1 |
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> On 6/3/2014 1:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
[ ... ] |
4 |
>> Who is "forcing" anything? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I was specifically referring to your comment that: |
8 |
> |
9 |
>> The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more |
10 |
>> infrastructure migrates towards systemd. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> That comment right there - specifically the word *infrastructure* - screams |
13 |
> to me 'we intend to take over the world'. |
14 |
|
15 |
Well, yeah; that has been the objective from day 1. That systemd is |
16 |
used by default by almost all Linux users and distributions. Nobody |
17 |
has ever claimed anything on the contrary. And we are pretty advanced |
18 |
in that objective, by the way. |
19 |
|
20 |
That doesn't mean that anything is being force on anyone. SysV is |
21 |
still available, and so it is OpenRC, and so it is pm-utils (although |
22 |
it's been 5 years since last updated). Go on and use them if you want. |
23 |
|
24 |
Oh, you want *someone else* to do that work for you? Sorry, is not |
25 |
going to happen. |
26 |
|
27 |
You want that ALL the infrastructure to keep working with something |
28 |
else besides systemd? Go on and make it work with OpenRC, pm-utils, |
29 |
ConsoleKit and HAL. |
30 |
|
31 |
Oh, you want *someone else* to do that work for you? Sorry, not gonna happen. |
32 |
|
33 |
If the people *IN CHARGE* of the infrastructure decides to use |
34 |
systemd, they are not forcing nothing on no one. They are taking |
35 |
*their code* and making it better by using the technologically |
36 |
superior option. |
37 |
|
38 |
> And yes, as devs get lazier (decide to rely on systemd rather than build it |
39 |
> to work independently of the init system), |
40 |
|
41 |
Really? They are lazy? That means is "easy" to not rely on systemd, |
42 |
right? So go on and make their projects not to rely on systemd, if it |
43 |
is so easy. |
44 |
|
45 |
> this will in fact result in |
46 |
> *users* (read: those lacking the skills to code every program out there to |
47 |
> work without systemd) eventually being *forced* to switch to systemd. |
48 |
|
49 |
NO THEY ARE NOT. Really, almost *all* the code we Linux users get to |
50 |
use is a freakin' *GIFT*, and the developers responsible for it decide |
51 |
to use A BETTER OPTION (like systemd is), and some people have the |
52 |
*audacity* to call that "forcing" them something? |
53 |
|
54 |
THE CODE IS FREE, for all the meanings of the word "free". Therefore, |
55 |
there is no "forcing" of NOTHING on NO ONE. |
56 |
|
57 |
There can't be. |
58 |
|
59 |
Seriously, I haven't ever said what I'm about to say, but I'm getting |
60 |
really tired of this same old discussion about some users thinking |
61 |
they have the right to tell developers what they can or can't use in |
62 |
their code. |
63 |
|
64 |
You want your Linux to behave like the Unices of the 70's? Forget it; |
65 |
that train is gone. Linux (as in mainstream) is going to use systemd |
66 |
everywhere, from embedded to big iron, and that is for the best. |
67 |
|
68 |
If you want a 70's-like Unix, go on and install FreeBSD. |
69 |
|
70 |
> That is simply the reality. You can ignore it if you like, but it doesn't |
71 |
> change it. Forced is forced. |
72 |
|
73 |
No, it's a "reality" you invented in your head. Take the code and do |
74 |
wonders with it; is free. |
75 |
|
76 |
Oh, you can't? Then you are not being forced anything; you are just |
77 |
unable to make the things work like you want. |
78 |
|
79 |
That's totally different. |
80 |
|
81 |
>> That's what you and many others don't seem to understand: systemd is a |
82 |
>> *BETTER* implementation for basically *ALL* the hodgepodge of |
83 |
>> "solutions" that we had before in our plumbing layer. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> Time will tell, and you may even be right. The problem is, average users |
86 |
> really don't have a way to prove this to themselves, all we see is the |
87 |
> wailing and gnashing of teeth as stuff constantly *breaks* that *never* |
88 |
> broke before. |
89 |
|
90 |
Really, Tanstaafl? Because in this list I usually see the *SAME* small |
91 |
group of people complaining about systemd. From time to time some new |
92 |
systemd user asks about some issues they found, but for the most part |
93 |
they (with the list help) solve those issues. |
94 |
|
95 |
And the world goes on. Users didn't abandoned Fedora, OpenSuse, Arch, |
96 |
Debian nor Ubuntu "en masse" when they decided to switch to systemd. |
97 |
There were complains, sure; but now it seems to have calmed down. Most |
98 |
systemd users (wether they chose to use systemd or their distributions |
99 |
did it for them) seem to be happy. |
100 |
|
101 |
And guess what? They will not abandon Gentoo if it ever decides to |
102 |
switch to systemd. |
103 |
|
104 |
Although I'm pretty sure a small (tiny, really) number of |
105 |
fundamentalist users will go to *BSD. And that's their choice. |
106 |
|
107 |
Perhaps you should consider doing that? And I'm saying that with all |
108 |
due respect; but be aware that on *BSD, the developers there also make |
109 |
their own decisions. |
110 |
|
111 |
If you want your systemd *exactly* the way you want it, you have to |
112 |
write it yourself. Nobody is going to do it for you. |
113 |
|
114 |
Regards. |
115 |
-- |
116 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
117 |
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias |
118 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |