Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

[Peter Stuge]

Fabio, I think you're doing awesome work!

Steven, I think you can behave a lot better on the internet. kthx.


Steven J. Long wrote:
> > It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> > more accessible,
>
> Sure there is: there's also consensus that this approach is wrong for
> Gentoo.

In my world naysayers have no say and doers decide, as long as there
are no obvious negative consequences from doing.

In my world it is also an absolute no-brainer to try to make systemd
as accessible as possible in Gentoo.


> Switching init isn't done that often

That doesn't mean that it couldn't be, and it also doesn't mean that
it wouldn't be handy to use eselect to do so.


> and when it is a Gentoo user is expected to deal with configuration.

I don't know where such expectation could come from since, as you
write, switching init isn't done that often; so there can't be a lot
of user feedback from doing it, and it hasn't been discussed very
much by developers.

If you mean that *you* expect users to deal with configuration then
that's fine and valid, but I think that if we can find a neat way for
users *not* to have to deal with configuration when they want to
switch init then that would be really nice!


> In this case, it's a doddle to set the command-line to
> init=/sbin/fubar to try it

I think it's less about telling the kernel which binary will be
process 1 and more about what gets started by process 1 on next boot.


> If they can't handle the above, they shouldn't be on Gentoo imo.

You have all right to your opinion, but I for one don't share this
opinion. If we can make it easy to switch around I think that's
awesome.


> I don't see the use-case frankly.

I would say that it is to make migration easy.


> So I just don't see which Gentoo users this is helping.

Anyone who has a Gentoo system using OpenRC who would like to try out
systemd.


> Making it even more trivial to change init than it already is, is
> actually a bad thing in my eyes.
> It gives the impression that it can be undertaken lightly which is
> simply bad practice.

Sorry, I don't buy your argument. Consider how lightly I can
undertake deletion of all my data, which is also bad practise:

rm -rf ~


> AFAIK it's been policy for a while that systemd unit files should
> be installed by default, for all the reasons you've given. I can't
> see a maintainer being bothered by the systemd herd adding them
> when they have no interest: after all users can already set an
> INSTALL_MASK, and it makes binpkgs more useful.

Yep, +1 for all of this. I think Fabio shouldn't let unresponsiveness
of others create very long wait states when doing benign changes.


> > The final outcome will hopefully be:
> > - easier to migrate from/to systemd, at runtime, with NO recompilation
> > at all (just enable USE=systemd and switch the device manager from
> > *udev to systemd -- unless somebody wants to drop the udev part from
> > systemd, if at all possible)
>
> How is adding USE=systemd to a system with it switched off (ie:
> enabling it), *not* going to lead to recompilation?

Setting the USE flag doesn't lead to recompilation per se, but the
question is good - what will the USE flag actually mean when we
arrive at the final outcome? Will it do anything at all? Fabio?

In the end, maybe it would just control if baselayout DEPENDs on
openrc or systemd?


> > - we make possible to support new init systems in future, and even
> > specific init wrappers (bootchart anyone?)
>
> Which is possible already, so this is null.

Consider that Fabio and I are not native english speakers. I would
recommend spending more time seeking to understand what was intended
to be transmitted, rather than merely interpreting the words received.

Communication becomes significantly more effectively that way, which
you probably don't need me to bring up, if you're used to talking to
users on forums. :)


> > - we put back some fun into Gentoo
>
> Eh, I've been having much more fun since ..
..
> the latter is only possible because Unix is designed on a modular
> basis, and we can still swap components in and out on Linux (for now.)

You are implicitly communicating that systemd can not be fun because
it is not modular. Basic flaming. What's the point of that?


> Please note: I fully support your effort to make it easy to switch
> back and forth

I have no doubts that this was true in your original email, but you
should consider that the words you chose communicate something very
different.


> I just don't think that adding a fragile eselect module (along with
> "this needs investigation" as things come up) is the way to do it.

I think the point is to investigate exactly to ensure that the module
*is not* fragile.


> Nor should someone change init on a whim, without being ready to
> handle configuration.

I think it would be awesome if we can allow changing init on a whim,
without having to handle configuration.


> In fact, dumbing down Gentoo is dangerous imo.

I think you misinterpret the intention. Creating powerful tools to
make complex tasks appear simpler doesn't fit my understanding of
"dumbing down." (My understanding is to artificially restrict what
tasks can be done.)


> Gentoo, like Unix, doesn't stop you from doing stupid things, as
> that would stop you doing clever things.

Switching init can be wise. (You later use "clever" in a derogatory
fashion.) I nearly replaced init with supervise on my systems before
I started using systemd. supervise is one of a few components I would
have written myself if I hadn't already found that someone else had
done it.


Steven J. Long wrote:
> Ah I see: sorry you're taking my email in the wrong spirit.

That is quite understandable to me, since you made liberal use of
flammable wording next to the explicit, but brief, expression of
support of the effort.


> I thought I made it quite clear I'm not hostile to your intentions,
> but you appear to be hostile to everything I've written.

See above. I think you could have communicated your points a lot
better, so that they would not have been misunderstood.


> > Have you ever tried to fully migrate to systemd from openrc? Clearly not.
>
> OFC not, that's the point: it's why I'm asking you.

I guess you realize that it isn't so useful to first educate peers
(answering you) before moving on to actual discussion. If you haven't
got experience from the details of this topic, perhaps your time is
better spent on another topic..


> > > Again, what about people not using consolekit, nor logind, with
> > > no intention of ever installing systemd?

They might change their mind at some point, and I think it would be
cool to make it as easy as possible to switch both ways.


> > > I've got nothing against this so long as it is guaranteed not
> > > to break my pam setup. As-is I feel *very* wary of a change
> > > that unconditionally requires a 'pam_systemd.so'. Please note I
> > > am not hostile to your aims: I am merely seeking reassurance.
> >
> > Do you know how pam works? And did you understand the meaning of
> > my words?
>
> Again, you're not helping yourself with this attitude. Just a
> friendly warning.

Your words are far from friendly.

I for one did not understand the meaning of Fabio's words, it would
be cool if he can clarify the details about the pam_systemd.so file.


> > Do you know what optional means in this context?
>
> "Always enable the optional.." means "require the currently
> optional.." to me.

I think this is a misunderstanding, because it doesn't fit with the
general intention I receive in Fabio's mail. I can't explain what
Fabio meant exactly, I believe I also don't quite understand what
he meant. I hope he'll clarify a bit.


> I still don't see why you think it's a miracle openrc works with lvm,

I think it's valid to ask for more details about potential problems
with openrc+lvm, although such details are also not really on topic
for this thread. (Very good to do in another thread however, maybe
there is also some misunderstanding about how openrc+lvm is supposed
to work, which would allow a smoother user experience and perhaps
improved documentation.)


> unless you mean it was an effort for you.

I don't see the point of this ad hominem.


> > Please, write about something you actually manage to _know_.
> > I want to discuss about improving the systemd experience.
>
> Hmm.. no.

What no? No you will not write about matters where you have
experience, or no you do not agree that this discussion is
about improving the systemd experience?


> I'm afraid you haven't shown that Gentoo users don't currently have
> a choice of init systems: so you're not some liberator endowing us
> with "rights" we didn't otherwise enjoy til you came along with
> your magic impl, I'm afraid.

I think you're behaving like an asshole, I don't see the point of that.

When studying systemd it becomes clear that there are potentially
interesting challenges in migration between process 1
implementations, and experience quickly confirms it. :)

I don't think Fabio has claimed to endow you with rights you didn't
have before, or enable new choice. I think he intends to make it
*easier* to effect one's choice. He points out several things which
would help accomplish this.


> As for this topic being solely about improving the systemd
> experience, that's a change. I could have sworn i read something
> about "improving the love between openrc and systemd" and making
> *both* work better. But since you're now stating this is just about
> systemd, I'll just point out that you're awfully territorial
> yourself.

I think "focused" is a better word. Since systemd is a new
alternative, and since it works differently in various ways, other
parts need to change to fit together with it. I think everyone agrees
that such changes should not have negative effects on already well-
established openrc.


> And your attitude of ignoring openrc people does not increase the
> love at all.

I for one don't see that attitude from Fabio. Can you be specific
about where openrc people (do you mean developers, users, or both?)
were ignored?


> > The topic here is to improve the systemd experience, if you are
> > an openrc user that doesn't care about systemd and other stuff,
> > you are off topic.
>
> No the above is,

Do you intend to say that Fabio is being off-topic in a thread he
himself started just two emails earlier?


> There is no consensus as you claim.

I think there is, it's just more local than I think you interpreted
Fabio to mean.


> > We should stop thinking about Gentoo like a guru-distro. Gentoo is
> > about choice, but choice != complexity. Making things easier is not
> > against our Manifesto.

Fabio makes excellent points here.


> The thing you're ignoring is that your setup is more complex,

Sorry, what do you mean? What setup is more complex than what alternative?


> and you clearly don't give a damn about, and have not considered,
> the effect on other downstreams.

That's not at all clear to me. What are some concrete negative
effects of Fabio's suggestions on "other downstreams," and which
downstreams do you have in mind?


> So we get more complexity and less choice overall,

I don't follow you. Please clarify? Tooling that simplifies switching
might end up complex, but only if the task itself actually requires
complexity. I don't understand the "less choice overall" part at all. :\


> as is usual with idiot-box approaches.

