Systemd Kills Off Shutdownd

[erendorn]

Freedom 1:
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

This does no longer apply since systemd is a complicated set of deamons communicatong with libsystemd, also via dbus, and people have tried to single out e.g. udev and logind parts and failed. Add to that the non-existance of comment in the code, look for yourself. There are man pages, but these don't explain the cod base. NOTE: This is a new phenomenon in the free software world so it is not yet well known. It will in the future though, it's all about vendor lock-in as with M$ and apple

I wonder how they manage to have several contributors when apparently it's impossible to understand the code. /sarcasm

(I add the sarcasm tag, as so many people don't understand that, e.g., "omg omg systemd bloat" obviously is some)

[Goderic]

Citation required for kernel breaking if systemd breaks, "pretty sure" doesn;t cut it as a fact.
monolithic - you need to visit a dictionary for a correct definition, systemd is modular
unless FreeBSD implements the linux CGROUPS then systemd is a not for them

seems like you've done no investigation into systemd except parrot the ignorant trolls

He is saying that if systemd breaks freedom number 1, then the kernel does as well.

[MoonMoon]

monolithic - you need to visit a dictionary for a correct definition, systemd is modular

In software term monolithic and modular are not mutually exclusive.

[SpyroRyder]

Citation required for kernel breaking if systemd breaks, "pretty sure" doesn;t cut it as a fact.
monolithic - you need to visit a dictionary for a correct definition, systemd is modular
unless FreeBSD implements the linux CGROUPS then systemd is a not for them

seems like you've done no investigation into systemd except parrot the ignorant trolls

You misunderstand my argument. The person I quoted was saying that sytemd is anti-freedom because a rule of freedom is being able to understand and modify the source code which apparently systemd breaks because it's multi-daemon, dbus-integrated piece of software where there is a high level of understanding which you must have of it to be able to edit it without breaking it. My point was that if that were indeed a rule of freedom then by it's very nature the kernel must not be free as it's a very complicated set of modules arranged in a monolithic fashion (monolithic here meaning the opposite of micro-kernel) which you need a high level of understanding of it to be able to edit it without breaking anything. This goes a way to proving that his point was kinda silly. You can't say that freedom has to mean simplicity when simplicity in what is one of the core pieces of "free" software hasn't been there in a long while.

Additional thoughts, his other point about documentation might have had weight if not for the fact that quite a lot of FOSS software has terrible documentation, both externally and in-code.

[rtfazeberdee]

Monolithic

In software term monolithic and modular are not mutually exclusive.

its only "not mutually exclusive" for detractors. its a very lame attempt to rubbish something, its usually an argument of last resort.

[rtfazeberdee]

You misunderstand my argument. The person I quoted was saying that sytemd is anti-freedom because a rule of freedom is being able to understand and modify the source code which apparently systemd breaks because it's multi-daemon, dbus-integrated piece of software where there is a high level of understanding which you must have of it to be able to edit it without breaking it. My point was that if that were indeed a rule of freedom then by it's very nature the kernel must not be free as it's a very complicated set of modules arranged in a monolithic fashion (monolithic here meaning the opposite of micro-kernel) which you need a high level of understanding of it to be able to edit it without breaking anything. This goes a way to proving that his point was kinda silly. You can't say that freedom has to mean simplicity when simplicity in what is one of the core pieces of "free" software hasn't been there in a long while.

Additional thoughts, his other point about documentation might have had weight if not for the fact that quite a lot of FOSS software has terrible documentation, both externally and in-code.

apologies, i must use the threading view when reading and posting. this is the strangest forum layout i've come across.

[gilboa]

Freedom 1:
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

This does no longer apply since systemd is a complicated set of deamons communicatong with libsystemd, also via dbus, and people have tried to single out e.g. udev and logind parts and failed. Add to that the non-existance of comment in the code, look for yourself. There are man pages, but these don't explain the cod base. NOTE: This is a new phenomenon in the free software world so it is not yet well known. It will in the future though, it's all about vendor lock-in as with M$ and apple

This has to be the most ill-informed comment I saw in years. (and I'm being *very* polite).
Somehow I doubt that you come even close to understanding how skbs transport information inside your kernel (let alone *really* complex things like file systems and schedulers) and yet, I doubt that you consider the Linux kernel - or any other kernel - non-free.

For God's sake, you don't like systemd, good for you.
I would suggest that instead of spewing bullshit in forums, you actually do something *constructive*. E.g. help the Devuan or FreeBSD people build an alternative (hopefully better) base-system/init.

- Gilboa

[TheBlackCat]

your sarcasm meter is broken

It seems we have reached the point where we need to invoke Poe's law on systemd opponent.