1 |
17.02.2014 00:19, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет: |
2 |
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-uno@××××××.ru> wrote: |
3 |
> [ snip ] |
4 |
>> Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of |
5 |
>> systemd? ;) |
6 |
> |
7 |
> As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical. |
8 |
|
9 |
Even religious. |
10 |
|
11 |
> Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why |
12 |
> the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion). |
13 |
|
14 |
Oh I have read so many discussions already... :) |
15 |
To me, systemd's technical superiority is far not obvious. Just another |
16 |
init system would be, but as long as systemd is much more that one, I |
17 |
can't say that. It should NOT be compared to OpenRC / upstart alone, |
18 |
rather to a whole bunch of tools it replaces, and probably even those |
19 |
it's ambitious to replace. |
20 |
|
21 |
>> I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into any |
22 |
>> existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just practical |
23 |
>> uselessness? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> If it's "practically useless", why so many distributions keep choosing |
26 |
> it? Why GNOME started using it? |
27 |
|
28 |
Well, I said that technical superiority matters little for maintainers; |
29 |
what matters is money. If I'd write some super-puper fancy init system |
30 |
and kernel replacement, who would be interested? It's not the time of |
31 |
Linus' rise, now you don't deal with USENET freaks, but with Intel, |
32 |
RedHat and other billionaire corps. Do you have the guts and means to |
33 |
keep up with competitors, even not about kernel/init subsystems, but a |
34 |
user app like mailer/browser/messenger... |
35 |
A kernel subsystem requires much more technical competence to maintain |
36 |
and is far more critical for functioning, so much more important here is |
37 |
not any 'technical superiority' but simply resources, human and |
38 |
financial, spared if using RH-maintained systemd. |
39 |
|
40 |
>> Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the Linux |
41 |
>> kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of |
42 |
>> kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has much |
43 |
>> in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us it |
44 |
>> provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft |
47 |
> becomes moot. |
48 |
|
49 |
Once you mentioned "technical superiority", let's compare other stuff |
50 |
technically too. :) |
51 |
|
52 |
>> A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the |
53 |
>> questions: |
54 |
>> 1. Is the software standards-compliant? |
55 |
>> 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation? |
56 |
>> 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal? |
57 |
>> 4. Does the software achieve the goal? |
58 |
>> 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"? |
59 |
>> 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be like? |
60 |
>> 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or group? |
61 |
> |
62 |
> That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care |
63 |
> if Emacs is "standards-compliant" (whatever that means for a text |
64 |
> editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible |
65 |
> implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be |
66 |
> yes. |
67 |
|
68 |
You don't care about Emacs and Inkscape but do you care the same nought |
69 |
about e.g. /bin/cp, /bin/mv etc? Do you care that your browser talks |
70 |
HTTP rather than SHiTP? Do you care that once after a couple of years |
71 |
your systems get unmaintained and unmaintainable because the software on |
72 |
them becomes a load of bashed up crap which only a world's head lennart |
73 |
can deal with? Well, you'll say that red hat tralala, but we've seen the |
74 |
rise and fall of many giants e.g. Sun with their once 'technically |
75 |
superior' Solaris and SPARCs, well one can name many I just don't have |
76 |
time, also we seen MySQL bought by Oracle, and all. |
77 |
Nothing is eternal, and it's (Again!) quite not always technical matters |
78 |
that matters. |
79 |
|
80 |
>> AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are dubious |
81 |
>> if just plain "no". |
82 |
> |
83 |
> From your point of view. |
84 |
> |
85 |
>> I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to switch |
86 |
>> to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and the benefit, |
87 |
>> if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and |
90 |
> unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd, |
91 |
> then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start |
92 |
> maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it. |
93 |
|
94 |
At present, no. But the trend is clear. |
95 |
|
96 |
> That's how free software works. |
97 |
|
98 |
Actually, free software (one you don't pay for) works like any other |
99 |
software you pay for. You probably wanted to say "that's how the OSS |
100 |
model works" but it's getting less and less true. The OSS model in many |
101 |
cases retains only its open source. Take MySQL, take KDE, take GNOME. |
102 |
Who cares about users? We do what we deem feasible regardless if you |
103 |
like it or not. Don't like it? C'mon, fork, it's free. C'mon, it's |
104 |
technically superior. C'mon, who are you? An admin? A programmer? A |
105 |
Bachelor/PhD? Ha, man, we're BILLIONAIRES. That says it. We GRANT you |
106 |
our software AS IS. And its source. And its bugtrackers. We make |
107 |
business by the fact that we have millions of free testers 'round the |
108 |
world. We can afford that. If you can afford forking and maintaining, |
109 |
c'mon man. |
110 |
|
111 |
>> But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. Time |
112 |
>> is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, twice the |
113 |
>> money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the users' opinion. To |
114 |
>> be a realist, one has to admit that in near future 90% of new distro |
115 |
>> versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx emerge and take over |
116 |
>> Red Hat... |
117 |
> |
118 |
> I don't think neither time nor money had to do with Debian's (nor |
119 |
> Arch's, nor OpenSuse's, nor Maegia's, nor Sabayon's) decision. |
120 |
|
121 |
It's not in terms "think" or "don't think". It's a fact. |
122 |
|
123 |
> It's just technically superior. But's that's just my opinion, and what |
124 |
> I believe ;) |
125 |
|
126 |
That's a good thing to believe in. It's hard to prove, hard to see, |
127 |
impossible to test all cases. |
128 |
Money is what you don't believe in. You either have it enough or not. |
129 |
|
130 |
> So, amen? :D |
131 |
|
132 |
Amen. :D |
133 |
|
134 |
> Regards. |
135 |
> |
136 |
|
137 |
-- |
138 |
Regards, |
139 |
Yuri K. Shatroff |