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

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:49:47 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > The whole deep integration approach and lack of
>> > inter-module boundaries doesn't allow one to write replaceable blocks
>> > without crazy hacking.
>>
>> Well, then go and show them how it's done. And please don't say that
>> "it's already done", because if that were the case, no distro would
>> have adopted systemd.
>>
>> They adopted it because of the features it offers.
>
> What features? As far as I can see if we compare to openrc, the only
> missed feature is logind for which it is declared to be better than
> consolekit. I can't argue here because I never used either one.

Exactly.

I (and many others) do *use* those features. We *want* those features.
Therefore, distros want to *provide* those features, because I'm not
in the minority.

If you don't wnat those features that's fine, of course.

> At this moment I have about 50 Gentoo boxes (in hardware) at my
> control including both personal and work hardware including laptops,
> desktops, production servers and two HPC setups (not to count
> hundreds of LXC containers). And I see neither reason nor need for
> systemd here.

That's fine; I think it would make your life easier, specially with
the containers (check out systemd-nspawn), but nobody is forcing you
to use systemd.

> From what I can see, all this systemd boom started from Gnome's GDM
> dropping support for anything aside from systemd. Afterwards
> distributions started to switch to systemd one after another in order
> to fully support Gnome-3 setups. And now we have a little fact here:
> Lennart Poettering is a long time Gnome contributor. Which leads me to
> only one conclusion: situation we have now is a deliberate sabotage
> in order to acquire as much influence by RH as possible. Influence
> leads to a sales market expansion, which leads to a profit. So we
> have money here as a root cause of all this boom — a root of all evil
> and a root of systemd. All "features and benefits" are nothing more
> than just an excuse for the aim for market domination and more profit.

I've never payed RedHat a single cent. I've donated money to some
Linux projects, but never to RedHat. I really don't see your point: I
*want* the features systemd provides, it makes *my* life easier.

Mine and of many others.

That is completely orthogonal to you using (or not) or wanting (or not) systemd.

>> > Just imagine that one have PCI-E bus and this bug is being replaced
>> > with some other PC-systemd bus, where one have to interface each
>> > component differently. And if one removes e.g. audio card some other
>> > seemingly independent component e.g. network controller becomes
>> > broken. That is the nature of systemd and that is many people dislike
>> > this technology.
>>
>> That is a broken analogy; if logind has a bug, that doesn't affect
>> timedated, nor udev.
>
> No, it is not. You can not remove systemd-udevd and replace it
> with mdev or static dev without broking most of other systemd
> components. The same way in my analogy you can not remove audio card
> without broking network controller.

But you can remove logind (and systemd, in fact), and have udev working.

The others are simple software dependencies. You cannot remove Gtk+
from GNOME, nor Qt from KDE. You cannot remove Linux if you want to
use LXC.

What's the problem with that?

>> >> > That said, it seems to me that, for now at least, it isn't that big a deal
>> >> > to switch back and forth between systemd and, for example, OpenRC.
>> >>
>> >> It depends; right now you can't switch back and forth between OpenRC
>> >> and systemd without reemerging some stuff. Some of those packages
>> >> *could* be made to switch functionality at run time instead of compile
>> >> time, but SOMEONE has to write that support, and it's probably that
>> >> the upstream for the package will not accept those changes, since for
>> >> binary distributions it makes no sense to have the complexity on the
>> >> code of switching behavior at runtime when doing at compile time is
>> >> easier and the distribution generates one binary per architecture for
>> >> all its users.
>> >
>> > The most sane and fair solution was already proposed: create a
>> > systemd profile for those who need it. I personally highly dislike
>> > systemd technology, but I respect the right of other to shoot them in
>> > the leg (or head) as much as they want to. This is Gentoo: a universal
>> > constructor providing people means to build any system in any shape
>> > they need.
>>
>> If someone willing and able provides any choice, that choice will be available.
>
> What choice? For features neither used nor needed before?

*You* don't need them; *you* don't use them. Many of us do.

> Before
> systemd we had our choice: sysvinit, openrc, runit, epoch... By
> enforcing unwanted features to us systemd takes our freedom and our
> choice.

Who's enforcing anything on you? Go on and roll your own Linux
distribution free from the systemd "virus".

You will be *always* be able to do that, because the software is free.

>> > Unfortunately chances are that in future some software may become
>> > unusable or unsupported outside of systemd profile. But patches may
>> > be created and other profiles will continue to live the same way
>> > hardened exists now and will continue to exist later.
>>
>> Yeah, and that's my whole point: if you want that the world outside of
>> systemd keeps working, you need to step in. Complaining about systemd
>> will get no one nowhere.
>
> That's the point of systemd adepts: we'll break things the way we
> want, fix them yourself if you dare.

No, the software (as you said) worked before systemd arrived, right?
Then maintain it from the last version that didn't need it systemd.
Problem solved.

> Behind the curtain you're just
> offloading your work to others or, more precisely, your time efforts
> to others.

No; you want to offload the work to the maintainers. The maintainers
(usually) want to support the largest number of users; systemd
provides features that make maintainers life easier, so they choose
it. Then the distribution chooses systemd, since several projects
anyhow requires systemd.

*You* don't want systemd; but you are not the one writing the code for
the package, or the project, nor the distribution. Guess what? The
people writing the software makes the choices.

You want the maintainers do the job of the  so it works without
systemd, when that's actually *more* work for them. Why should they
listen to you?

Go around and gather all the systemd-haters. Make them work so the
package/project/distribution keeps working without systemd. Not enough
talented people? Well, that's not the maintainer problem, is it?

> I don't like that. Do whatever you want to do, but please
> do not be intrusive into other domains and respect the freedom of
> choice of others.

I don't care about anyone else choices. The choice is there; the
software is FREE. I don't force anyone to use anything (how could I?,
how could anyone?)

>> > BTW it was shown at the recent LVEE Winter 2014 conference that GDM
>> > can be easily freed from systemd and OpenBSD guys have an interesting
>> > idea for faking systemd presence for applications requesting one
>> > mandatory. Though IMO any end-user application strictly dependable on
>> > any init system is broken by design: for a daemon there should be no
>> > difference by which tool it was started.
>>
>> GNOME depends on logind, not systemd. And no one has been willing and
>> able to produce a compatible replacement: logind works with a dbus
>> API, so it's (in theory) *easy* to duplicate its functionality. Ubuntu
>> has been working in a replacement, but (AFAIU) is not finished.
>
> And logind hardly depends on systemd . That's why Gnome depends on
> systemd.

There is (apparently) no one willing and able to write a replacement.
Again, that's not systemd's fault, nor GNOME's, which wants to use
it's features.

>> > The real reason is money: systemd is a Red
>> > Hat project (despite being formally open for everyone) and is their
>> > tool^Wweapon to fight with Canonical for a sales market. It the last
>> > years RH was pushed near even in a server market and now they are
>> > fighting back.
>>
>> Nice conspiracy theory you have going on.
>
> You may call facts as like as you want to. This will not change them.

Facts are backed by evidence; otherwise is hearsay.

>> > They were lucky enough to acquire Poettiring guy and
>> > create from a simple and sound sysvinit (which is an important but
>> > not dictating peace of software) a key component where they can
>> > dictate their own line, where they can lead all Linux community in
>> > a way they need.
>>
>> And it gets better. Citation needed? Any hard proof?
>
> Citation for what? You're free to analyze fact and trends yourself.

I just did analyze them above. I think you will demise my analysis,
like I do yours.

>> > That the real reason I despise systemd: in replaces the freedom of
>> > choice by a dictatorship of a small bunch of managers of a single
>> > corporation (yes, managers, not developers). And all this is under the
>> > veil of GPL and technical merits. This is the poison in the well of
>> > FOSS.
>>
>> I don't work for RedHat; I teach in a University. Nobody pays me for
>> using systemd; I just choose to because I think is a technical sound
>> solution for the chaos that was the plumbing layer in Linux.
>
> This chaos is called freedom, freedom of choice, which leads to
> diversity, evolution and security.

The choice is there for you to evolve any free software you want to.
Systemd has certainly evolved since its inception 4 years ago.

> With every system unified in
> its core component we'll have a nice single and easily targeted point
> of failure.

That's a valid point. Good thing a very large group of very
experienced, very capable people (with members from basically every
distribution under the sun, including Gentoo) is working in making
this core component as rock solid as possible.

> With systemd on most Linux distributions viruses (in
> terms of self-spreading windows malware) are just a matter of time.

Let's see. I highly doubt it; I mean, Fedora, OpenSuse and Arch have
been using systemd for years now, and it hasn't happened yet.

> If this folly will not be stopped before it's spread you may recall my
> words in about five years.

Wanna bet a beer it doesn't happen? I'm willing to bet a beer.

(I don't drink beer, BTW).

>> The technical merits and advantages of systemd are there in the open
>> for anyone willing to study a little about it. *After* you carefully
>> read the code, the documentation, and test the software in real life,
>> you *may* still think you don't like the software or its design.
>
> Believe me or not, but I tested it, I read its docs and I studied its
> code. I vomited.

I believe you. I respect your opinion. I do not share it. So I think
the sane thing to do is to agree to disagree.

> There are two major types of failures: design failure and
> implementation failure. I'm tolerant to implementation issues, anyone
> have them after all. But monolithic deeply integrated approach is
> flawed by design. Even this issue can be tolerated as long as project
> is supposed to be compatible and replaceable with other solutions
> (remember, everyone has right to shoot oneself in the leg). But if
> project is being aggressively enforced, this is no way to go.

Again, I agree to disagree with you.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México