Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X.Org Server Systemd Integration Proposed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    Systemd silently taking over the ecosystem...
    Yeah, but there's no point in trying to get this message through to Phoronix audience. Nobody's listening.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rudregues View Post
      Ok, I was being ironic criticizing systemd with my previous post... To note:




      The problem with systemd is some invasive politics of development. It is modular just internally.
      Some pieces are really modular. And I don't think it's invasive anyway, politically or technically. See, the modular pieces can be used without the rest of the project, with makes for real modularity. systemd is usable without a lot of the pieces, although this makes up for bloat more than modularity. You can usually substitute this pieces with pieces from other projects, which makes it relevant to modularity. On being invasive, if I'm reading your mind correctly as which part of the project is that makes it invasive, I'll tell it's because of implementing too much things aside from the init system, like the ifupdown substitute (I don't recall the names and I'm too sleepy to look for them now). If that's the case, you can build systemd without it, and use the original, thus, not invasive. If you mean because they integrate it into other projects, A) you could blame the other projects' maintainers, not systemd itself (maybe you could blame Red Hat's influence in them instead, but not systemd itself as by itself it is just a piece of tech, and it's not a reason to discard it IMO; Debian avoiding it is certainly not going to change a thing on how systemd behaves politically and technically anyway) and B) in most cases they are build time options. The most obvious example being GNOME, the problem is not that they are using logind, but that nobody cares enough to maintain the ConsoleKit frontend. If you want the features depending on such functionality, you'll need either logind or ConsoleKit. You can't expect systemd people to maintain ConsoleKit, can you? If you have a problem with it, either pay someone or maintain it, as GNOME developers don't want to do that work, and asked for volunteers for that task. Nobody did volunteer.

      Comment


      • #33
        Note in my previous post I somehow thought I was on the Debian voting init system thread. Still, change the point on Debian avoiding systemd for X.org rejecting the patches, assuming it's a build time option. If it's making it a hard dependency, then I agree that there is some serious problem here with invading. Specially as systemd doesn't run outside of Linux, and making X11 depend on it would involve not being able to use X11 outside of Linux.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rudregues View Post
          Ok, I was being ironic criticizing systemd with my previous post... To note:


          I read it, and its one huge lie/mistake.
          Systemd is written in C, where others are shell scripts of different sorts.

          Mind you, each shell script causes shell process to spawn. Count that LoC for every instance together.
          And uses different coreutils and linux-ng tools. Add this.
          And they all use standard libraries.

          In the end, unrolled within machine, they end up having similar or even more LoC, much more overhead, much less efficient integration.

          Where systemd truly distances itself, is that it does not reuse same "universal" isles via lousy spaghetti of shell code, but instead creates linear, structured subsystem with distinguished configurable parts.
          As what an init system does, is pretty much settled over years and ability to "rewire" just everything is hardly a use case, why not?

          I came to understanding that if one needs more than several shell instances, especially in efficiency-critical places, then one does it wrong. Why spawn a mirriad of shell clones just for the reason of executing a few lines? Why limit ourselves to capabilities and inefficiencies of a shell?

          Only BSD-init can concurrent with systemd in terms of overhead, but in terms of features BSD-init looses hands down.

          Originally posted by rudregues View Post
          The problem with systemd is some invasive politics of development. It is modular just internally.
          "Better" is an enemy of "good". And we look at "blood" of the system.
          Also, why not to join systemd developers as a "othersystem" crew ?
          The only two requirements are: ability to keep the pace and to never ask for feature degradation via "legacy" argument.

          My understanding is that current team focuses on "Linux" target, its their right to do so.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
            If it's making it a hard dependency, then I agree that there is some serious problem here with invading.
            Speaking of dependencies, does anyone here remember that Gnome 3 depends on pulseaudio? Well, Cinnamon developers said that in v2.0 they got rid of Gnome stuff but guess what? Cinnamon 2.0 still depends on pulseaudio. Nice, eh? It's very easy to add false dependencies but not so easy to get rid of them further down the road.

            Which brings us back to systemd that tries to usurp the entire userland, not just the DE. Of course Lennart didn't invent hijacking via false dependencies. I believe Canonical was the first to do that when they made plymouth a hard dependency for mountall in Ubuntu 10.04. Gotta give them credit, that was brilliant. Wanna uninstall crap we're forcing down your throats? Fine, but your system won't boot anymore.

            The really hilarious (and sad) part of all this is that people will scream bloody murder - tomorrow when it's too late and Red Hat makes or influences all userland-related decisions. And you know who will cry the loudest? The same rabid systemd fanoboys who readily accept all the crap coming from Lennart & Co. today without even thinking of long-term consequences.

            Comment


            • #36
              I wonder why all the systemd hate. Sometimes you need to politically force a technically superior technology. For example, without pulseaudio you can't switch from Hi-Fi near field monitors to headphones without shutting down apps. I don't give a s*it about latencies. Pulseaudio allows switching the audio device and it can also interface with proprietary protocols such as AirPlay. This is something worth enforcing, starting from kernel level.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by caligula View Post
                I wonder why all the systemd hate. Sometimes you need to politically force a technically superior technology. For example, without pulseaudio you can't switch from Hi-Fi near field monitors to headphones without shutting down apps. I don't give a s*it about latencies. Pulseaudio allows switching the audio device and it can also interface with proprietary protocols such as AirPlay. This is something worth enforcing, starting from kernel level.
                If you want to be forced to have a single solution without alternatives you should rather go for Windows or OS X.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                  If you want to be forced to have a single solution without alternatives you should rather go for Windows or OS X.
                  I just want a working system. For example easy switching between audio devices. For example I have tablet, headphones, monitor speakers for PC and bigger speaker for TV. I want to use them all as sinks when using Linux music players.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by caligula View Post
                    Sometimes you need to politically force
                    Please go back to Windows. Because this is precisely the kind of crap we need an alternative for. The whole reason for Linux existence used to be that nobody could force anything upon the community. And now people talk about freedom in the FOSS more than ever yet somehow they're ready to surrender what's left of that freedom without a fight.
                    Last edited by prodigy_; 28 January 2014, 03:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                      Please go back to Windows. Because this is precisely the kind of crap we need an alternative for. The whole reason for Linux existence used to be that nobody could force anything upon the community. And now people talk about freedom in the FOSS more than ever yet somehow they're ready to surrender what's left of that freedom without a fight.
                      It's crazy the number of alternatives the X Server had all these years...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X