New Group Calls For Boycotting Systemd

[psychoticmeow]

No. Not everyone can or only wants to be a software developer and therefore should not be forced into accepting what they find unacceptable. Everyone has the right to express their needs and to choose what software they want. As a developer can I write my own software, but if I write it only for myself or for a larger community certainly makes a difference. Only by listening to what my users want can I make sure that they get what they need. But when I choose to ignore them, and even decide against them, and only rely on the distros in distributing my software to the users, will my success be short. Doing something about it then does not mean to write your own software, but to make a protest, to choose a new distros and to boycott others. Some distros have decided against systemd and started their own projects. It is far more about respecting one another than just writing software.

You still have not explained what systemd does that you find unacceptable and therefore need someone else to provide you with an alternative. Basically you're protesting and boycotting because of fictional reasons.

[drSeehas]

... And at the moment nobody seems to do what the systemd opponents wants, ...

So OpenLaunchd died already?
Do you know more?

[sdack]

You still have not explained what systemd does that you find unacceptable and therefore need someone else to provide you with an alternative. Basically you're protesting and boycotting because of fictional reasons.

No, I have explained it and so have others. You can go to page 1 and read it all again, but I will not repeat myself for you. Besides, who shall take you serious when you have already said it means nothing to you?!

[psychoticmeow]

No, I have explained it and so have others. You can go to page 1 and read it all again, but I will not repeat myself for you. Besides, who shall take you serious when you have already said it means nothing to you?!

I've already read it and I didn't see anything that hadn't already been shown to be false. Also, I earlier asked you to link me to something you consider a good argument, that is not the same thing as repeating yourself, and you've not yet done it.

You have every right to protest and boycott whatever you want, just expect to be called to justify it or be called an idiot when you spectacularly fail to do so.

[sdack]

I've already read it and I didn't see anything that hadn't already been shown to be false. Also, I earlier asked you to link me to something you consider a good argument, that is not the same thing as repeating yourself, and you've not yet done it.

You have every right to protest and boycott whatever you want, just expect to be called to justify it or be called an idiot when you spectacularly fail to do so.

For what it is worth, I believed you when you say it means nothing to you. It was the most believable comment you have made and it came across as honest. You were convincing.

[jayrulez]

So to sum it up:

A classic case of two lovers arguing in a highly reasonable fashion. I would say "Go get a room you two!" but it is getting old now. Maybe we could put a spin on it just for the two, let me see:

"Go get a distro you two!"
"Go get a hashtag you two!"
"Go get a runlevel you two!"

Hmm, meh. I am out of ideas.

Pulseaudio still causes issues with some applications including VLC, but this shall not be my point. Instead, one should mention the disaster when Gnome 3 was released. People were more furious than they are now with systemd. There seems to be a trend developing on Linux and if it continues then the worst might still come. My only hope is that I can find a bucket big enough for all the popcorn I want to eat with it when it happens.

Yes yes! Software keeps sucking up more resource with every new year. A simple "Hello World" on a GTK+ button results in an executable with a size of about 7k RAM, a process requiring 14MB RAM, and as many as 68 shared libraries requiring 300MB RAM. And it would not actually run if my computer did not have at least half a GB RAM to hold the remaining OS. Call that "cute as a button"!

What is surprising? That I still have hope to find my bucket?

No. The result would be /bin would get so crowded that some executables would likely need to be renamed. /usr/bin is already heavily crowded. Also /bin is meant for executables used mainly by administrators, while /usr is meant for all users.

What is an idiocy is trying to fix what is not broken. This is in part what Gnome 3, pulseaudio and now systemd have been doing, even when it is being done accidentally by the way it is being introduced and developed. They all have been introduced while being far from feature-complete.

And what did the Romans ever do for us?

No. /sbin and /usr/sbin are meant for static binaries (and hence the s), but this has been watered done for some time now. In the past could one in fact find copies of executables of /bin in /sbin, too, but without having the need for shared libraries. It made it possible to have /lib on another device and in case of a failure allowed one to use some of the commands. This is also why you still find most of the disk-related commands such as mount and cfdisk still in /sbin, even though these are all shared binaries now (at least here on my Debian box).

