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). |