Tweet
Hello,
I have recently stumbled upon a great article written by the uselessd maintainer that revolves around the topic of systemd debates. It can be found here:
The Initfinder General discusses at length various claims made by both proponents and opponents of systemd and shows that most of the arguments are mistaken. Then, it proceeds to explain differing cultural backgrounds of systemd proponents and opponents:
And concludes that:
I would add that the systemd debates seem to be typical "holy wars", as defined in the Jargon File (by Eric S. Raymond) (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/holy-wars.html):
I have recently stumbled upon a great article written by the uselessd maintainer that revolves around the topic of systemd debates. It can be found here:
The Initfinder General discusses at length various claims made by both proponents and opponents of systemd and shows that most of the arguments are mistaken. Then, it proceeds to explain differing cultural backgrounds of systemd proponents and opponents:
The technically competent sides tend to largely fall in these two broad categories:
a) Proponents are usually part of the modern Desktop Linux bandwagon. They run contemporary mainstream distributions with the latest software, use and contribute to large desktop environment initiatives and related standards like the *kits. They?re not necessarily purely focused on the Linux desktop. They?ll often work on features ostensibly meant for enterprise server management, cloud computing, embedded systems and other needs, but the rhetoric of needing a better desktop and following the example set by Windows and OS X is largely pervasive amongst their ranks. They will decry what they perceive as ?integration failures?, ?fragmentation? and are generally hostile towards research projects and anything they see as ?toy projects?. They are hackers, but their mindset is largely geared towards reducing interface complexity, instead of implementation complexity, and will frequently argue against the alleged pitfalls of too much configurability, while seeing computers as appliances instead of tools.
b) Opponents are a bit more varied in their backgrounds, but they typically hail from more niche distributions like Slackware, Gentoo, CRUX and others. They are largely uninterested in many of the Desktop Linux ?advancements?, value configuration, minimalism and care about malleability more than user friendliness. They?re often familiar with many other Unix-like environments besides Linux, though they retain a fondness for the latter. They have their own pet projects and are likely to use, contribute to or at least follow a lot of small projects in the low-level system plumbing area. They can likely name at least a dozen alternatives to the GNU coreutils (I can name about 7, I think), generally favor traditional Unix principles and see computers as tools. These are the people more likely to be sympathetic to things like the suckless philosophy.
a) Proponents are usually part of the modern Desktop Linux bandwagon. They run contemporary mainstream distributions with the latest software, use and contribute to large desktop environment initiatives and related standards like the *kits. They?re not necessarily purely focused on the Linux desktop. They?ll often work on features ostensibly meant for enterprise server management, cloud computing, embedded systems and other needs, but the rhetoric of needing a better desktop and following the example set by Windows and OS X is largely pervasive amongst their ranks. They will decry what they perceive as ?integration failures?, ?fragmentation? and are generally hostile towards research projects and anything they see as ?toy projects?. They are hackers, but their mindset is largely geared towards reducing interface complexity, instead of implementation complexity, and will frequently argue against the alleged pitfalls of too much configurability, while seeing computers as appliances instead of tools.
b) Opponents are a bit more varied in their backgrounds, but they typically hail from more niche distributions like Slackware, Gentoo, CRUX and others. They are largely uninterested in many of the Desktop Linux ?advancements?, value configuration, minimalism and care about malleability more than user friendliness. They?re often familiar with many other Unix-like environments besides Linux, though they retain a fondness for the latter. They have their own pet projects and are likely to use, contribute to or at least follow a lot of small projects in the low-level system plumbing area. They can likely name at least a dozen alternatives to the GNU coreutils (I can name about 7, I think), generally favor traditional Unix principles and see computers as tools. These are the people more likely to be sympathetic to things like the suckless philosophy.
What we?re seeing is undoubtedly a cultural clash by two polar opposites that coexist in the Linux community. We can see it in action through the vitriol against Red Hat developers, and conversely the derision against Gentoo users on part of Lennart Poettering, Greg K-H and others. Though it appears in this case ?Gentoo user? is meant as a metonym for Linux users whose needs fall outside the mainstream application set. Theo de Raadt infamously quipped that Linux is ?for people who hate Microsoft?, but that quote is starting to appear outdated.
[...]
Ultimately, the cruel irony is that in systemd?s attempt to supposedly unify the distributions, it has created a huge rift unlike any other and is exacerbating the long-present hostilities between desktop Linux and minimalist Linux sides at rates that are absolutely atypical. What will end up of systemd remains unknown. Given Linux?s tendency for chaos, it might end up the new HAL, though with a significantly more painful aftermath, or it might continue on its merry way and become a Linux standard set in stone, in which case the Linux community will see a sharp ideological divide. Or perhaps it won?t. Perhaps things will go on as usual, on an endless spiral of reinvention without climax. Perhaps we will be doomed to flame on systemd for all eternity. Perhaps we?ll eventually get sick of it and just part our own ways into different corners.
[...]
Ultimately, the cruel irony is that in systemd?s attempt to supposedly unify the distributions, it has created a huge rift unlike any other and is exacerbating the long-present hostilities between desktop Linux and minimalist Linux sides at rates that are absolutely atypical. What will end up of systemd remains unknown. Given Linux?s tendency for chaos, it might end up the new HAL, though with a significantly more painful aftermath, or it might continue on its merry way and become a Linux standard set in stone, in which case the Linux community will see a sharp ideological divide. Or perhaps it won?t. Perhaps things will go on as usual, on an endless spiral of reinvention without climax. Perhaps we will be doomed to flame on systemd for all eternity. Perhaps we?ll eventually get sick of it and just part our own ways into different corners.
The characteristic that distinguishes holy wars from normal technical disputes is that in a holy war most of the participants spend their time trying to pass off personal value choices and cultural attachments as objective technical evaluations.