1 |
On 08/19/2013 12:52 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk <peterk2@××××××××.se> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL |
6 |
>>> monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is |
7 |
>>> Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are |
8 |
>>> RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should |
9 |
>>> follow? |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of |
12 |
>> Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart |
13 |
>> Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that |
14 |
>> said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and |
15 |
>> the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are |
16 |
>> they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as |
17 |
>> miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying |
18 |
>> to turn Gentoo into Fedora? |
19 |
>> |
20 |
> |
21 |
> This kind of response has been repeatedly grating on my nerves |
22 |
> on this mailing list. It's just so TECHNICALLY WRONG, but more than |
23 |
> that I feel that it hints at a deeper problem about user attitudes and the |
24 |
> need to act like a know-it-all that is so prevalent on this mailing list. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Systemd is _not_ a monolithic design. I don't know how anyone who |
27 |
> has taken even a casual glance at it, or its documentation, can say |
28 |
> otherwise. It's so reminiscent of qmail or postfix, where you have a |
29 |
> bunch of small programs each doing one thing well, but for init |
30 |
> systems rather than for mail, that it's just one step away from being |
31 |
> the kind of program you show to kids to teach them how to Unix. |
32 |
|
33 |
It's not monolithic? Okay, then why won't logind work separately after |
34 |
systemd-206? QED. If you cannot separate its parts and use them |
35 |
piecemeal, it's monolithic. Period. Separation of concerns within a |
36 |
project as vast as systemd is to be expected if you want to be able to |
37 |
read the source. That doesn't mean that systemd isn't monolithic when |
38 |
used in an actual system. Systemd swallowed udev and is doing whatever |
39 |
they can to tie logind behavior into the init system to get people to |
40 |
use it. That's the very definition of monolithic. |
41 |
|
42 |
> |
43 |
> Scroll up further on the random systemd rants on this mailing list and |
44 |
> you'll "learn" that systemd has a binary / xml configuration format |
45 |
> (it doesn't, it's plaintext INI, like samba) that requires binary code to |
46 |
> run daemons (um, no it doesn't), or that thanks to systemd, old, |
47 |
> perfectly working servers will just stop running... |
48 |
> |
49 |
> You know what I think? You can't understand why some people |
50 |
> like or want to support systemd because you don't _want_ to |
51 |
> understand. It requires you to learn something new. There's an |
52 |
> old problem, _mostly_, but not entirely, solved, where we've swept |
53 |
> the ugly parts out of sight so that they don't bug you. The parts of |
54 |
> systemd that you don't understand why they should be there |
55 |
> are the parts that deal with those ugly things you don't want to learn. |
56 |
> I know that feeling, of being forced to learn something new and thinking |
57 |
> "do I really have to?" and I know I hate it. It's the same reason why |
58 |
> RTFM is considered rude. But it's basically the appropriate response |
59 |
> here. You wanna figure out why systemd does what it does? RTFM. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> Yes, system initialization SHOULD be simple. Just like |
62 |
> mail or web SHOULD be. And heck, If you want to run some bash |
63 |
> script to do your web or mail or init, nobody's stopping you. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> But somebody, somewhere, is going to want features, which is why |
66 |
> we have apache or postfix, and what-have-you. And if other projects want |
67 |
> to use those features, they're free to want to require those software |
68 |
> as they please. You don't like it? Don't use those projects. Or fork |
69 |
> them. But stop acting like a pompous know-it-all, quoting software |
70 |
> design witticisms as if you've actually looked at the problem domain |
71 |
> even half as seriously as the developers involved. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> Oh but systemd is going to eat up all our software so that nothing |
74 |
> will run without it! Don't be ridiculous. They said that about Emacs, |
75 |
> Java, Lisp, GNOME, kdepim, The Browser(tm), etc etc etc. If you've |
76 |
> paid any attention at all to the history of software, it's obvious that it's |
77 |
> not happening. Why the hell would apache, which runs on windows, |
78 |
> require systemd? Or firefox? Or google chrome? Or qmail? Or postfix? |
79 |
> Or MySQL? Or samba? etc etc etc |
80 |
> |
81 |
> If there's anything surprising, it's that you seriously thought a software |
82 |
> development house (cough cough Redhat) wouldn't try to dogfood their |
83 |
> own stuff into their other products (cough cough GNOME) _which |
84 |
> already have forks by the way_, so what are you worried about? |
85 |
> |
86 |
|
87 |
What he and others are worried about is a single company homogenizing |
88 |
the distribution landscape, starting at the bottom with the init system. |
89 |
By making every distro dependent on them for init, they can |
90 |
systematically homogenize the software ecosystem and kill (mainstream) |
91 |
FOSS. This would benefit their business immensely. It's hard to deny |
92 |
that this isn't being attempted with the spread of systemd and GNOME |
93 |
(which has Red Hat devs working on it) requiring systemd. It's a perfect |
94 |
storm and the community has drank the kool-aid. Gentoo is considered the |
95 |
last bastion of choice for most users, lest we go as far down as |
96 |
Slackware and LFS to maintain things. While Gentoo (for now) states that |
97 |
systemd will not become the default, other distros (Arch) claimed the |
98 |
very same thing before they pushed systemd on their users. There is |
99 |
little reason to trust things won't go downhill from here. I'd love to |
100 |
be wrong (seriously, Gentoo's been a great experience for me), but all |
101 |
signs point to Gentoo falling to systemd as well. All it takes is a |
102 |
majority vote among the Council and it happens. |
103 |
|
104 |
Homogenizing the software stack will kill FOSS and turn Linux into |
105 |
another corporate OS. |