Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Group Calls For Boycotting Systemd

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

  • sdack
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Godwin's law.
    This is your own fault. I have given you a choice between Pinky & The Brain and the NAZIs, but you choose to respond only based on your knowledge of Internet memes and not based on what we have learned from the past. The memes even mean more to you than a good, funny cartoon. The joke is really on you, sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • interested
    replied
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    Why do you have a problem with people complaining?
    Whiners who whines about that other people should work for them for free doesn't get any sympathy from me. So if you want upstream to support your non-standard init system, you are the one responsible for making it possible.


    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    How about he uses the old logind? Or do you only not know for how long logind is actually a part of UNIX/Linux, but believe it is an exclusive feature of systemd?
    "logind" is part of systemd. It is a new project that has nothing to do with "login" or whatever other program you confuses it with. We are talking really basic factual knowledge here, so you are doing massive damage to your cause be being so unprepared about the technical facts.

    Yeah, "logind" is an exclusive systemd feature, somewhat similar to ConsoleKit, just much more capable and advanced, since it uses systemd as PID1 features.


    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    No, wait. You must be thinking systemd is going to take over the world, like Pinky & The Brain or the NAZIs used to think.
    Seriously, the pro systemd side couldn't have paid for such an excellent support you are giving them. The systemd opponent camp seems to rapidly deteriorate into a tin-foil hat, swivel eyed loony brigade without any technical clue whatsoever. So please, rant on, you are doing great work on convincing people that systemd is a good thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • sdack
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    I didnt notice that systemd was released under a proprietary lisense, because if that is not the case it would be free software, so your argument would not be valid.
    That is not what my comment meant. The movie is from the 1982, around the time when the idea of free software and independent processing caught on (possibly with TRON inspiring many programmers to follow that path), and showed the programmers believes in software needing to be free and independent, using people in the movie to represent programs, who were fighting against an oppressor, the single, all-controlling master control program, who had invaded all parts of the computer system and took away the other programs' freedom and independence, and absorbing them.

    Of course it is easy to dismiss it all by saying that it is just bits&bytes in a box, but similar dismissive statements can be made about anything, even about people, and it never shows to be smart, but only to be ignorant of the inherent problems.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    No, wait. You must be thinking systemd is going to take over the world, like Pinky & The Brain or the NAZIs used to think.
    Godwin's law.

    Leave a comment:


  • sdack
    replied
    Originally posted by interested View Post
    Cool with me, but just don't complain about upstream projects if you don't develop an alternative to the most basic systemd features like logind
    Why do you have a problem with people complaining?

    How about he uses the old logind? Or do you only not know for how long logind is actually a part of UNIX/Linux, but believe it is an exclusive feature of systemd?

    No, wait. You must be thinking systemd is going to take over the world, like Pinky & The Brain or the NAZIs used to think.

    Leave a comment:


  • interested
    replied
    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    Considering how Systemd is completely monolithic
    That is pretty much an admittance of you never having seen the source code: systemd has +60 compile time configure switches for disabling parts of it, basically reducing it to systemd, journald and udev. There is even instructions on how to reduce that even further. Some parts are libraries, or being built as libraries, for anyone to grab and use in other projects. It has stable interfaces and language API's ensuring that the systemd modules can communicate with other random programs.

    You seem to have rather awkward definition of "monolithic", so that all programs that can't be arbitrarily split, are "monolithic". That way emacs is monolithic, since you just can't take any emacs function, rip it out and place it in Vim or Notepad++.


    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    and people are working towards a future in which parts of the kernel will be completely dependent on it, I don't see this being an easy task./
    That is complete misunderstanding, it is the other way around; systemd will be more and more dependent on certain kernel features and therefore kernel versions. Eg. at some point when kdbus is in the mainline kernel, new versions of systemd will depend upon that feature to function.


    Regarding exchanging systemd with another init system in the future, then it will become much easier than it ever was, since all Linux distros depend and conform on the same stable systemd APIs and functions, it is just a question of making an init system that is backwards compatible, so it can be a drop in replacement for systemd, just like systemd did.
    Or, just fork the code and take it in another direction.


