a tighly integrated system that can compete with Microsoft

in its own arena. [And don't get me started

on the personalities involved!]



I use systemd when required, and I can even tweak the internals when

necessary. But for my own use, I much

prefer the freedom to customize and construct things on my own.

Perhaps I am and "old fogey" living in the past,

but I think some other folks would object to that characterization. I

have been involved in computing since 1958,

and have made (and continue to make) some significant contributions to

the field (even if my name is not publicly

associated with them.) I have been in the trenches of (F)OSS for a

long time and would love to see Linux+GNU

in a significant number of non-technical users' hand and homes.

However, I do not think that the only way to

accomplish that is by becoming another Microsoft.



This discussion should not be about which system is better or worse.

There should be room in the concept space

that preserves to ability to choose what a person wants on their

machine, rather than having the environment

dictated by some corporate entity looking to achieve market dominance.

The "average users" these days have

no concept of the magic behind the buttons on the screen and the

keyboard, and most are just willing to consider

the devices unrepairable when they fail and just go get another one.

The advertising driven consumer culture

really doesn't want the consumers' to know what is going on behind the

scenes. but it still requires that some

do know and can keep the infrastructure running and advancing.



That is enough ranting for now. Carry on.



-- 

G.Wolfe Woodbury

redwolfe@×××××.com