Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] from Firefox52: NO pure ALSA?, WAS: Firefox 49.0 & Youtube... Audio: No
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 22:52:38
Message-Id: 20161220225155.GA6010@acm.fritz.box
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] from Firefox52: NO pure ALSA?, WAS: Firefox 49.0 & Youtube... Audio: No by Rich Freeman
1 Hello Rich, and Gentoo.
2
3 As a reference point, just before I start, I'm a contributor to Emacs,
4 both new stuff and bug fixing, in both C and Lisp, and (occasionally) I
5 write documentation. ;-)
6
7 On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:57:02PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
8 > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@××××××××××××.de> wrote:
9 > > Am 20.12.2016 um 17:47 schrieb Rich Freeman:
10 > >> Clearly nobody forced you to run it, because you aren't running it
11 > >> now.
12
13 > > That's again one of those silly arguments. I'm just not running it
14 > > because I'm using Gentoo again. On Arch Linux they forced systemd onto
15 > > the users. Because the Arch Linux users don't have any choice if they
16 > > want to use Arch Linux, because they e.g. don't want to compile anything
17 > > and still want to have bleeding edge software.
18
19 > Anybody can run openrc on Arch linux. They just have to set it up
20 > themselves, or form a group to share the work.
21
22 There's no "just" to it. It would be a long, time consuming project;
23 unless, of course you were already intimately familiar with both openrc
24 and Arch Linux.
25
26 I too get annoyed by the attitude "it's free software, _just_ change it
27 to do what you want/fork it.". The software is indeed in one sense free,
28 in another sense it's tightly controlled by its maintainers. Anybody
29 capable enough, with enough time on their hands can indeed change it, but
30 only for themselves - if the maintainers don't like your patch, then it's
31 going nowhere but your own box. Unless, of course, you've got a really
32 massive amount of time on your hands, a group of like-minded hackers,
33 organisational ability, and the drive required to fork a project.
34
35 [ .... ]
36
37 > >> People who prefer systemd will maintain it, and people who prefer
38 > >> openrc will maintain that, and we can all be happy.
39
40 But for how long? systemd is primarily a political project, not a
41 technical one. Its object is clearly to turn GNU/Linux into a tightly
42 bound vertical stack where only Red Hat's views on what is good will
43 prevail. Our freedom to chose which core packages to run is being
44 steadily encroached upon, and pretty soon we will have no choice at all.
45
46 Already, as discussed in this thread, pulseaudio has become a hard
47 dependency of Firefox on G/L, and pulseaudio is controlled by the
48 politicians. The next step will be to make systemd a hard dependency of
49 pulseaudio (it will happen, just as it happened for udev and gnome), at
50 which point the "happy" people running openrc will not be able to run
51 Firefox. Happy indeed.
52
53 Sadly, there are not enough people in the free software world who were
54 politically aware enough, and energetic enough, to fight this purloining
55 of our software by Red Hat. It should surely have been obvious enough
56 when they made the technically loopy decision to subsume udev into
57 systemd, that the idea was to capture the core software. The process is
58 largely complete - we have lost. People not running systemd and friends
59 are gradually being pushed into irrelevant backwaters.
60
61 > > That's true for Gentoo, Slackware, Devuan, and maybe still Debian, but
62 > > not for the other Distros like Ubuntu and its derivatives, Arch Linux,
63 > > Redhat, Fedora etc.
64
65
66 > Anybody can maintain openrc on any distro.
67
68 No they can't. Or at least, not unless they make it their main spare
69 time occupation, and already are competent hackers.
70
71 > Maybe they can't put it in the official repository, that would be up to
72 > the people who control those repositories. However, as everybody is
73 > quick to point out the dependency list for sysvinit+openrc is
74 > incredibly light, which makes it fairly easy to run on any distro. You
75 > could probably get sysvinit running on arch in 15min.
76
77 Sorry, but that's so far out of kilter with reality I have to object. If
78 you are intimately familiar with openrc, the Linux booting system,
79 administrative things (like where to find the source code), technical
80 things (how to build it, how to link it into Linux), you just _might_
81 manage it in a few hours. Somebody starting from scratch is not going to
82 get sysvinit running on a different distro in 15 hours, never mind 15
83 minutes.
84
85 Hacking free software is a slow laborious process.
86
87 > Openrc would take longer, mainly because you'd have to adapt the
88 > scripts for any services you care about. But, it isn't THAT hard to
89 > do.
90
91 There's a lot of learning involved first.
92
93 I thoroughly dislike all these platitudes that have also annoyed Heiko.
94 That "you get what you pay for", "It's free, get up and hack", and so on.
95 There are (or, at least, used to be) unwritten understandings between
96 hackers, like: you don't make other hackers' lives difficult; you support
97 other hackers' freedom to hack; you _MAINTAIN_ your own products; even
98 you have a responsibility to the community to maintain your software. It
99 is these understandings that allowed free software to flourish.
100 Predatory companies like Red Hat (there are probably others) have broken
101 these understandings, and twisted others' helpfulness and naivety to
102 their own perverted ends.
103
104 I don't like the way things are going. Good night!
105
106 > --
107 > Rich
108
109 --
110 Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Replies