1 |
On Monday 17 Feb 2014 07:01:53 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: |
2 |
> 17.02.2014 00:19, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-uno@××××××.ru> |
4 |
> > wrote: [ snip ] |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> >> Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of |
7 |
> >> systemd? ;) |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Even religious. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why |
14 |
> > the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion). |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Oh I have read so many discussions already... :) |
17 |
> To me, systemd's technical superiority is far not obvious. Just another |
18 |
> init system would be, but as long as systemd is much more that one, I |
19 |
> can't say that. It should NOT be compared to OpenRC / upstart alone, |
20 |
> rather to a whole bunch of tools it replaces, and probably even those |
21 |
> it's ambitious to replace. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> >> I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into |
24 |
> >> any existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just |
25 |
> >> practical uselessness? |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > If it's "practically useless", why so many distributions keep choosing |
28 |
> > it? Why GNOME started using it? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Well, I said that technical superiority matters little for maintainers; |
31 |
> what matters is money. If I'd write some super-puper fancy init system |
32 |
> and kernel replacement, who would be interested? It's not the time of |
33 |
> Linus' rise, now you don't deal with USENET freaks, but with Intel, |
34 |
> RedHat and other billionaire corps. Do you have the guts and means to |
35 |
> keep up with competitors, even not about kernel/init subsystems, but a |
36 |
> user app like mailer/browser/messenger... |
37 |
> A kernel subsystem requires much more technical competence to maintain |
38 |
> and is far more critical for functioning, so much more important here is |
39 |
> not any 'technical superiority' but simply resources, human and |
40 |
> financial, spared if using RH-maintained systemd. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> >> Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the |
43 |
> >> Linux kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example |
44 |
> >> of kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also |
45 |
> >> has much in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", |
46 |
> >> "Believe us it provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary |
47 |
> >> logs" etc. |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> > All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft |
50 |
> > becomes moot. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Once you mentioned "technical superiority", let's compare other stuff |
53 |
> technically too. :) |
54 |
> |
55 |
> >> A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the |
56 |
> >> questions: |
57 |
> >> 1. Is the software standards-compliant? |
58 |
> >> 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation? |
59 |
> >> 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal? |
60 |
> >> 4. Does the software achieve the goal? |
61 |
> >> 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"? |
62 |
> >> 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be |
63 |
> >> like? 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company |
64 |
> >> or group? |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care |
67 |
> > if Emacs is "standards-compliant" (whatever that means for a text |
68 |
> > editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible |
69 |
> > implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be |
70 |
> > yes. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> You don't care about Emacs and Inkscape but do you care the same nought |
73 |
> about e.g. /bin/cp, /bin/mv etc? Do you care that your browser talks |
74 |
> HTTP rather than SHiTP? Do you care that once after a couple of years |
75 |
> your systems get unmaintained and unmaintainable because the software on |
76 |
> them becomes a load of bashed up crap which only a world's head lennart |
77 |
> can deal with? Well, you'll say that red hat tralala, but we've seen the |
78 |
> rise and fall of many giants e.g. Sun with their once 'technically |
79 |
> superior' Solaris and SPARCs, well one can name many I just don't have |
80 |
> time, also we seen MySQL bought by Oracle, and all. |
81 |
> Nothing is eternal, and it's (Again!) quite not always technical matters |
82 |
> that matters. |
83 |
> |
84 |
> >> AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are |
85 |
> >> dubious if just plain "no". |
86 |
> >> |
87 |
> > From your point of view. |
88 |
> > |
89 |
> >> I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to |
90 |
> >> switch to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and |
91 |
> >> the benefit, if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold. |
92 |
> > |
93 |
> > That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and |
94 |
> > unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd, |
95 |
> > then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start |
96 |
> > maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it. |
97 |
> |
98 |
> At present, no. But the trend is clear. |
99 |
> |
100 |
> > That's how free software works. |
101 |
> |
102 |
> Actually, free software (one you don't pay for) works like any other |
103 |
> software you pay for. You probably wanted to say "that's how the OSS |
104 |
> model works" but it's getting less and less true. The OSS model in many |
105 |
> cases retains only its open source. Take MySQL, take KDE, take GNOME. |
106 |
> Who cares about users? We do what we deem feasible regardless if you |
107 |
> like it or not. Don't like it? C'mon, fork, it's free. C'mon, it's |
108 |
> technically superior. C'mon, who are you? An admin? A programmer? A |
109 |
> Bachelor/PhD? Ha, man, we're BILLIONAIRES. That says it. We GRANT you |
110 |
> our software AS IS. And its source. And its bugtrackers. We make |
111 |
> business by the fact that we have millions of free testers 'round the |
112 |
> world. We can afford that. If you can afford forking and maintaining, |
113 |
> c'mon man. |
114 |
> |
115 |
> >> But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. |
116 |
> >> Time is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, |
117 |
> >> twice the money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the |
118 |
> >> users' opinion. To be a realist, one has to admit that in near future |
119 |
> >> 90% of new distro versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green |
120 |
> >> soxx emerge and take over Red Hat... |
121 |
> > |
122 |
> > I don't think neither time nor money had to do with Debian's (nor |
123 |
> > Arch's, nor OpenSuse's, nor Maegia's, nor Sabayon's) decision. |
124 |
> |
125 |
> It's not in terms "think" or "don't think". It's a fact. |
126 |
> |
127 |
> > It's just technically superior. But's that's just my opinion, and what |
128 |
> > I believe ;) |
129 |
> |
130 |
> That's a good thing to believe in. It's hard to prove, hard to see, |
131 |
> impossible to test all cases. |
132 |
> Money is what you don't believe in. You either have it enough or not. |
133 |
> |
134 |
> > So, amen? :D |
135 |
> |
136 |
> Amen. :D |
137 |
> |
138 |
> > Regards. |
139 |
|
140 |
I am not sure if people object to the Lennart-way of messing up Linux, under |
141 |
the blessings of RHL, or if they just don't like the immediate outcome. |
142 |
|
143 |
Essentially, in his arrogance Lennart only needs to code things the way *he* |
144 |
sees as useful or expedient to him and his pay masters. In doing so he throws |
145 |
the *nix way of developing software out of the window and creates a convenient |
146 |
for him monolith. Wherever he can't be bothered to do a neat and versatile |
147 |
job he makes his own arguably option-limiting decisions and thus we have |
148 |
arrived to today's flavour of systemd-udev-pulseaudio-gnome and whatever else |
149 |
he will try to weld in tomorrow. He found like minds in Sievers et al and |
150 |
money from RHL helped them get there. |
151 |
|
152 |
It ain't pretty and architecturally does not follow the *nix design |
153 |
principles, but as Canek says, those who can code better should step up to the |
154 |
plate and redesign systemd as it should have been done from the start for the |
155 |
benefit of Linux, without making the design compromises that Lennart has |
156 |
decided suit him. I don't know if forking systemd is easy, but no one has so |
157 |
far decided to do so. |
158 |
|
159 |
Given the title of this thread I fear that those of us who can't code, will |
160 |
increasingly find our choices becoming limited, because more and more |
161 |
functionality is hacked inextricably into systemd and friends. It's probably |
162 |
too early to call if Gentoo will remain one of the few options in Linux that |
163 |
do not use systemd, but decisions taken upstream (for example initrd for |
164 |
separate /usr) are affecting some us already. |
165 |
-- |
166 |
Regards, |
167 |
Mick |