Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS

[Mark David Dumlao]

Look up. the very first post contrastd coreos' systemd as opposed to
openrc, bringing words like "evil"ution into the park.

later on we hear that coreos is "stealing" gentoo's ideas and hope that it
is CRUSHED.

but why? its its own frigging distro now. not gentoo by a long shot.
On Wednesday, December 03, 2014 02:39:53 AM Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> Why do I get the feeling that this is another episode of the "i hate
> LennartSoft(tm) too" circlejerk on the gentoo mailing list?

Why do I get the feeling you just want another flamewar?
I don't see any mention of systemd or anything else written by Lennart,
apart
from your comment.

> this mailing list used to be about gentoo.

It still is.

> On Dec 3, 2014 1:38 AM, "James" <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes:
> > > > is integration of the best of the CoreOS ideas into "Gentoo proper".
> > >
> > > I'm not suggesting that "/usr types of systems" are going away.  I'm
> > > just pointing out that they're not really the focus of CoreOS (hosting
> > > them inside containers is, but not running these kinds of applications
> > > in the host itself).
> >
> > I do not intend to follow the CoreOS commercial path. It intend to mod
> > gentoo to achieve those attractive attributes back into my "gentoo
> > proper".
> > tftp, pxe, dhcp, uefi and many other tools give us a path to
> > running the least (embedded) to the most (complex traditional server)
> > as an extension (compliment) to the cluster. So as was pointed out,
> > I'm merely "lifting" form CoreOS what they lifted from their
predicessors;
> > no more no less. I see the gentoo admins being able to move hardrware
> > in and out of the cluster, dynamically and being able to run many
> > sorts of gentoo systems (embedded to fulls server) on a myriad of
> > hardware they own and control.
> >
> > > You seem to be wanting a minimalist profile of Gentoo, not CoreOS.
> >
> > YES!, I want Gentoo to "CRUSH" CoreOS because we can and our goal is not
> > to deceptively move users to a "rent the binary" jail. OK?
> >
> > > < think many of us would love to see that, and I've been an advocate
of
> > > paring down  <at> system for just this reason.  I just wouldn't use
the
> > > term "CoreOS" with that as this is going to lead to confusion.  CoreOS
> > > is a specialized distro intended to host containers, no more, no less.
> >
> > OK, we see CoreOS differently. For me it was an Epiphany moment of
> > where I'm been trying to end up, with the aforementioned Gentoo twists.
> >
> > > It isn't intended as a starting point for embedded projects or such.
> > > Sure, maybe you could make it work, but sooner or later CoreOS will
> > > make some change that will make you very unhappy because they aren't
> > > making it for you.
> >
> > CoreOS will never be in my critical path. Large corporations will turn
> > computer scientist and hackers into WalMart type-employees.
Conglomerates
> > are the enemy, imho. I fear Conglomerates much more than any group
> > of government idiots. ymmv.
> >
> > (warning digression)
> >
> >  Just look at the entire "net neutrality"
> >
> > turf struggle. That sort of "corner the market" monopolistic behavior
> > would not be possible, if we had just maintained the "MAE" precedence
> > for network peering.  Obama had little choice; but, putting networks
> > under SS7 style telecom regulations is a deceptive and horrible idea.
> > Conglomerates lobby congress and get very bad ideas written into law.
> > All we needed is regulation to allow (force) all networks to peer with
> > other networks. The entire concept of "private peering" is horseshit
> > and it should be ended immediately. CoreOS and the "Cloud" lobbyist can
> > easily get regulations passed to put an end to this linux experiment,
> > imho.
> > Differnt subject I know, but the tactics of conglomerates are always the
> > same. Roll up competition and eliminate it, oh all in the name of better
> > security and portecting our 1st amendment rights  and our conglomerates.
> > (sorry of the digression).
> >
> > > But, again, I'm all for a more lightweight Gentoo profile that doesn't
> > > bundle stuff like openssh, or even an init implementation (since we
> > > have several to choose from now).
> >
> > Funny, ssh is one of a few things I would put into  drastically reduce
> > @system. ymmv, unless you are going to add something like netconsole.c
> > back into the bundle.
> >
> > I do not see my vision of the cluster (CoreOS insprired) to be limiting
> > to anyone at Gentoo. Not the embedded folks, not the mimalist, not
> > any init-camp, not the devs, hackers, or wannabees. And certainly
> > not the users. Is this a large undertaking? Certainly. Are the pieces
> > mostly already in existence, just scattered about and transversing time?
> > (methinks YES).
> >
> >
> > It all depends on how your vision works. Being older, I see a return to
> > massive diskless nodes being what CoreOS and the entire "Cloud Vendor"
> > conglomerates want. Conversely, I see those cheap microP now accompanied
> > by
> > enormous amount of ram and SSD that is dirt cheap forming the building
> > blocks for the Gentoo cluster paradigm shift. I see Gentoo "smashing"
that
> > "Cloud-vendor CoreOS" paradigm by provide what they offer and so much
more
> > (full /usr systems) out of the same core codebase. I see Gentoo keeping
> > the
> > rank and file computer scientists and hackers, gamefully employed.   I
see
> > the CoreOS folks migrating computer scientists and hackers to the
Walmart
> > model of underemployment at a few conglomerates.
> >
> > Gentoo provides an excellent set of choices  and a very bright future
for
> > me
> > (cluster). Other can pick their own poison....
> >
> >
> > peace,
> > && thanks
> >
> > James