Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim (was: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01)

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Greg Woodbury <redwolfe@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
>> the root cause of the problem.
>>
>> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good
>> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were
>> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those
>> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to
>> blame too.
>>
>> Systemd is just another point in a very long list.
>>
> The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of UNIX.  Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, but other benefits continued to encourage a seperation between root and usr.
>
> The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened.  The home filesystem  became traditionally separate because data expands to fill all availab;e space, and users collect *things*
>
> Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and diskless worstations ruled for a while as well.
>
> By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three filesystem layout was common and workable.  As Linux continued to be like Topsy (she jest growed!) fragmentation started to occur as "distributions" arose.  The "balkanization" of Linux distributions became a real concern to some and standardization offorts were encouraged.
>
> The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem Hierarch Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V definitions (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added more layers and attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors.
>
> THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet even then a separate root and usr distinction survived.  Then things started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the Windows/wintel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations.
>
> (Look out, there are some severely mixed metaphors coming and perhaps even some "allegory"  Bear with it and you should get the gist of my accusations.)
>
> And now we are here.  There is no clear definition of what comprises this OS that is a Linux kernel and a largely GNU based user-land.  There are two major X-Windows based "Desktop Environments" and many less major DEs and Linux is seen as being "locked in a struggle" with the Microsoft OSs to "win the hearts and minds of the Users."
>
> This is quite scary to many folks who depend on the success of Linux "winning" the so-called war.  One of the camps bent on wining the "war" is GNOME.  Despite much history and experience that shows that choice and freedom are NOT disadvantages, the mainline GNOME folks have charged ahead on their own in a direction that overrides user choice and seems bound and determined to "outdo" Microsoft at their own game.
>
> As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered.  The main GNOME army marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks.
>
> It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of the root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME camp.
> These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler explanation.
>
>
> I am NOT happy with the situation as it stands.  Efforts that I have made on behalf of the FOSS and Linux/GNU are no longer serving to benefit me and the others with whom I thought I shared aspirations.
>
> I am an OS Agnostic/Atheist. I use what works to do what I need to do. My at-home network includes all four (or is that 3.5?) "consumer" OSes. I have spent quite a bit of effort to have them all work together, but forces seem to be in play that seem determined to "win at all costs" and enforce a computing monoculture.  Such a result is not a good thing. As with biological systems, monocultures are more vulnerable to interference and disease.  The evolution of differentiated organ systems in more complex (or "higher") forms of life is driven by the need to provide robustness and continued operation in the face of unknown challenges.
>
> To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required for good "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge.
>
>
> [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and Biological Science.  and I can expand on the parallels if so desired.
>
> --
> G.Wolfe Woodbury
> redwolfe@×××××.com
>

Indeed, you put it in good words, I too claim that the systemd agenda
is what began all this, while it is hidden within all claims.

Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.