1 |
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:09:40 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
> > How Integrated? The TCP/IP stack *is* integrated. But it is *protocol* |
3 |
> > integration, *standards* integration not *software* integration. You do want |
4 |
> > tight integration where it just can't work otherwise, but the design of Unix |
5 |
> > provides (well, again repeating this), and almost any robust design should |
6 |
> > provide, the ignorance of one abstraction level about another. Why HAL? Why |
7 |
> > udev? Why drivers as modules? Why not just go and integrate all stuff into |
8 |
> > the kernel, well (again!) like MS do, and don't please say I compare wrong |
9 |
> > things just because MS is not OSS. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> You make a wrong comparison, because MS is not free (libre) software. |
12 |
> With Linux, and systemd, and OpenRC, and HAL, and devfs, and sysv, we |
13 |
> have been able to try new technologies (and see that some of them |
14 |
> fail, like HAL [yuck!]), because we have the source. |
15 |
|
16 |
But the comparison is quite right. When one have to deal with software |
17 |
lock-in, this means that one have to fork a huge stack of software |
18 |
which is theoretically doable (because software is free), but is |
19 |
impractical unless one owns a corporation with large number of full |
20 |
time paid developers. The same way one in theory can change everything |
21 |
in MS by changing assembler code of their software. Well, this will |
22 |
require some time, but asm is nothing more than low-level programming |
23 |
language, thus formally one have "the sources". |
24 |
|
25 |
The key feature here is deliberate and malicious lock-in: as long as |
26 |
software enforces one, it is non-free in practical terms. |
27 |
|
28 |
> As you said, you can replace the whole of Linux if you so desire (and |
29 |
> have the technical ability). |
30 |
> |
31 |
> You will never be able to do that with any MS software, and so the |
32 |
> comparison makes no sense. |
33 |
|
34 |
Hey, but people are already doing this! Google for ReactOS or Wine. |
35 |
|
36 |
> The thing (and that's also my point), apparently *most* of the people |
37 |
> willing and able to create cool software have decided that systemd is |
38 |
> the way to go. And, even if you want to attribute that to a simple |
39 |
> monetary issue, most of them do it *happily* because many things are |
40 |
> just easier to do with systemd. |
41 |
|
42 |
Most people should never care what init system is in charge while |
43 |
writing end-user software. If software (e.g. some daemon) depends on |
44 |
specific init system, it is broken by design. |
45 |
|
46 |
> > They'll be able to |
47 |
> > stuff everything into it, making effectively a thing in itself which will |
48 |
> > dictate you where to go and what to do, just because you're not technically |
49 |
> > competent enough to deal with it -- hence more support calls and more $ etc |
50 |
> > etc. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Oh, but nobody will be able to do that to me. I know how to write |
53 |
> code. I'm willing (and I believe able) to write and/or modify software |
54 |
> if I don't like how it does things. I've done it before; I could do it |
55 |
> again. |
56 |
|
57 |
Even if you have superior and outstanding programming skills I doubt |
58 |
you have time and resources to rewrite the whole software stack (e.g. |
59 |
systemd and everything depending on it) yourself. |
60 |
|
61 |
> >> If *someone*, *willing* AND *able* steps up to do ALL that work, MAYBE |
62 |
> >> it would happen. |
63 |
> >> |
64 |
> >> But don't complain if no one does, and it doesn't. |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> > That's your point -- and mine. We aren't complaining -- we want to prevent |
68 |
> > this. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> Prevent what? People writing new software that offers cool features, |
71 |
> and therefore distros are using them? |
72 |
|
73 |
Prevent loosing our freedom in practical sense: while the software |
74 |
will be still free in FSF license terms, it will be so locked onto |
75 |
itself that it will be eventually impossible for anyone besides large |
76 |
corporations to replace it. Thus in the end we'll be dictated what to |
77 |
do and how to do. |
78 |
|
79 |
> > The forward-looking people must unite, it may sound ridiculous, |
80 |
> > against systemd |
81 |
> |
82 |
> You cannot stop people for writing new cool stuff, nor distros for |
83 |
> wanting to using them. You CAN write your own cool stuff, and |
84 |
> convincing people that is better than the alternative. |
85 |
|
86 |
And you can't force people to use your cool stuff because you're |
87 |
assuming it is cool. That's called freedom, freedom of choice. That |
88 |
is what I love Gentoo for. That's why I support systemd |
89 |
profile propose. That's why I will do my best to protect this freedom |
90 |
in our community. |
91 |
|
92 |
> > You know what it is: everything's free but nothing to choose from. We had it |
93 |
> > before, it's called communism. Maybe it is not that bad but we don't want it |
94 |
> > anymore. |
95 |
> |
96 |
> (Really? A cold war reference?) |
97 |
|
98 |
Yes, we have a software^Wcorporation war right upon us. |
99 |
|
100 |
Best regards, |
101 |
Andrew Savchenko |