So where are your arguments exactly? Everything so far has been picked apart. You have zero knowledge of Linux or open source development despite your efforts to write intelligently. What’s the problem with systemd? Tell us? Which api’s are so unstable that they are causing an issue for you? Point to it.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Systemd 244 Released With New Init System Features For Black Friday
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by arokh View PostSo where are your arguments exactly? Everything so far has been picked apart. You have zero knowledge of Linux or open source development despite your efforts to write intelligently. What’s the problem with systemd? Tell us? Which api’s are so unstable that they are causing an issue for you? Point to it.
You may want to check what's the most recent GNOME3 version in FreeBSD ports, it's couple of years old due to hard systemd-dependencies porters have problems getting around. Why? Because systemd interfaces are so tightly integrated that if you actually managed to write compatible replacement - you'd end up with similar behemoth. Which was reason some attempts (like uselessd) were simply given up. If it wasn't for that shit, I would not, I repeat, give rats ass about systemd.
"that picked apart" - mostly it's been answered by personal opinions, insults and (f)actual idiocies. Not by arguments.
You want example:
Considering that the only decent thing the GNU project maintains is the GCC, I don't see that as a bad thing.
But I'm sure you have no idea of what GNU project does at all and you are just talking out of your ass about ideological stuff.
Since internal config settings have become so multi-layered and complicated, everything has to be driven by GUI's.
answered by;
More talking of things you have no idea of.
Obviously, they either cannot find the underlying config files and edit them accordingly or it's not supposed to even happen. I've had that same issue in OpenSUSE and I quit the attempts to to do it outside GUI utilities when I saw XML-driven configs it has there..
Comment
-
Originally posted by arokh View PostTell me again why any Linux open source developer should give a rat's ass about FreeBSD? If the BSD crowd can't code stubs that's really not systemd's problem.
Common sense says that more options are better than fewer. Explain me please, how "eating out" alternative solutions is good for Linux distros as a whole? Because amount ot truly differing and interesting distros - that was true strength of Linux and made it interesting to explore, has dried up drastically. What remains are clones of handful major distros. You've seen handful, you've seen all.
Linux is using quite a lot of third party software in it's repositories which originate from BSD, some of it is used even by non-Unixlike OS'es like Windows (OpenSSH being the most notable). Yeah there are alternatives for some (or most: I haven't frankly cared enough to do detailed check). But, by distancing yourselves from "common grounds e. POSIX" you are making porting that software over to Linux harder for yourselves. Some of the BSD software that would be really cool to have on Linux, have remained unported due NIH and/or differences in core os since beginning (pf for example - which Oracle ported to Solaris, so it's not "definitely BSD specific").
I've even read someone's bitching in some Phoronix's BSD thread about problems porting OpenSSH over to Linux and that it's somehow in his eyes "BSD's fault" (like it's BSD ignoring POSIX common grounds, not Linux). Even when Linux has it's own implementations, that software becomes useful when your own implementations happen to royally fuck up yet again (for example: When OpenSSL happens to have another major security issue, you have ready alternative in LibreSSL. When Bind fucks up, you'll have Unbound to replace it with). BSD software sphere offers kind of fail-safes for such an eventualities.
You can count on BSD stuff having on average better coding quality and BSD devs finishing their projects properly more likely than you can count on coding quality and finishing of most Linux projects - see frequent and legendary bitching by Torvalds on the very topic over the fuckin' decades. With the difference that Torvalds does not defend anything but Linux kernel against semi-clueless coders.
"If X can't fix something that Y broke with his/her actions, then it's not Y's problem but X's" - Maybe it would be very time for raising above kindergarden attitude level? Are you responsible adult or a selfish pre-schooler?Last edited by aht0; 02 December 2019, 08:45 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by aht0 View PostYeah, and that's the problem. Basic human psychology attitude shift: from underdog revolutionary to arrogant aristocracy
Maybe I simply know better. Even Poettering seems to happily state that systemd internal API's are not stable.
Systemd APIs (used by their own daemons) is under a stability promise https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Sof...tabilityChart/
BSD is actually gaining users
Is it "progressing" or "running in circles", "chasing it's tail" or "reinventing itself over and over"?
coming from a guy (or girl?)
who routinely calls Solaris "Slowlaris"
and attacks relentlessly everyone who dare criticize systemd
Those heavyweights cannot control the direction of development in BSD.
From you mixing together "fork" and "Google"
You talked about how Google's own puppy OS is going to be so great and have a permissive license.
I pointed out that Google's own puppy OS is going to be orders of magnitude more "raped by megacorps" and "shoves stuff down your throat" than Linux will ever be as while in Linux there isn't a single master and they do develop competing features and frameworks (i.e. AppArmor vs Selinux for example), on Fuchsia you will have only one true master, Google.
Last edited by starshipeleven; 02 December 2019, 12:14 PM.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by aht0 View PostCommon sense says that more options are better than fewer.
For core components, you don't want too many options you can choose as this means a lot of duplication in all the distro.
What remains are clones of handful major distros. You've seen handful, you've seen all.
Before systemd everyone was using more or less the same script-based init and more or less the same userspace core applications anyway too.
Linux is using quite a lot of third party software in it's repositories which originate from BSD
you are making porting that software over to Linux harder for yourselves.
problems porting OpenSSH over to Linux and that it's somehow in his eyes "BSD's fault" (like it's BSD ignoring POSIX common grounds, not Linux)
But the problem isn't POSIX, the problem is using kernel features. Linux kernel features are not the same as BSD kernel features (actually these features are different even from a BSD to another)
When OpenSSL happens to have another major security issue, you have ready alternative in LibreSSL.
When Bind fucks up, you'll have Unbound to replace it with).
BSD software sphere offers kind of fail-safes for such an eventualities.
