1 |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk <peterk2@××××××××.se> wrote: |
2 |
> On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL |
5 |
>> monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is |
6 |
>> Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are |
7 |
>> RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should |
8 |
>> follow? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of |
11 |
> Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart |
12 |
> Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that |
13 |
> said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and |
14 |
> the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are |
15 |
> they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as |
16 |
> miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying |
17 |
> to turn Gentoo into Fedora? |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
This kind of response has been repeatedly grating on my nerves |
21 |
on this mailing list. It's just so TECHNICALLY WRONG, but more than |
22 |
that I feel that it hints at a deeper problem about user attitudes and the |
23 |
need to act like a know-it-all that is so prevalent on this mailing list. |
24 |
|
25 |
Systemd is _not_ a monolithic design. I don't know how anyone who |
26 |
has taken even a casual glance at it, or its documentation, can say |
27 |
otherwise. It's so reminiscent of qmail or postfix, where you have a |
28 |
bunch of small programs each doing one thing well, but for init |
29 |
systems rather than for mail, that it's just one step away from being |
30 |
the kind of program you show to kids to teach them how to Unix. |
31 |
|
32 |
Scroll up further on the random systemd rants on this mailing list and |
33 |
you'll "learn" that systemd has a binary / xml configuration format |
34 |
(it doesn't, it's plaintext INI, like samba) that requires binary code to |
35 |
run daemons (um, no it doesn't), or that thanks to systemd, old, |
36 |
perfectly working servers will just stop running... |
37 |
|
38 |
You know what I think? You can't understand why some people |
39 |
like or want to support systemd because you don't _want_ to |
40 |
understand. It requires you to learn something new. There's an |
41 |
old problem, _mostly_, but not entirely, solved, where we've swept |
42 |
the ugly parts out of sight so that they don't bug you. The parts of |
43 |
systemd that you don't understand why they should be there |
44 |
are the parts that deal with those ugly things you don't want to learn. |
45 |
I know that feeling, of being forced to learn something new and thinking |
46 |
"do I really have to?" and I know I hate it. It's the same reason why |
47 |
RTFM is considered rude. But it's basically the appropriate response |
48 |
here. You wanna figure out why systemd does what it does? RTFM. |
49 |
|
50 |
Yes, system initialization SHOULD be simple. Just like |
51 |
mail or web SHOULD be. And heck, If you want to run some bash |
52 |
script to do your web or mail or init, nobody's stopping you. |
53 |
|
54 |
But somebody, somewhere, is going to want features, which is why |
55 |
we have apache or postfix, and what-have-you. And if other projects want |
56 |
to use those features, they're free to want to require those software |
57 |
as they please. You don't like it? Don't use those projects. Or fork |
58 |
them. But stop acting like a pompous know-it-all, quoting software |
59 |
design witticisms as if you've actually looked at the problem domain |
60 |
even half as seriously as the developers involved. |
61 |
|
62 |
Oh but systemd is going to eat up all our software so that nothing |
63 |
will run without it! Don't be ridiculous. They said that about Emacs, |
64 |
Java, Lisp, GNOME, kdepim, The Browser(tm), etc etc etc. If you've |
65 |
paid any attention at all to the history of software, it's obvious that it's |
66 |
not happening. Why the hell would apache, which runs on windows, |
67 |
require systemd? Or firefox? Or google chrome? Or qmail? Or postfix? |
68 |
Or MySQL? Or samba? etc etc etc |
69 |
|
70 |
If there's anything surprising, it's that you seriously thought a software |
71 |
development house (cough cough Redhat) wouldn't try to dogfood their |
72 |
own stuff into their other products (cough cough GNOME) _which |
73 |
already have forks by the way_, so what are you worried about? |
74 |
-- |
75 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social |
76 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
77 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |