Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Devuan Is Still Moving Along As A Debian Fork Without Systemd

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

  • mpppp
    replied
    Originally posted by TAXI View Post
    Since when is secure boot "free software"? So stop comparing bananas and apples. As your whole example is invalid now, what next?
    The example doesn't need to be free software for my point, BTW you're asking for a logical impossibility, see:

    Originally posted by SebastianB View Post
    That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started.
    "it started". It can't have possibly started by replacing *already free* software, it wouldn't be a start but a continuation.

    In fact, rms wanted a printer with *closed* driver to work, QED. IIRC also Linus couldn't redistribute his modifications of Tanenbaum's minix so he launched his project from scratch.

    Originally posted by TAXI View Post
    So you want to exchange secure boot >as application< (UEFI/BIOS implementation) or >as standart<?
    Irrelevant, you'd either replace the protocol or the implementation.
    Two secure boot protocols would mean requiring signing rights from two entities. Two secure boot implementations would mean requiring signing rights from one entity.

    But, you don't like secure boot, you don't want signed payloads, so what do you do? you replace the protocol or the app? Neither, you disable secure boot. Those challenging you to replace it are still trolling, which was the point I made and my objection, from the start.

    Originally posted by TAXI View Post
    Fine, do so... By _replacing_ it with another init system... :P

    Why? You don't have to use binary logs, you can be as modular as you want, you don't have to talk to PID1 at all and so on and so forth. So where exactly are these even more worse problems?
    You are describing *doing without* systemd, not *replacing* it. And I am already doing that:
    Code:
    $ pstree
    runit─┬─adb───{adb}
          ├─dbus-daemon
          ├─dbus-launch
          ├─efreetd
          ├─runsvdir─┬─runsv───pause
          │          ├─5*[runsv───agetty]
          │          ├─runsv───login───bash───startx───xinit─┬─Xorg.bin───{Xorg.bi+
          │          │                                       └─enlightenment_s───e+
          │          └─runsv───dhcpcd
          ├─udevd
          └─wpa_supplicant
    Systemd is not merely an init system- if it were, it would be replaceable without fuss and there would be no controversy either. But don't take my word for it, Lennart himself describes systemd in his blog, very clearly.

    The "worse problems" I refer to, if systemd were *replaced*, is that you'd have not one, but two different implementations of a system above the kernel that manages a bunch of different tasks, some server related, some desktop related, and you'd have to mind the explicit and/or hidden requirements and quirks of both.

    Leave a comment:


  • V10lator
    replied
    Originally posted by mpppp View Post
    You have a strange concept of "exactly".
    Proof, let xy= secure boot.
    Since when is secure boot "free software"? So stop comparing bananas and apples. As your whole example is invalid now, what next? Also: A replacement for secure boot means implementing the signed boot process (as that's what secure boot is, no?) You could still re-implement it in your own software, even if it's not "free software". Hell, add signing to Coreboot and there's your example.
    It's the same with systemd: You can't reimplement it without re-creating the APIs, as the APIs are what define systemd (to programs interacting with it). Still that code wouldn't be systemd and (as long as you're not copy&pasting systemds code) work different.

    It doesn't matter if you like it or not. But if you don't like it and MS suggested "You don't like secure boot? write a replacement" is pure trolling
    No, it's not. Again, here quoted for you:
    Originally posted by SebastianB View Post
    free software
    Apples and oranges...

    as a replacement would not remove the inconvenient step of signing the boot image. Sure, a write protectable BIOS that warns whenever the checksum for the next stage has changed would solve the issue, but it's not a replacement of secure boot, it's doing without it.
    So you want to exchange secure boot >as application< (UEFI/BIOS implementation) or >as standart<? Comeon, now you're not only comaring apples with oranges but apples with monkeys.

    Same with systemd, a solution is doing without it
    Fine, do so... By _replacing_ it with another init system... :P

    replacing it is a non-solution worse than the problem.
    Why? You don't have to use binary logs, you can be as modular as you want, you don't have to talk to PID1 at all and so on and so forth. So where exactly are these even more worse problems?

    Leave a comment:


  • mpppp
    replied
    Originally posted by SebastianB View Post
    That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started.
    You have a strange concept of "exactly".
    Proof, let xy= secure boot. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. But if you don't like it and MS suggested "You don't like secure boot? write a replacement" is pure trolling, as a replacement would not remove the inconvenient step of signing the boot image. Sure, a write protectable BIOS that warns whenever the checksum for the next stage has changed would solve the issue, but it's not a replacement of secure boot, it's doing without it.

    Same with systemd, a solution is doing without it, replacing it is a non-solution worse than the problem. You got my objection now?

    Originally posted by SebastianB View Post
    Lennart and co are doing something they enjoy, they have fun doing it the way they are doing it. They are not going to to stop and remove their code from the internet because some people disagree.
    Not that I ever asked that, did I?

    Originally posted by SebastianB View Post
    Your either doing something about it or your talking and comment about what others are doing(or not doing). Those are the two options that you have. And no amount of whining about how unfair it is, how you can't code or don't have the time for it are going to change a thing about it.

    If you think a little bit about it you should actually realize that its non of your effing buisness what lennart does with his time. You know whole freedom of speech, he can post whatever code he wants on ther internet, kinda what sets us part from the bad guys dontcha agree? The only people you have any right to complain to are maintainers of distributions, and even there only for the commercial ones imho where you are a customer. Apart from that your entitled to shit.
    You must be a mind reader, replying to things I did not write. Unfortunately you must have somehow contacted the wrong brain.
    Why should I do anything about systemd? As my comment history before your rant shows, I am comfortable, right now, without it.

    Leave a comment:


  • gilboa
    replied
    Originally posted by SebastianB View Post
    That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started. Linux exists because Linus didn't like what else there was available for 386 cpus(mostly minix) and wrote a replacement. Where do you think linux would be today if he instead whined a bit on some mailinglist and asked "someone" to do something because of software freedom or some bullshit? Where would GNU software have gone if RMS had done the same?

    Lennart and co are doing something they enjoy, they have fun doing it the way they are doing it. They are not going to to stop and remove their code from the internet because some people disagree. Your either doing something about it or your talking and comment about what others are doing(or not doing). Those are the two options that you have. And no amount of whining about how unfair it is, how you can't code or don't have the time for it are going to change a thing about it.

    If you think a little bit about it you should actually realize that its non of your effing buisness what lennart does with his time. You know whole freedom of speech, he can post whatever code he wants on ther internet, kinda what sets us part from the bad guys dontcha agree? The only people you have any right to complain to are maintainers of distributions, and even there only for the commercial ones imho where you are a customer. Apart from that your entitled to shit.
    Well said!

    - Gilboa

    Leave a comment:


  • SebastianB
    replied
    Originally posted by mpppp View Post
    I think your POV, which I also found with Lennart's replies ("You don't like systemd? write a replacement") kind of forgets the pre-systemd era. Linux became the first server OS and a feasible alternative desktop OS by relying on distro maintainers to adjust packages so they could work together. Systemd pros and cons aside, offering unification and simplification is an option, not the inescapable way forward. We have been duped by the word "progress" and innovation into a worse situation a lot of times already, hell, the whole Free Software movement was aimed to RESTORE software freedom, so it was ultimately reactionary, not revolutionary. Down with change, back to Eden!
    That doesn't even make sense. "You don't like xy? write a replacement". Is exactly how Linux and the whole free software movement works and how it started. Linux exists because Linus didn't like what else there was available for 386 cpus(mostly minix) and wrote a replacement. Where do you think linux would be today if he instead whined a bit on some mailinglist and asked "someone" to do something because of software freedom or some bullshit? Where would GNU software have gone if RMS had done the same?

    Lennart and co are doing something they enjoy, they have fun doing it the way they are doing it. They are not going to to stop and remove their code from the internet because some people disagree. Your either doing something about it or your talking and comment about what others are doing(or not doing). Those are the two options that you have. And no amount of whining about how unfair it is, how you can't code or don't have the time for it are going to change a thing about it.

    If you think a little bit about it you should actually realize that its non of your effing buisness what lennart does with his time. You know whole freedom of speech, he can post whatever code he wants on ther internet, kinda what sets us part from the bad guys dontcha agree? The only people you have any right to complain to are maintainers of distributions, and even there only for the commercial ones imho where you are a customer. Apart from that your entitled to shit.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTown
    replied
    Originally posted by mpppp View Post
    I think your POV, which I also found with Lennart's replies ("You don't like systemd? write a replacement") kind of forgets the pre-systemd era. Linux became the first server OS and a feasible alternative desktop OS by relying on distro maintainers to adjust packages so they could work together. Systemd pros and cons aside, offering unification and simplification is an option, not the inescapable way forward. We have been duped by the word "progress" and innovation into a worse situation a lot of times already, hell, the whole Free Software movement was aimed to RESTORE software freedom, so it was ultimately reactionary, not revolutionary. Down with change, back to Eden!
    To me Devuan is about progress but not innovation. As discussed earlier in this thread, this project has the potential to integrate the old stack enough to make SOME of the reasons why people went to systemd in the first place less understandable. Hopefully in the future people on Devuan, Slackware, and Gentoo (just using theses distros as examples) can milk the benefits of one single non-systemd Linux boot stack such as cross-distro bug fixes (versus each distro having to maintining forks). That's progress. It may not have the cool new features that are in store for systemd based systemd but as long as people make sure the old stuff is compatible with the software people actually came for (Gnome, Plasma) it wilk survive but without the interest of most people. Since time is money, people who write the higher level software we care about will not cater to every alternative init system. That's where having"the same POV as Lennart" comes from: compatibility with every init stack by a few people is impossible. People who care about the old stack (which most people don't either care about the init and just use whatever is popular or just dislike the old stack) will have to do the work since upstream either didn't have time or doesn't see the point).

    tldr: Time is a precious resource and every developer can't worry about being compatible with multiple boot systems. Others who care have to step up and do some of the heavy lifting if they honestly care. That's where these "Unix Vetren Admins" come in.
    Last edited by CTown; 25 December 2014, 03:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mpppp
    replied
    Originally posted by CTown View Post
    Wow, it seems someone who hates systemd is actually putting in the time to make the whole stack to avoid systemd. Alternatives are always great in the long run if something doesn't pan out. However, that still means they will be dependent on one specific stack anyways. Sure, that stack wouldn't be under one "umbrella" project name like systemd but it seems this one project will be upstream for all of these "separate" tools that are necessary to avoid the separate systemd binaries. Was the problem with systemd: (1) it's different or (2) the idea that each binary was going to depend on each other? If they are successful, they will "own" the "non-systemd" stack and it will be the same problem wouldn't?
    I think your POV, which I also found with Lennart's replies ("You don't like systemd? write a replacement") kind of forgets the pre-systemd era. Linux became the first server OS and a feasible alternative desktop OS by relying on distro maintainers to adjust packages so they could work together. Systemd pros and cons aside, offering unification and simplification is an option, not the inescapable way forward. We have been duped by the word "progress" and innovation into a worse situation a lot of times already, hell, the whole Free Software movement was aimed to RESTORE software freedom, so it was ultimately reactionary, not revolutionary. Down with change, back to Eden!

    Leave a comment:


  • mpppp
    replied
    pens

    I have used 3 usb broadband modems with systemd-less debian and wvdial + USB modeswitch, one needed a newer kernel and modeswitch conf, but it did so with ubuntu too. The init should be irrelevant, but udev config is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • SebastianB
    replied
    Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
    Maybe it's a good time for good ol' SysVinit to get a sensible makeover, and for the life of me why can't Debian give users a choice and have packages that are not dependent on any particular init or login session managment system (Consolekit vs. Logind).
    Maybe because its a community distro and no reputable group of guys stepped up and declared themselves willing to shoulder the extra work?

    And i don't just mean the whipping together of the various systemd-replacement parts, but also the "im willing to code bug/security fixes for jessies lifetime even if upstream ditches the project half a year from now"-part. Instead of whining a good first step would be forking and reviving consolekit, fixing its issues and give a vote of confidence that it will be a project being around for years so distros can depend on it. Having unmaintained software in your base system is just monumentally stupid.

    Sheesh, people talk about this as if it was just about making a decision. You can't just decide to ignore systemd. You can only decide to ignore it AND shoulder all the extra work such a decision implies(your going to end up as upstream for a helluva number of otherwise deprecated packages). I think the devuan guys get that and they have my greatest respect if they pull it off. I hope they get lots of support from the BSD camp aswell, alot of the issues they will need to solve will be common i think.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTown
    replied
    Originally posted by vadix View Post
    They just want to own the alternative stack, since nobody else was. It's fine that way, since it gives them a central place to develop their alternative stack and allow developers to continue making their applications portable. This is probably for the best, since it makes everybody happy.
    Yeah, I guess you're right. Perhaps they could even solve the problem where init scripts weren't always cross-distribution since they own the entire stack.

    Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
    Maybe it's a good time for good ol' SysVinit to get a sensible makeover, and for the life of me why can't Debian give users a choice and have packages that are not dependent on any particular init or login session managment system (Consolekit vs. Logind).
    The choice was never lost. It's just not all packagers will bother adding the respective init script for that package. One of the final systemd arguments in Debian was whether or not packagers have to include init scripts - the ruling was they don't have to. Even if that init script is included, testing priority goes to the systemd unit since systemd is default.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X