1 |
Sorry for entering others' dialog... |
2 |
|
3 |
On 17.02.2014 21:13, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
4 |
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
5 |
> [snip] |
6 |
>>>> Can you surgically remove systemd in the future without reverse |
7 |
>>>> engineering |
8 |
>>>> half of what the LSB would look at the time, or will its developers |
9 |
>>>> ensure |
10 |
>>>> that this is a one time choice only? |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>>> You guys talk about software like if it was a big bad black magical |
14 |
>>> box with inexplicable powers. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> If someone is willing and able, *everything* can be "surgically |
17 |
>>> remove[d]". We got rid of devfs, remember? We got rid of OSS (thank |
18 |
>>> the FSM for ALSA). We got rid of HAL (yuck!). GNOME got rid of bonobo, |
19 |
>>> and ESD. KDE got rid of aRts (and who knows what more). |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> I think you are being a little disingenuous here. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I am not. |
25 |
> |
26 |
>> The obvious unspoken meaning behind the 'can you surgically remove' was: |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> Can you do it *easily*? I'm sure you would not suggest that getting rid of |
29 |
>> the above were 'easy'? |
30 |
> |
31 |
> I've never said it was easy. I said it could be done by someone |
32 |
> willing and able. I repeated that like five times I think. I said it |
33 |
> was done before; I never said it was easy. |
34 |
|
35 |
The whole point of creating new software is making things easier. Easier |
36 |
to use, easier to maintain, easier to remove. |
37 |
|
38 |
> But it can be done, and that's a indisputable fact. |
39 |
|
40 |
A total ground-up rewrite of the whole Linux is also quite possible. |
41 |
|
42 |
>> It simply doesn't matter if systemd boils down to one monolithic binary, or |
43 |
>> 600, if they are tied together in such a way that they can not |
44 |
>> *individually* be replaced *easily and simply* (ie, without having to |
45 |
>> rewrite the whole of systemd). |
46 |
> |
47 |
> You are setting a group of conditions that preemptively wants to stop |
48 |
> adoption of anything that is tightly integrated. That is a losing |
49 |
> strategy (different projects actually *want* tight integration), and |
50 |
> besides the burden of work should not fall on the people wanting to |
51 |
> use a tightly integrated stack. |
52 |
|
53 |
How Integrated? The TCP/IP stack *is* integrated. But it is *protocol* |
54 |
integration, *standards* integration not *software* integration. You do |
55 |
want tight integration where it just can't work otherwise, but the |
56 |
design of Unix provides (well, again repeating this), and almost any |
57 |
robust design should provide, the ignorance of one abstraction level |
58 |
about another. Why HAL? Why udev? Why drivers as modules? Why not just |
59 |
go and integrate all stuff into the kernel, well (again!) like MS do, |
60 |
and don't please say I compare wrong things just because MS is not OSS. |
61 |
|
62 |
> You want individual modules that are "easily and simply" replaced? |
63 |
> Then WROTE THEM. Don't expect the systemd authors (or any other) to do |
64 |
> it for you. |
65 |
|
66 |
We really don't expect that systemd's authors do anything for us. |
67 |
Anything they do is not for us, thanks. |
68 |
|
69 |
>> That said, it seems to me that, for now at least, it isn't that big a deal |
70 |
>> to switch back and forth between systemd and, for example, OpenRC. |
71 |
|
72 |
"For now" it's not, but take a look into the future when not a single |
73 |
product will be published without systemd's support, just because it's |
74 |
everywhere -- and since it's everywhere, then why bother support |
75 |
anything other? Time, money... So it's a matter of time -- you'll |
76 |
personally be happy with this scenario -- at first -- but think |
77 |
further... They'll be able to stuff everything into it, making |
78 |
effectively a thing in itself which will dictate you where to go and |
79 |
what to do, just because you're not technically competent enough to deal |
80 |
with it -- hence more support calls and more $ etc etc. I don't believe |
81 |
in Red Hat's being a corporation of Good, nor any other corporation |
82 |
being such, and please remember the notorious examples of almost |
83 |
privatizing OSS by other 'corporations of Good'. (Android, MySQL, almost |
84 |
OpenOffice...) |
85 |
Well, there's some probability that by the time systemd occupies all |
86 |
linux distros, some clever RH guy (or a green soxx guy) will emerge and |
87 |
emerge systemd v2 which will be different ... But it's not something one |
88 |
should count on. |
89 |
|
90 |
> [...] |
91 |
> If *someone*, *willing* AND *able* steps up to do ALL that work, MAYBE |
92 |
> it would happen. |
93 |
> |
94 |
> But don't complain if no one does, and it doesn't. |
95 |
|
96 |
That's your point -- and mine. We aren't complaining -- we want to |
97 |
prevent this. The forward-looking people must unite, it may sound |
98 |
ridiculous, against systemd -- not because of its design, technical |
99 |
details etc, but because otherwise in short time you'll end up comparing |
100 |
systemd to itself. You know what it is: everything's free but nothing to |
101 |
choose from. We had it before, it's called communism. Maybe it is not |
102 |
that bad but we don't want it anymore. |
103 |
|
104 |
> Regards. |
105 |
|
106 |
|
107 |
-- |
108 |
Best wishes, |
109 |
Yuri K. Shatroff |