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 |
> |