| 1 |
To answer Alan's question - the main fault lies on the GNOME project and |
| 2 |
the forcing for systemd down user's systems throats. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Additionally, as certina things were added to Linux to "enhance" |
| 5 |
capabilities, the GNOME developers (apparently) *deliberately* placed |
| 6 |
the programs in /usr/bin, instead of in the generally accepted place of |
| 7 |
/bin. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Alan is correct - there is a deliberate cause of this debacle. Certain |
| 10 |
folks (Lennart being one of many) *are* cramming their vision of Linux |
| 11 |
on the whole community. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I have read severl folks defending their ignoring of the old protocol of |
| 14 |
placing boot-required programs in /bin (and hence on root) as being |
| 15 |
holdovers from "ancient history" and claiming that disk space is so |
| 16 |
cheap these days that it "isn't necessary" to keep this distinction. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As a result of the GNOMEish forcing, some distros have even gone so far |
| 19 |
as to *do away* with /bin - and have placed everything in /usr/bin with |
| 20 |
compatibility symlinks as a holdover/workaround. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I lay this at the feet of GNOME, and thus, at the feet of RedHat. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Linux used to be about *choice* aand leaving up to the users/admins |
| 25 |
about how they wanted to configure their systems. But certain forces in |
| 26 |
the Linux marketplace are hell-bent on imitating Microsoft's "one way to |
| 27 |
do it" thinking that they are outdoing the "evil empire's" evilness. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I fully understand systemd and see that it is a solution seeking a |
| 30 |
problem to solve. And its developers, being nearly identical with the |
| 31 |
set of GNOME developers, are forcing this *thing* on the Linux universe. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Certainly, the SystemV init system needed to have a way of |
| 34 |
*automagically/automatically* handling a wider set of dependencies. When |
| 35 |
we wrote if for System IV at Bell Labs in 1981 or so, we didn't have the |
| 36 |
time to solve the problem of having the computer handle the dependencies |
| 37 |
and moved the handling out to the human mind to solve by setting the |
| 38 |
numerical sequence numbers. (I was one of the writers for System IV |
| 39 |
init while a contractor.) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
OpenRC provided a highly compatible and organic extension of the system, |
| 42 |
and Gentoo has been happy for severl years with it. But now, the same |
| 43 |
folks who are thrusting GNOME/systemd down the throats of systems |
| 44 |
everywhere, have invaded or gained converts enought in the Gentoo |
| 45 |
structure to try and force their way on Gentoo. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Gentoo may be flexible enough to allow someone to write an overlay that |
| 48 |
moves the necessary things back to /bin (and install symlinks from |
| 49 |
/usr/bin to /bin) so that an initrd/initramfs is not required. But I |
| 50 |
suspect that Gentoo and many distributions are too far gone down the |
| 51 |
path of deception to recover. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Neil and other may disagree with this assessment, but I saw it coming |
| 54 |
and this is not the first time it has been pointed out - and not just by me. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Who knows though? I may just have to abandon prepared distributions |
| 57 |
completely and do a Linux From Scratch solution, or fork some distro and |
| 58 |
tey to undo the worst of the damage. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
G.Wolfe Woodbury |
| 62 |
redwolfe@×××××.com |
Archives