I am not sure if the sbin directories were already present in early BSD. They must have come with dynamic linking and around SVR4. It is not a Linux thing and Linux never really tried to be 100% UNIX compatible.

No. The GNU project is more than just gcc. This is really only the work of a single man, who happens to work for one of the largest Linux distributions and who has gotten himself a bit of power, probably by upsetting his colleagues with provocations all to the entertainment of the management. It does not mean systemd is bad. It is just immature like all new things.

I guess Lennert Poettering simply had to do it and never heard of Harley Davidson or red convertibles. The later is what men get into when they feel the need for a total change.

Honestly, I do not believe a hardware has either feelings or an understanding of what is hard, complex or simple. It is all just instructions and clock cycles.

But we do like to add instructions to applications that may seem redundant to some, but which has the purpose of helping others. This is why we use ASCII scripts, because it is human-readable. It serves more than just the purpose of being executable, but it is also educational and more maintainable. This has always been important to UNIX, and now to Linux, in order to attract young people to it and to allow them to make it theirs.

If we really were to turn everything into binary form and also moved away from source distributions then we are getting nearer to closed source. The software would run a bit better, but by ignoring the human factor will we make Linux boring to newer generations. Who will be left to carry Linux when it is cutting off its roots that have attracted generations of people to it? Who will be left to appreciate it?

I do not think the shit storm we are seeing is about technical issues. We all know that these can be resolved.

It is like I said. Its meaning has been watered down over the years. Linux does not make too much sense here when you think about it. It uses four directories /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, and its explanation distinguishes between root and regular users as well as size, but a regular user cannot actually log in before the system has mounted all partitions nor should they be running anything during that time. So there is no need for four directories but only two. The four directories do come from a time when dynamic linking was introduced in UNIX. The LSB does not actually conflict with the original meaning, but only states the most basic expectation of what is to be found there. You could keep your porn collection in /sbin and it would not conflict with the LSB as long as you also keep the binaries in there, too.

And this is not even a joke. I actually know of admins who used their privileges and hid porn pics in dot-directories on the root partition of their workstation.

It was just /bin and /usr/bin first, and like you say out of lack of space, and later got duplicated to hold statically-linked binaries in the sbin-directories. This is why /sbin still contains the most basic disk commands. Why they abandoned the use of statically-linked binaries for important admin commands is unknown to me. Not only did it make sense back then, but it would still make sense today with regards to security.

Yes, I have been using single-user mode on UNIX machines before there was Linux. How about you?

Your approach requires a second partition or a second drive just the same. So you are doing it the way it has been done for decades under UNIX/Linux. Now imagine you had to administrate hundreds of machines within a team. Eventually you will want to have a solution with every machine and not just search for the right flash drive with the right software first. It is then easier to use a small partition or a small disk inside the machine for this purpose. It allows to do administrative tasks from remote, possibly automate them and avoid having to walk through every floor of your company and to go from room to room to do your job locally at every machine each single time.

UNIX contains a lot of experience, but it is understandable that it is not always needed for someone who just wants to use it all alone at home and just on a single machine. In fact you do not even need a multi-user OS for a lot of cases. Still, I do not think one should abandon these concepts all together only so that a some people can turn their computers into a gaming console. I think it is better to have an OS that allows for a very wide range of use cases and so that all the people who are using it can profit from the experience of one another. Throwing away such concepts for the sake of gaining a couple of seconds in boot time may turn out as unwise, especially when it could have been implemented side by side, but this is also the reason why young people are doing it - to learn about the consequences. The young rebelling against the old is a concept as old as the stars and allows everyone to come out the wiser.

No. You are twisting things around, because you do not understand why we have them, and because spinning them around does not give you an answer is your conclusion to throw it all away. It is however not a sane approach to solving problems.

We have always relied on human readability as well as backwards compatibility and for good reasons. Is cat and grep a program? Yes. Is text just a sequence of bits and bytes? Yes. It is however no reason to throw it away and to reinvent it differently, because then we can do the same with everything else, past, present and future software, including any new implementations. Nothing will stop us from doing it over and over again. It will simply not lead anywhere when it only leads in circles. This is why we preserve as much of the old as possible, why we only fix what is broken and why we build on top of it. Only once you understand this can you understand how progress is made.

systemd works, it does its job well, but it is also a step backwards. Once any of its dependencies become outdated and need replacing, and it will happen, will you see how much of a problem it actually is. Perhaps you now think we should not change it in the future and then only fix what is broken and then to build on top of it, but you will not do it, because what you do not learn now you also cannot use in the future.

To spin it as far as to think one could win against Microsoft shows how deep you have fallen into the illusion, because Microsoft software never has been great to begin with. However, they do know how to influence politics, users, sales, companies, etc. to become one of the biggest de-facto monopolists the economy has ever seen. To believe that if only one could write perfect software, which does not exist by the way, one could also beat Microsoft is naive. We will more likely see the desktop PC die before this happens, because while Linus still dreams of conquering the desktop have others been working around it for a long time now. Just see where Linux can be found these days. Most of us do not really want a dominance. We only want Linux and do not care for economical or political power.

No. You do want to be able to repair a machine from remote and without taking the entire OS down. I suggest you first start working in system administration of a larger company and get some hands-on experience on how it is done.

By the way, not knowing why it fails is only bad. When you do not know then how can you stop it from happening again?! You cannot just leave it to luck.

I know your way of thinking is kind of common among Windows users, but when you look at Microsoft then you will see that even they want an OS, which can repair itself and does not require external tools every time it fails.

What you are talking about is not best practise. It is only the worst case scenario and you sure do not want to work in an environment where every incident is also the worst case and your solution is to take the hammer each time.

Sure, but this is not what we were talking about. You are at best advocating a solution for the worst case. You do not want it to be the solution for the common case. You do want a system where you have a good chance of finding the cause of the problem and fix just that, because when you do not it and you always only "nuke from orbit" then you will find yourself out of options the moment your "nuke" itself is broken.

Your "nuke from orbit" is also not in any way new, because it is just a classic restore from a backup copy. So your "nuke" is technically already outdated, because modern backup solutions offer a wide range of options and more than just your "nuke". You can run checks, take snapshots of active partitions, restore onto active partitions, do incremental and selective backups, and all with GUIs and from remote.

So try not to look for the hammer. Better look for smaller tools and less intrusive solutions. And find the cause and do not just fix the symptom.

I have been using UNIX systems for the last 25 years. I certainly do not see a problem using it for another 50 years. Just look at what it brought us. There is little wrong with it.

So if you want to discuss this with me then please respond properly, because I am not interested in a conversation where someone fails to understand my comment and then only tries to defy every single sentence I write, because he forgot how to respond. Read my comment as a whole, try to understand it, and then respond. I am not interested in picking the bones out of your comment.

It is good to stand by one's point, but I hope you got mine, too.

But, no, if Linux actually had a good concept for a file system layout then it would not need to change it repeatedly. This explains itself. It is the continuous, but often short-sighted evolution of distros where each is trying to do something better, but each then only ends up doing it differently, where some distros now dump all binaries into one directory for example. /sbin is losing its meaning, because static linking has been abandoned for obscure reasons, leading to a huge increase in dependencies for the packages, making a standardization of distros insanely difficult and instead of fixing the original problem together is everyone only creating their own, new problems.

You cannot say size would be a bad indicator, and then make a claim based on size. That is just nonsense. You may not like one language and like another better, but lines of code is a well established measure in computer science.

systemd is new and only this is why it is not a mess yet. sysvinit has been around for a very long time and has turned into a mess only lately. This is not the fault of sysvinit, but of people who have failed to use it right. It sure is not the fault of sysvinit, when distros have each their own layout for /etc and even keep some files in /usr/share. So when these same people now adopt systemd will they do the same nonsense as they did with sysvinit before. Nothing stopped them before and all you really have is a hope that it now will all get better.

People have been trying to replace UNIX with Windows back then, too. It does not mean much. And if you think it was messy in the 90s then you took your sweet time to come forward. And how can you be so convinced of systemd being better in the short time it exists? You cannot, right? So I am going to assume that you only did not like sysvinit for personal reasons and now enjoy systemd like most people do when they get a new broom. And please do not get me wrong. I do not want to simply dismiss your comment. I only find it much harder to do the same with all the people who have given many good reasons why they think systemd is bad. The shit storm systemd has caused is very real.

I am not going to read any of your sentence-by-sentence defying nonsense. Learn to read comments as a whole and then respond.

Your attitude only works when you are the older and wiser of two brothers and your little brother is annoying you. Then it is ok to be a "douche" to your little brother and to show how you little you care, but it does not have the same effect when you try to do the same to a lot of people of different ages on a public forum. To some will you only look stupid.

No, it does not offend me. I am also not offended by systemd. It is now a hard component in Debian and trying to remove it leaves one currently with a broken system. I am sure this will get resolved, but I might actually follow the protest and switch to a new distro even when it is just for my computer at home. People have the right to protest, they should be heard and their concerns resolved and not be dismissed as a "tempest in a teapot", don't you agree?

You are drifting of into being a fanboy to a single software developer. Lennert is really still young. What he lacks in competence does he make up with creativity. Sometime it works and sometimes it does not. PulseAudio is also not all that of an issue. Nor did we not have sound before PulseAudio. It does what people expect it to do, which is to do a single job and to do it good. It has got problems, too, but this too is in line with expectations. Which application is free of problems?! I do not think it is fair to throw PulseAudio into the discussion with systemd based only on their author, but to focus on the application itself. Discussions get dumb when they end up being about a person.

So you are saying the users should really write their own system software when they only do not want a particular one and cannot get rid of it. Seems like you are having a snarky attitude towards people who only do not like your software.

If you like to admit it or not, but we are in the middle of it. You do take part in the discussion and this thread is only one of many. It shows people care even when trying not to, like robclark above who is making an attempt at alienating users to resolve his problems. Funny as this is will it not make people stop complaining about systemd and the reports do not stop. Just today did I get another piece in via RSS:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/80980.html

How do you plan on making it stop when it just does not want to?

If it did stop, then why do you fight it? This alone shows you in no way competent to lead a discussion nor that you actually know what you are talking, to whom you are talking and then do not get taken serious. Who cares for the spelling? And who cares for a missing link? You know where to find it and so does everyone else. Those who cannot find it have other problems and you should also not come here when you think there is nothing.

Yes, you did! You first claimed size has no meaning only to claim that your argument would scale onto larger projects. So how do you define what a larger project is when size does not matter? According to your logic can one not make assumptions based on large or small, and yet you did. What you did is known as "proof by contradiction". We do use and need measurements to size up projects and lines of code is a common measurement.

You did not say much but only posted a link now. So I have to guess ...

You now want to tell me, and by showing me this picture that this is me and in no way represents you, because you are showing the link to me and by the very act of doing so will it, and never can, reflect you?!

Is this about right? Or am I wrong?

[jayrulez]

The problem is not the shell and not even how daemons start. It is the number of preemptive process starts in general. Mobile phones get turned on and off within seconds and people do it only for checking messages. It does not actually need all daemons at boot up and yet is it being done. UNIX has always offered a solution to this problem, the inetd, which starts daemons on demand and with a very user-friendly design. Inetd has not evolved much, probably because it never needed a lot of daemon processes in the past and so its function got forgotten when people started creating all sorts of new daemon processes for Linux. Hence systemd was invented, copying inetd in mind, but with an all system dominating design and being unfriendly to maintain to the despair of a lot of people.

And yet does systemd not solve the problems just the symptoms and sugar-coats trivial issues as if trying to distract from it. It requires to statically code the relationship of services into its configuration. Take the relationship of NFS to DNS for example. NFS can, but does not have to use DNS. It can use IP numbers, it can use the /etc/hosts file and it can use a DNS server. The exact moment when NFS requires DNS to resolve a host name is also not defined by its start, but by the first access to a (auto) mount point, which requires the DNS lookup.

Systemd does not actually know when or if a service needs another service, but it requires us to start services anyway and to hard-code their relationships into its configuration.

The added sugar of keeping sockets around is also questionable. Firstly, because any application using sockets needs to deal with broken sockets due to the nature of networks. It gives them a fault tolerance and systemd's feature is not something these would suddenly need. Secondly, it may not always be a good idea to keep a socket open during an upgrade, because systemd cannot know what is being upgraded and why, and so the feature can confuse the applications when it would have been better to close the socket. The feature can be a bonus, but only when it is being used knowingly. It cannot be used in general and is more likely to lead to worse implementations of services when these start to rely on this feature instead of keeping a degree of fault tolerance.

No. Sockets have been used for a long time and systemd does not make room for more services suddenly. All it does is to speed up the boot and shutdown times a little bit. If you think we should use these gains to add more services then we are getting back to where we started.

The problem you fail to see is that while inetd was designed to break the relationships of services open, to force these into using fault tolerant designs and so that we can have flexible systems with few points of failures and without fail cascades, is systemd now going into the opposite direction and weaves the services together again and tries to fix what does not need fixing. What it leads to, if we let it, is to daemon processes, where we allow each to have their own design philosophy including opposing designs, designs with large dependencies and with no fault tolerance, because systemd is not actually helping here, but makes an attempt at "herding cats". Or only take yourself as an example. You already think we could use systemd to bloat the OS with more processes. And you are just one of the many more "cats" to come.

I do not think you have understood much of what is systemd is trying to fix and what it is failing at.

Sure, it seems like it does a lot and offers much, but it only boils down to faster start and shutdown times. Like a Swiss army knife is really just a nice gift to give to somebody, but it has not revolutionized the world of tools nor has it replaced all your screw drivers or kitchen knifes. Of course it is easy to believe that it could.

Nor does systemd solve what inetd has already solved. It offers a few more features than inetd and walks on the same path, but it is going into the wrong direction. The fact they decided against inetd only to reimplement it documents their confusion. Then leaving it up to others on how to use it means there is no actual strategy behind it any more. It is just "herding cats" now.

As a result of the discussions back then was the kernel heavily modularized, turned into subsystems, which now do one thing and to do them good, and it also became highly configurable. Can you remember this, too?

My point however was that a flame fest (I personally like the expression "shit storm") can lead to something good.

Going back to inetd... it never allowed to define sequences or dependencies between the services. Now systemd claims to be aggressively parallel and at the same time opens up for a serialization of services. It makes no sense. It is not possible to do one thing aggressively without prohibiting the opposite from creeping in. Hence, it tries to do too many things at once and will end up doing none of them really well.

Sometimes one needs to go a step backward only to go forward again, or to lose something before it can be missed and its value is appreciated.

Your example with the kernel is also kind of funny, because the one thing that keeps ticking off Linus and drives him truly mad is when kernel devs break user space. He should have gone with a micro kernel ...

You two should just stop using Linux and go with Windows instead. You really do not have to touch any of the scripts when it is too complicated for you. Clearly, the freedom given with UNIX and Linux is wasted on you.

No. I have already explained where the problems come from, but since you have already admitted you are not good at these things do I not expect you to understand them, but to take my word for it. Debian still uses much of the sysv init process to boot up and systemd is also doing far more than just replacing the init process. You cannot use your half-knowledge to declare everybody else's software as "spaghetti" code. You believe systemd is all right and conclude everything else must therefore be wrong. This however does not give you competence, nor does looking towards others give you this. You need to start looking into it to see what it does.

Now you come across like some crazy, mad man. Your foes will wither away, they deserve to die, but they are welcome to challenge you, The Great Muhahahaha ...

One can only teach those who want to learn.

It is not about the future. It is about the mistakes we have made in the past and that sysvinit is a solution to much older problems, which you only do not know about. systemd works at present, because it inherits from it, but it allows older problems to come back again, too. This is what people have been saying here over and over again. You just did not want to know about it. Do you really want to know what will happen?

The kernel is very modular, but it is not the point. The kernel requires the supervision by a group or just a single person such as Linus Torvalds, because the kernel has to deal with the "bare metal" of a computer. It requires a strict control or it leads to damaged hardware in the worst case. Still, Linus respects the freedom of the user space and it is one of his highest priorities not to break user space. Everybody wants this freedom, because without it we could not even have systemd.

If it was not for this strict separation could we run everything in kernel space and leave it to a few to dictate the rules or just do whatever we want and watch where it leads us (it would lead to chaos and smoke is my guess ). Nevertheless are there also people who are invading the kernel space with things such as a Window system or a d-bus daemon in kernel space.

Well, then start at page 1. The reasons were given multiple times already.

You are thinking, because it was given to all of us for free should we be grateful for it. If that was in any way logical then Windows users should be grateful for every worm and virus they get. And everyone reading your comments should be grateful to have read them.

No. People should give criticsm. Some only cannot appreciate it. Whose fault is this?

If you truly believed there was not anything wrong with systemd then you would be thanking RedHat for it and live happily ever after. Instead are you looking at the people who give criticsm and want to critise them back as if you did not know what was going on.

Who even cares what you think? You did not write the software, which means you are not responsible for it and you are clearly happy with it. Why are then struggeling so hard at it?

At the end of the day is there no law against criticsing a piece of software and to protest against it, and there is no law that says you have to understand it.

No. You critise people's arguments, because you do not understand them. Any critism you have on systemd you need to give to RedHat. Other than this does nobody truly care for what you say. One merely respects each other and helps where help can be given.

You are trying too hard. Who says you need to like what I write? It is however what you are doing with those who critise systemd. You want people to accept something they think "sucks" and yet here you are critising me for an argument of which you think sucks. Do you still not want to understand what what goes for you goes for everybody else?

So what shall we do? Accept that things suck and never speak out about it, or not to accept them and to say what we think? I let you decide...

Again, you are just trying too hard. Why can you not relax? Who here says one needs to give you arguments? You are not forced to accept them when these make no sense to you.

It is the same with people not wanting to accept systemd, because it makes little sense to them. Well, with the one difference that they have no choice but to accept it, because their distros have made the decision for them. So you are already better off. You can decide.

No. There is more than one truth. Nobody holds absolute power over it. If you can believe 1+1 equals 2, and it can also equal 10 and 11, then you can believe that what others critise about systemd is true, too.

And I for one would not call you an idiot.

After 32 pages is there no reason to start with technical arguments again. It has already been tried and anyone who wants to give it another go can just start reading at page 1 again. All what is left to do is to get people to use their heads. Should they care for it ...

To get people to use their heads? I think I do.

Why do you hate me? Is it because I have got you to think? If so then know that with making an insult you only show to have begun to use your head and that you still have a long way to go.

Oh, I did state them! Go and have a look. Others did, too. I do not need to make this about myself.

I am also not the one who is cornered here. You do not see me insulting or hating others. It is sad to see who the haters here are.

Clearly, you are so full of hatred and spite that there is not any room left for courage, or else you would have found some to admit it. One could say you have gone completely over to the "dark side".

What caused this?

Well, it is what he did. He chose to insult, because he sees his "cookies" threatened by the protest. He made a bad choice (see forum rules, too). There is really very little love in his insult and you should not follow his lead.

The protesters can formulate their needs better than this and what arguments could one bring forward when he demands "cookies". Cookies are pure bliss and you should have gone with Microsoft for this when it is bliss you want. They do produce bliss products like one OS for all, one office suite for all, one browser for all, etc. - they even make Teletubbies to sell bliss to babies. FOSS is however not about bliss. It is about freedom, conflict, competition, choice, much like evolution itself.

