1 |
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> [snip] |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> I didn't started the thread, Wolfe did. I just answered his question |
7 |
>> from my point of view. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> And, what community is being divided? Fedora,OpenSuse, and Arch use |
10 |
>> systemd by default. Gentoo derivative Exherbo recommends it as init |
11 |
>> system. It works great on Gentoo and Debian. I understand it even |
12 |
>> works in Ubuntu. systemd has done more to unify the Linux ecosystem |
13 |
>> than a lot of other projects in the last 20 years. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> And, really, I don't care about OpenBSD. I worked with it for three |
16 |
>> years; it's a nice toy Unix. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> You do realize you just lost any moral high ground you might have had |
19 |
> over saying things that might or might not offend others? Seriously? |
20 |
> "toy"? |
21 |
|
22 |
Hey, it's my opinion. You don't need to agree with me and, again, I |
23 |
don't pretend to offend anyone. It's jsut what I think. Have you read |
24 |
the name calling against GNOME and udev/systemd projects, developers |
25 |
and/or users? How come you never say anything about those? |
26 |
|
27 |
> I'm not an OpenBSD user. But I do know it's one of the longest-lived, |
28 |
> most prominent UNIX-like systems in the ecosystem, and it's the home |
29 |
> for a huge amount of code that's imported by virtually every other |
30 |
> notable operating system. |
31 |
|
32 |
Longest-lived mean nothing. Literally. Minix is older than all the |
33 |
modern *BSDs and Linux, and its author called it (until recently) a |
34 |
toy Unix. |
35 |
|
36 |
> To call it a "toy" tells me you know next to nothing about the history |
37 |
> (or even present) positions and involvement of the major players of |
38 |
> the UNIX-like ecosystem over the last twenty years. |
39 |
|
40 |
I know my Unix history, thank you very much. Do you? You read LWN, don't you? |
41 |
|
42 |
http://lwn.net/Articles/524606/ |
43 |
|
44 |
I call OpenBSD a toy Unix in the sense of the above article's quote: |
45 |
|
46 |
"There will be fewer and fewer settings where BSD-based systems will |
47 |
operate in the way their users want. |
48 |
|
49 |
That, needless to say, is a recipe for irrelevance and, eventually, |
50 |
disappearance." |
51 |
|
52 |
>> But for serious work (server, desktop and |
53 |
>> mobile) I prefer Linux, and in my case (except for my phone, that uses |
54 |
>> Android) I run Gentoo+systemd in all my machines. You don't have to |
55 |
>> agree with that, is my personal preference. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Canek, I have to ask. Have you ever done _anything_ outside of |
58 |
> academia? Up to Masters, academia is learning about what is. |
59 |
> Afterward, it's either about teaching or discovering what may be...but |
60 |
> a Masters only teaches you theory. A Doctorate is a discovery of a |
61 |
> truth under controlled conditions. The real world is nowhere near that |
62 |
> clean. |
63 |
|
64 |
Again, thank you for teaching me about the real world. I worked for |
65 |
various years between my Bachelor's and Master's degrees, programming |
66 |
and administering Linux, SCO, BSD and Aix systems. I still administer |
67 |
several machines in my university. I think I know the real world, |
68 |
thanks. |
69 |
|
70 |
> Quite frankly, I've found your emails to have to have a far more pomp, |
71 |
> ipsie dixit arguments, playbook arguments and appeals to authority |
72 |
> than hard, technical defense of arguments against your positions in |
73 |
> debate. Generally, I try to ignore you, and when I respond, it's |
74 |
> usually because your emails carry with them a tone of authority that |
75 |
> could easily mislead the uninformed into assuming he'd just read the |
76 |
> One True Way on some subject--something that's terrible when there are |
77 |
> real differences and not always clear-cut answers. |
78 |
|
79 |
Relax Michael; as I said in other emails: who the fuck cares what I |
80 |
say or who I am? Wolfe made a question, I tried to answer it to the |
81 |
best of my knowledge. That's it: nobody has to agree with me, nobody |
