Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

[Gevisz]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:30:10 -0600
Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote:

> On 02/15/2014 11:32 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, "Tanstaafl" <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org
> > <mailto:tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org
> > <mailto:tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but...
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure some or most of you have already heard about this, but I
> >>> found a really decent thread discussing this whole systemd thing.
> >>> It is only really comparing systemd and upstart, as that was the
> >>> debate going on in the debian TC, but it is a great read, and has
> >>> actually made me rethink my blind objections to systemd a bit.
> >>
> >>
> >> One of which was logging:
> >>
> >> "20. Myth: systemd makes it impossible to run syslog.
> >>
> >> Not true, we carefully made sure when we introduced the journal
> >> that
> > all data is also passed on to any syslog daemon running. In fact, if
> > something changed, then only that syslog gets more complete data now
> > than it got before, since we now cover early boot stuff as well as
> > STDOUT/STDERR of any system service."
> >>
> >> From: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html
> >
> > Also, for those of you who don't follow Linux-related news, Ubuntu
> > will also change to systemd in the future:
> >
> > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316
> >
> > And I *heard* that Slackware was also discussing the possibility,
> > but since I don't follow Slackware at all, I don't know for sure.
> >
> > Anyway, distros not using systemd, and that they are not really
> > small and/or niche, seem to be disappearing. The discussion that
> > Tanstaafl posted is interesting since the arguments used by the
> > four TC members are really focused on the technical merits of the
> > proposed init systems.
> >
> > Regards.
> > --
> > Canek Peláez Valdés
> > Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
> > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
> >
>
> The lack of foresight on social and political ramifications is
> epidemic to most of the FOSS world, as evidenced by the creeping
> adoption of systemd. Things are already depending on things that
> systemd provides, and is dividing the ecosystem into "systemd" vs
> "everything else". Ambitious projects like systemd are damaging to
> the rich variety that should be found in the FOSS ecosystem. systemd
> in particular encourages embracing vertical integration and rejection
> of POSIX and UNIX principles. Its culture is adversarial to anyone
> who doubts the Great Image that Lennart and his employer has. If it
> were a project that was humble, without an agenda, and did not
> undergo evangelism, I'd have no problems with it because choice is
> something that I value immensely. But because it *isn't* humble,
> *has* an agenda, only reached the adoption it currently has by *lots*
> of arguing and pushing, and refuses to coexist with other init
> systems, I cannot respect it as a legitimate, non-aggressive,
> non-intrusive software project. I consider it a toxic threat to FOSS
> and refuse to have it on any system I maintain.
>
> systemd has technical merits (cgroups, socket activation, parellel
> execution of daemons, etc), but they fall by the wayside and become
> irrelevant to me when it swallows the functionality of multiple
> projects that should be separate (see: udev) and tries to be
> everything to everyone (splash image, web server, boot time graphs,
> etc). The social tactics at work from the systemd team (and verily,
> other Red Hat projects like GNOME) are reminiscent of Microsoft
> through the use of the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" methodology.
> With their paid developers and more abundant resources, Red Hat (and
> arguably other corporations) can use their developers to push their
> agendas and, in a sense, commandeer control of the FOSS world. I will
> give them no inch on my systems. I am skeptical of their involvement
> in the kernel, as well.
>
> It's sad to see Debian giving into peer pressure. I honestly thought
> that they would see the agenda miles away and prevent a monoculture.
> For people who are technically intelligent, they're seriously lacking
> any foresight in their decisions and are completely blind to the
> social and political ramifications. Distros will regret depending on
> such a project and it will set GNU/Linux development back many years
> when systemd becomes a full stack and working without it is made
> difficult or impractical (through the use of lock-in tactics). I hope
> that Gentoo continues to be a safe haven for choice and the spirit of
> FOSS. Without it, I may have to concede and either start building my
> own distro, or going to the BSDs.

Thank you for the explanation. I suspected this yet from the beginning
of this discussion and waited for such or similar explanations.

Technically, I so far know a very little on this subject
and only suspect :-) that my Gentoo system uses openrc.

I am quite satisfied with it and afraid of switching Gentoo default to
systemd.

However, I do understand your arguments concerning Ubuntu and Gnome.

This year I put them both into a recycle bin as I very well felt their
"Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" tactics.

Just my two cents too. :-)

> Just my two cents. Ignore or reply at your discretion.
>