It is not my problem. I just report you for insults and move on.

No.

I do not care what picture you have of me. Your insults mean nothing to me, but they will to the moderation.

How about the protest, the boycott and the arguments given on the web page and here on the forum? Do these mean nothing to you either?

When it means nothing to you then you need to stop coming here. Profanity will not change anything about it. See the forum rules.

The same can certainly be said for Windows. It, too, is good enough for most users. But we are not talking about Windows and so there is no reason why the Linux community suddenly needs to accept everything. It is the Linux users who are the ones who choose differently from what most users want and thereby have shaped Linux. If it was not for them then there would not be Linux. It would all be Windows. So if any generalization can be applied here is then it is that Linux is driven by people who want something differently from what the majority wants, and that it is not the other way around.

Yes, systemd will change things, I agree. It has caused quite the protest, and got people to think about what they really want. They even started thinking about who they want it from, which at the beginning was not an issue until those responsible said they will not do care for it. This is what has led to the protests and the boycott and can be judge both ways, as bad and as good, but I am confident about that it will lead to something better.

I also forgive you for your previous comments.

No. Not everyone can or only wants to be a software developer and therefore should not be forced into accepting what they find unacceptable. Everyone has the right to express their needs and to choose what software they want. As a developer can I write my own software, but if I write it only for myself or for a larger community certainly makes a difference. Only by listening to what my users want can I make sure that they get what they need. But when I choose to ignore them, and even decide against them, and only rely on the distros in distributing my software to the users, will my success be short. Doing something about it then does not mean to write your own software, but to make a protest, to choose a new distros and to boycott others. Some distros have decided against systemd and started their own projects. It is far more about respecting one another than just writing software.

No, I have explained it and so have others. You can go to page 1 and read it all again, but I will not repeat myself for you. Besides, who shall take you serious when you have already said it means nothing to you?!

For what it is worth, I believed you when you say it means nothing to you. It was the most believable comment you have made and it came across as honest. You were convincing.

Everything you've said so far in this thread. Where are your valid technical arguments that you claimed you have provided?

[sdack]

Everything you've said so far in this thread. Where are your valid technical arguments that you claimed you have provided?

Do not just repost them. Read them within their context and understand them. It might be hard for you, but give it another try.

[interested]

So OpenLaunchd died already?
Do you know more?

OpenLaunchd is a BSD project, I have heard nothing about an actual working Linux version. Looking at the github it seems rather stagnant.

The problem is non-systemd Linux work, not BSD. BSD variants like OpenBSD have at least realised some of the problems and are working on it, and BSD variants will have fewer problems since they already maintain a complete OS, and have sponsored developers for doing such work. They have also started some time ago to work with upstream projects like Gnome for getting it to work on BSD variants in the future.

The non-systemd Linux users will have to start maintaining more and more cores OS functions themselves, and there won't be many, if any, paid developers for doing so. They don't even have an development eco-system for doing so, or even a simple email-list for coordinating things. In fact, besides some heroic efforts at Gentoo on maintaining eudev, not much else is going on in the non-systemd camp. This may of course change, but at the moment it looks like non-systemd distros are totally unprepared for the future problems they need to solve.

[sdack]

This may of course change, but at the moment it looks like non-systemd distros are totally unprepared for the future problems they need to solve.

No. You know nothing about future problems. We all have to deal with problems of the future. systemd will bring its own problems and these will add to all other problems. systemd only now solves some problems of the present, but these are problems not everyone is actually sharing, all while some of us can already see where some of the future problems are likely to be found judging only by what has been lost and because every software is a solution to an older problem.

Nobody is however saying they know what the future will look like, only that we do not wish to repeat old mistakes and do not want to find us solving old problems again. Young people, who know little about the past, will not even notice it and see all future problems as new problems.

Does this make any sense to you at all?