82 |
has to do anything about what I write. Not even read it. |
83 |
|
84 |
By the way, did you read whay Kevin told me? |
85 |
|
86 |
""" |
87 |
> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between |
88 |
> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in |
89 |
> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how* |
90 |
> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in |
91 |
> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And |
92 |
> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely |
93 |
> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power |
94 |
> that shell gives you). |
95 |
> |
96 |
|
97 |
Then you don't have a great deal of experience in init systems. |
98 |
""" |
99 |
|
100 |
I understand that in the Gentoo mailing lists (which doens't |
101 |
necessarily reflect the Gentoo community as a whole), us udev/systemd |
102 |
users and supporters look like a (very maligned) minority. I |
103 |
understand a lot of people here doesn't like the direction |
104 |
udev/systemd is taking Linux. But it's really kinda funny how people |
105 |
react when we calmly try to express why do we like said direction. |
106 |
|
107 |
> I try very, very hard to avoid both the use and appearance of use of |
108 |
> ad hominem arguments and reasoning. I do my damnedest to give the |
109 |
> benefit of the doubt. However, quite frankly, I've read almost |
110 |
> everything you've posted to this list over the last year and a half, |
111 |
> and you've never consistently exhibited an awareness of pragmatic |
112 |
> concerns for the subject, an understanding of the low levels issues in |
113 |
> theoretical concerns of the subject, or an ability to stick to |
114 |
> technical argument in a non-evasive fashion; that you might be wrong |
115 |
> on a technical point never occurs to you, and when pressed, you engage |
116 |
> in sophistry. Quite frankly, you act and speak more like a PR |
117 |
> spokesman than an engineer. |
118 |
|
119 |
I'm not an engineer. I'm a computer scientist for what is worth. |
120 |
|
121 |
> It's this behavior that probably led Bruce to make a crack about your |
122 |
> defense of systemd to an irrational degree. You advocate, but you |
123 |
> don't respond to criticisms with substance, suggesting your advocacy |
124 |
> isn't something based on rational motivation. |
125 |
|
126 |
In yout point of view, sure. |
127 |
|
128 |
> My purpose in debate isn't to win, it's to understand. I would be |
129 |
> positively delighted if you would approach debate the with the same |
130 |
> goal; we might be able to learn from each other. |
131 |
|
132 |
I have learned from you Michael; you usually have something |
133 |
intelligent to say, and you usually do with calm and an open mind. I'm |
134 |
sorry if you don't think the same of me, but as I said in the other |
135 |
threads, I try to stick to the technical arguments. |
136 |
|
137 |
Of course sometimes I'm wrong. I just don't understand what it has to |
138 |
do with anything in this thread in particular: Wolfe asked what |
139 |
advantages had OpenRC and systemd over SysV, and I said the ones *I* |
140 |
believe are the most important ones. Nothing else. |
141 |
|
142 |
Then Kevin started to suggest that I know nothing about init systems, |
143 |
and I responded in kind. Perhaps I shouldn't have, that I give you, |
144 |
but if that's the tone that starts to populate the thread, I felt that |
145 |
it was the right thing to do. Again, perhaps I'm wrong. |
146 |
|
147 |
I don't pretend to "win" anything, by the way. As I have said many |
148 |
times, the future of Linux is in the hands of the people writing the |
149 |
code, not the people screaming at each other about what is right or |
150 |
wrong. I doesn't matter the discussion here if no one involved writes |
151 |
a single line of code. I just saw Wolfe's question, and I tried (I |
152 |
hope I succeeded) to respond it. |
153 |
|
154 |
Probably I should have dono like you do and ignore Kevin's response. |
155 |
Perhaps I will do that next time. |
156 |
|
157 |
Regards. |
158 |
-- |
159 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
160 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
161 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |