| 1 |
On 06/03/2014 08:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:55:50 +0800 |
| 3 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
[Lots of comments about upower updates and interactions between |
| 6 |
systemd and Open-rc...] |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that this is *another* power grab by the |
| 9 |
"systemd Cabal." |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
More and more a small group of developers are making |
| 12 |
non-well-thought-out changes to the Linux environment that have the |
| 13 |
effect of pushing systemd as the default model for init systems. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
First, they abrogated the FHS by putting boot necessary stuff in the |
| 16 |
/usr hierarchy (deliberately ignoring the FHS rationale and history) |
| 17 |
forcing many users to redo systems to not have separate /usr trees. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Then, they "steal" a general kernel command line parameter (debug) that |
| 20 |
makes booting impossible in certain cases. (Linus had to put his foot |
| 21 |
down on that one.) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And now, another useful process is forced to make workarounds for users |
| 24 |
so that they don't get switched to systemd willy-nilly. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
(Don't get me started on the GD linkage between Gnome and systemd!) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As one of the uncredited makers of the SysV init system (I was a lowly |
| 29 |
consultant sysadmin during the Unix System IV roll out) I know more of |
| 30 |
the history than most. SysV init "punted" the hard problem of getting |
| 31 |
sequencing and dependency during startup to the more agile mind of a |
| 32 |
human because we didn't have the time to develop a general dependency |
| 33 |
solver for the boot sequence. (And someone who was supposed to document |
| 34 |
that need for examination in the SysV development cycle seems ti have |
| 35 |
neglected the item.) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
OpenRC does some logical and straight-forward extensions to the SysV |
| 38 |
paradigm and handles the problem well enough. SystemD goes for a total |
| 39 |
rewrite (and suffers second system syndrome) and seems to be |
| 40 |
masterminded by folks with Napoleonic ideation. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Mind you, I am *not* anti-systemd. In many ways it is a good system that |
| 43 |
automates a lot of stuff that needed automation. I just have some |
| 44 |
strong disagreements with some of the choices its implementors and |
| 45 |
advocates have made in relation to other aspects of system management. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I have thought that Linux and the FOSS movement was about user choice. |
| 48 |
Not a small band of folks deciding that "users" shouldn't be expected to |
| 49 |
know what their systems are doing under-the-hood and forcing that vision |
| 50 |
on everyone, whether they want it or not. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I moved to Gentoo (from a long history with RedHat and then Fedora) |
| 53 |
because it seemed to me that the concept of maximum choice was a |
| 54 |
treasured and honored position. Recent events, however, seem to indicate |
| 55 |
that even here in Gentoo-land there is a power struggle occurring. As |
| 56 |
I'm getting to the stage of being a "senior citizen" I probably will not |
| 57 |
have to deal with the fallout of this struggle for too long, but it |
| 58 |
disheartens me to see it occurring. |
Archives