Another ad hominem, wheter against Fabio or Lennart this isn't a very
helpful comment in the discussion. It's clear that you aren't very
interested in making systemd work (easily) on Gentoo..


> And sorry, but a distro that doesn't hold your hand is a lot
> _easier_ to work with in the longer-term.

..from this comment and others. You could have saved us all a lot of
time if you had simply written a brief email saying something like

"I disagree with the goal of making it easier to switch from and to systemd."

along with some to-the-point qualification.


> I give up trying to be polite in the face of such crap, it's more
> than I can stomach.

If you can't compose yourself in the face of someone who doesn't seem
to understand you then please think twice before entering into
discussions. Misunderstandings are frequent on the internets.


> > Implementing new stuff also means making things easier, especially
> > in the systemd case.
>
> LMAO. You go girl, strut that nonsense like it means something.

Something is obviously meant, but you didn't receive it. I also
haven't received it. I don't know exactly what "new stuff" Fabio
refers to, but I can certainly think of things that he might have
intended to communicate, which allows his sentence above to have
wise meaning. Please try to think of such things you too.


> > >> while there are problems with submitting bugs about new
> > >> systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
> > >> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period
> > >
> > > AFAIK it's been policy
> >
> > Thanks for reminding me a policy I am supposed to already know about.
>
> So why are you complaining about maintainers who are not interested
> in systemd, who ignore your bugs and don't add the unit files you
> want them to?
>
> Maybe they know the policy too.

Fabio is being polite to give a grace period and it would be polite
of maintainers to answer, even if only to point out that they are
fine with him making the changes immediately.

It would be polite of them because it would remove a lot of wait
states. If there would be critical mass then at some point no new
wait states would be created. It is quite clear from my rather brief
experience with Gentoo developers that no matter what policy you have
to back you up you can make someone upset enough to flame you by
doing something that they don't like.

The wait states introduced by Fabio giving a grace period is a
typical example of the chilling effect which is a quite natural
result from such attitude.

It is what it is. Lots of software developers simply suck at dealing
with other people, and unfortunately this affects the software we all
work on, because most significant (open source) software development
is too much for any one person. Sad, but a fact.


> > Please take more time reading about what's in my overlay before
> > jumping the gun.
>
> No way, sunshine. If you make what is effectively a marketing claim
> like "no recompilation" then don't add the qualifications later on.
> Be precise upfront, instead of typing so much noise. Or at very
> least be polite when someone queries it.

Your query was not particularly polite either. I think it is
reasonable to ask for you to review Fabio's work before rejecting it.


> If you post to a wider mailing-list like this, you should bear in
> mind that the audience is not simply Gentoo developers, by _design_.
> If you don't like that, too bad.

Do you mean to say that because someone receives an email they don't
have a moral responsibility to consider if a reply will contribute
something to the topic, and a duty to optimize their reply for
efficiency for the sake of readers? I disagree with that.


> Further, if you're posting to get feedback and buy-in from other
> people, you severely limit yourself when you suddenly state that
> only those who have already done the openrc -> systemd migration
> are qualified to discuss it.

Maybe you agree that it's a lot less useful to discuss solutions
with someone who hasn't experienced the problem? It's not impossible,
in particular it's already very useful to discuss based on experience
from using openrc and systemd independently, since that already
forces thinking about the problem in concrete terms.

It's possible to come to same conclusions through theory, but that
usually takes significantly more effort. Our time as contributors is
scarce, so we tend to prefer conclusions drawn efficiently.


> Doubly so when you're rude to someone who actually felt quite
> supportive of your effort, if not the design.

I think Fabio reacted quite composed to your words, which were
indistinguishable from verbal attacks in spite of your explicit
expression of support.


> Believe me, I don't now. I just think you're a loud-mouthed amateur

You're writing what you think about Fabio, when the topic is making
it easier to switch process 1 implementations in Gentoo. Please focus.


> I don't ever want to interact with you again.

This is behaving like an asshole, which is harmful not only for Fabio
(which I guess you intend, but which I certainly don't find good) but
also for this mailing list and indeed the Gentoo project as a whole.

Please behave better than that.


> And interacting with you is not fun at all.

Volunteer contributor collaboration across nations, cultures and
languages using seven bit text is rarely fun - most of the time it's
damned hard work and requires boatloads of patience, to arrive at
even halfway good things.


> Your designs sucks afaic

I don't know about that. I think it sounds pretty good from a
usability perspective, and the way I understand Fabio's intentions
it also seems to make sense from a technical perspective.


> Just so long as I can keep hard-masking

What to mask is always your choice.

> your rubbish

I don't know about that, since again I didn't review Fabio's work.
But again, from what he describes it doesn't sound like rubbish to me.


> I'll .. switch distros

This statement creates a pretty bad atmosphere for little reason.


//Peter