You can count on BSD stuff having on average better coding quality
BSD devs finishing their projects properly
"If X can't fix something that Y broke with his/her actions, then it's not Y's problem but X's"
Y offers a better way to do something and someone else contributed a way using Y to the upstream software that was accepted as it was indeed considered useful and merged.
If X can't be arsed to contribute or maintain a way to run the same software on X systems, then it's their own problem.
If the upstream software does not want to merge a way to run on X systems, then it is their own problem, not Y problem.Last edited by starshipeleven; 02 December 2019, 01:50 PM.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by aht0 View PostWriting stubs ain't easy, made so intentionally.
You may want to check what's the most recent GNOME3 version in FreeBSD ports, it's couple of years old due to hard systemd-dependencies porters have problems getting around. Why?
On Linux where the kernel is still Linux (duh) you will do fine with shims like elogind.
GNU Nano, GIMP, Midnight Commander, Parted, gawk, Core-fucking-Utils for chrissake..
One thing is what third party project they accepted and host on their infrastructure, one thing is what they actually make themselves.
And yes one of my main gripes is with coreutils, which IS a GNU project. I've yet to find something I can't do with busybox, that is like 1/10th of the size of their crap. Seriously, just look at the "true" tool. That's 35 kbytes to just return "true" when called.
Also their build system (Autotools) is ass.
Make is OK I guess.
If I use some distro, lets say OpenSUSE and switch over to, lets say, Artix.. average user is literally lost without having a GUI help him on system configuration.
Obviously, they either cannot find the underlying config files and edit them accordingly or it's not supposed to even happen. I've had that same issue in OpenSUSE and I quit the attempts to to do it outside GUI utilities when I saw XML-driven configs it has there..
OpenSUSE's GUI thing is reading from and writing into the same config files you find in any other distro, and it does that so it will not erase your manual changes to these files. Yes you heard it right, it will not overwrite your manual changes (unless you are changing the same exact entry in the config from the GUI too, that is).
If you want an example of a centralized config system that does not give a fuck about the user's manual edits to application configs we can talk of OpenWrt's own UCI, (and it's web GUI Luci) that generates the application-specific config files from scratch using its own internal and global configuration files, and any change you did to application configs is erased each time the subsystem config is reloaded in UCI or the system is rebooted.Last edited by starshipeleven; 02 December 2019, 01:45 PM.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by aht0 View PostI won't bother wasting more time on you. You already proved yourself troll in this with your "all GNU software is xxxx except GCC". Better things to do.
More ignorant bullshit on your part.
One thing is what third party project they accepted and host on their infrastructure, one thing is what they actually make themselves.
And yes one of my main gripes is with coreutils, which IS a GNU project. I've yet to find something I can't do with busybox, that is like 1/10th of the size of their crap. Seriously, just look at the "true" tool. That's 35 kbytes to just return "true" when called.
Also their build system (Autotools) is ass.
Make is OK I guess.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostI'd like to see some numbers on that. Not that I don't believe you but I think we are both right. BSD is gaining users, but it's not really anywhere near enough to matter.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostYou troll about Linux and I troll you about Slowlaris. That's poetic justice.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostYou have your own smaller heavy weights like iXsystems (FreeNAS and its proprietary counterpart) and Netgate (Pfsense), and Netflix.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostYou talked about how Linux is raped by megacorps and shoves stuff down your throat.
Check the commits to Linux kernel. What is the percentage authored by developers hired by some or other enterprise/company/conglomerate? 50+% last time I checked. Which mathemetically means "MAJORITY". So, in effect, enterprises largely have control over what gets added to the kernel, how it's implemented etc. Because if they would not do it, most likely nobody would. Torvalds & his minions only stop commits which are outrageously stupid, disruptive or bad quality - not even then always (code churn could exceed their ability and we do see often enough how big chunks of code are pulled back out). What concludes: it's mostly enterprises that steer the direction of Linux -> going vulgar: Linux is their butt-boy like I said. That's from the kernel side of things.
Now, systemd.. Big piece of software, bent on taking over the Linux ecosystem. Designed in a way to achieve maximum usage among Linux distros - which also coincidentally translates to maximum control by Red Hat.
Control [yes, control : It's devs are hired by RH/IBM, unpaid freelance devs don't have any say in this matter] by Red Hat, multi-billion profit subsidiary of IBM megacorporation. NOT by non-profit steering commitee or any single individual.
It's development is controlled by profit-seeking business entity. You may indulge in wishful thinking about it being benevolent or whatever: in the end, all it cares is using and shaping Linux so it makes it more money. It (in the form of it's shareholders/owners) does not give flying fuck about Linux's itself outside using it for making more.. money.
Are you still arguing my saying "Linux is buttboy for corporations" or you actually comprehend my reasoning? I wasn't just trolling, there was solid reasoning behind. You can agree with the reasoning or not, that's your choice.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostYou talked about how Google's own puppy OS is going to be so great and have a permissive license.
I pointed out that Google's own puppy OS is going to be orders of magnitude more "raped by megacorps" and "shoves stuff down your throat" than Linux will ever be as while in Linux there isn't a single master and they do develop competing features and frameworks (i.e. AppArmor vs Selinux for example), on Fuchsia you will have only one true master, Google.
Maybe you cannot cool down tho, so I'll explain it for you: Google has been developing Fuchsia some years now, maybe in order to ditch Android in it's embedded products, maybe it want's to use it for something like laptops etc as well. Or servers, hell knows - WHY does this thing have x86_64 arch support?
Since Google has global influence, more money than most nation states and technological infrastructure required - anything they do start to push seriously is also pretty fucking likely to gain traction too. How much, how widely, depends on actual implementations, so there's no point in further speculation. But it's probability.
Comment
Comment