    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    If Systemd was just an init system, there probably would be less of a backlash against it.
    It is exactly because it systemd is more than a simple init system that it is so popular; just looking at the feature list of things possible because because it can use kernel features like cgroups, "capabilities", or provide early boot logging because it can live in initramfs, can make people drool.

    Systemd is simply unlocking the potential in Linux as never before, doing things that are impossible with crude and simple init systems like SysVinit.

    With a username like "unixfan" you must surely know that certified Unix vendors like Apple and Solaris have init systems that aren't just init systems. (systemd was heavily inspired by launchd and SMF).


    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    Personally, I'll steer clear of Systemd while developing my own distro. If I ever feel the need for a more monolithic init system, I'm going to write one myself.
    Cool with me, but just don't complain about upstream projects if you don't develop an alternative to the most basic systemd features like logind

    Leave a comment:


  • jayrulez
    replied
    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    Considering how Systemd is completely monolithic and people are working towards a future in which parts of the kernel will be completely dependent on it, I don't see this being an easy task.

    If Systemd was just an init system, there probably would be less of a backlash against it.

    Personally, I'll steer clear of Systemd while developing my own distro. If I ever feel the need for a more monolithic init system, I'm going to write one myself.
    You don't seem to know what modular means wrt to software.

    Also, which part of the kernel does/will depend on systemd?

    If an init system is all you need then you can avoid systemd yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isedonde
    replied
    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    Whenever I think about whether something is monolithic or not, I ask myself the simple question "Can it be easily re-implemented/repurposed".
    Well, sure, it's not exactly easy to implement a daemon supervision / control system. That's why we only had SysVInit (I wouldn't even call that "supervision system") for such a long time: Nobody felt like doing it.

    So I agree, systemd can't be easily re-implemented. Because doing so is inherently a hard task.

    However, it's not because systemd does something wrong. Anyone is free to go and re-implement parts of systemd and drop the corresponding systemd part when building systemd. The systemd-shim guys drop most of systemd and just keep logind (and possibly a few more tools). It's "easy", you just have to make sure you use the same interface if you want to stay systemd compatible. If you don't, then of course you can't interface with systemd, it's the same with every software project: Either you are compatible or you are not.

    So I don't really see what systemd is doing wrong. So far these are the only issues apparently: made by lennart, made by evil Redhat, has too many features that NOBODY WILL EVER NEED (I TELL YOU!), it uses up too many megabytes of my costly hard drive (i.e. I don't need the extra features, really, just drop these features and give me a few MB back so I can re-install a cron daemon, cgmanager, rsyslog, ntpd, dhcpcd, loads of init scripts, ?!). Also, it's too good and provides too many needed features which nobody else provides, so everyone now depends on systemd, which is clearly systemd's fault for "forcing" these dependencies on us!

    Leave a comment:


  • Chousuke
    replied
    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    Your definition of monolithic is just different from mine then.
    Whenever I think about whether something is monolithic or not, I ask myself the simple question "Can it be easily re-implemented/repurposed".

    The fact that it's not one huge binary but 70 something doesn't make it any less monolithic, IMHO.
    This definition is utterly useless; it also applies just as much if not more to any competitor to systemd. Is replacing sysvinit easy? Pardon my language, but hell no! It alone is a gigantic task that the systemd guys did anyway because sysvinit can't be sanely developed further. The rest of the tools are similarly replacing other more-or-less duct-tapey solutions to provide a core system that has actual coherence. This ideal of modularity you seem to imagine was never remotely possible in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • unixfan2001
    replied
    Originally posted by Chousuke View Post
    Wrong.
    Your definition of monolithic is just different from mine then.
    Whenever I think about whether something is monolithic or not, I ask myself the simple question "Can it be easily re-implemented/repurposed".

    The fact that it's not one huge binary but 70 something doesn't make it any less monolithic, IMHO.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X