Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 18:40:01
Message-Id: CAG2nJkOrAsrQx5hdQnNAkW41ck0yd8vb7Q-=aLPaZpv6Zd1GzQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS by James
1 Why do I get the feeling that this is another episode of the "i hate
2 LennartSoft(tm) too" circlejerk on the gentoo mailing list?
3
4 this mailing list used to be about gentoo.
5 On Dec 3, 2014 1:38 AM, "James" <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote:
6
7 > Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes:
8 >
9 >
10 >
11 > > > is integration of the best of the CoreOS ideas into "Gentoo proper".
12 > >
13 > > I'm not suggesting that "/usr types of systems" are going away. I'm
14 > > just pointing out that they're not really the focus of CoreOS (hosting
15 > > them inside containers is, but not running these kinds of applications
16 > > in the host itself).
17 >
18 > I do not intend to follow the CoreOS commercial path. It intend to mod
19 > gentoo to achieve those attractive attributes back into my "gentoo proper".
20 > tftp, pxe, dhcp, uefi and many other tools give us a path to
21 > running the least (embedded) to the most (complex traditional server)
22 > as an extension (compliment) to the cluster. So as was pointed out,
23 > I'm merely "lifting" form CoreOS what they lifted from their predicessors;
24 > no more no less. I see the gentoo admins being able to move hardrware
25 > in and out of the cluster, dynamically and being able to run many
26 > sorts of gentoo systems (embedded to fulls server) on a myriad of
27 > hardware they own and control.
28 >
29 >
30 > > You seem to be wanting a minimalist profile of Gentoo, not CoreOS.
31 >
32 > YES!, I want Gentoo to "CRUSH" CoreOS because we can and our goal is not
33 > to deceptively move users to a "rent the binary" jail. OK?
34 >
35 >
36 > > < think many of us would love to see that, and I've been an advocate of
37 > > paring down <at> system for just this reason. I just wouldn't use the
38 > > term "CoreOS" with that as this is going to lead to confusion. CoreOS
39 > > is a specialized distro intended to host containers, no more, no less.
40 >
41 > OK, we see CoreOS differently. For me it was an Epiphany moment of
42 > where I'm been trying to end up, with the aforementioned Gentoo twists.
43 >
44 > > It isn't intended as a starting point for embedded projects or such.
45 > > Sure, maybe you could make it work, but sooner or later CoreOS will
46 > > make some change that will make you very unhappy because they aren't
47 > > making it for you.
48 >
49 > CoreOS will never be in my critical path. Large corporations will turn
50 > computer scientist and hackers into WalMart type-employees. Conglomerates
51 > are the enemy, imho. I fear Conglomerates much more than any group
52 > of government idiots. ymmv.
53 >
54 > (warning digression)
55 > Just look at the entire "net neutrality"
56 > turf struggle. That sort of "corner the market" monopolistic behavior
57 > would not be possible, if we had just maintained the "MAE" precedence
58 > for network peering. Obama had little choice; but, putting networks
59 > under SS7 style telecom regulations is a deceptive and horrible idea.
60 > Conglomerates lobby congress and get very bad ideas written into law.
61 > All we needed is regulation to allow (force) all networks to peer with
62 > other networks. The entire concept of "private peering" is horseshit
63 > and it should be ended immediately. CoreOS and the "Cloud" lobbyist can
64 > easily get regulations passed to put an end to this linux experiment, imho.
65 > Differnt subject I know, but the tactics of conglomerates are always the
66 > same. Roll up competition and eliminate it, oh all in the name of better
67 > security and portecting our 1st amendment rights and our conglomerates.
68 > (sorry of the digression).
69 >
70 >
71 >
72 > > But, again, I'm all for a more lightweight Gentoo profile that doesn't
73 > > bundle stuff like openssh, or even an init implementation (since we
74 > > have several to choose from now).
75 >
76 > Funny, ssh is one of a few things I would put into drastically reduce
77 > @system. ymmv, unless you are going to add something like netconsole.c
78 > back into the bundle.
79 >
80 > I do not see my vision of the cluster (CoreOS insprired) to be limiting
81 > to anyone at Gentoo. Not the embedded folks, not the mimalist, not
82 > any init-camp, not the devs, hackers, or wannabees. And certainly
83 > not the users. Is this a large undertaking? Certainly. Are the pieces
84 > mostly already in existence, just scattered about and transversing time?
85 > (methinks YES).
86 >
87 >
88 > It all depends on how your vision works. Being older, I see a return to
89 > massive diskless nodes being what CoreOS and the entire "Cloud Vendor"
90 > conglomerates want. Conversely, I see those cheap microP now accompanied by
91 > enormous amount of ram and SSD that is dirt cheap forming the building
92 > blocks for the Gentoo cluster paradigm shift. I see Gentoo "smashing" that
93 > "Cloud-vendor CoreOS" paradigm by provide what they offer and so much more
94 > (full /usr systems) out of the same core codebase. I see Gentoo keeping the
95 > rank and file computer scientists and hackers, gamefully employed. I see
96 > the CoreOS folks migrating computer scientists and hackers to the Walmart
97 > model of underemployment at a few conglomerates.
98 >
99 > Gentoo provides an excellent set of choices and a very bright future for
100 > me
101 > (cluster). Other can pick their own poison....
102 >
103 >
104 > peace,
105 > && thanks
106 >
107 > James
108 >
109 >
110 >
111 >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS "J. Roeleveld" <joost@××××××××.org>