Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 3.13.2 Temporarily Depends On Systemd

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
    Temporarily, my ass.


    No, R.I.P. Linux.
    Continuing a fine tradition of posting your faeces on the internet for all to see.

    Comment


    • #12
      Given The Current State Of KDE

      Namely that huge turd called Baloo which landed in 4.13, Gnome is possibly worth a spin.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
        Temporarily, my ass.
        No, R.I.P. Linux.


        http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=rip

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Anvil View Post
          i have my Fears with Systemd . its becoming another Microsoft, EVIL
          Could someone please explain to me where this meme of it "being like microsoft" or "windowsizing linux" came from? If anything it's making Linux take on a BSD type development model, which can be argued for or against, but I don't see where Windows or Microsoft come in as despite the obvious implication of it limiting choice, it's not limiting choice in a way that really effects users as opposed to distribution developers by creating standards for things like hostname and timezone placement. It's not like it's forcing you to say use gnome as your DE.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
            Could someone please explain to me where this meme of it "being like MicroSuck" or "windowsizing linux" came from? If anything it's making Linux take on a BSD type development model, which can be argued for or against, but I don't see where Windows or MicroSuck come in as despite the obvious implication of it limiting choice, it's not limiting choice in a way that really effects users as opposed to distribution developers by creating standards for things like hostname and timezone placement. It's not like it's forcing you to say use gnome as your DE.
            First of all, I like systemd.

            As for your question: everything is being shoved into one piece of software. Windows could be viewed as a humongous base package with very little customization or choice (extending far beyond the current state of GNU/Linux including systemd). Systemd is being perceived as limiting people in choice as it seems to handle more and more features.

            Systemd is currently:

            sysvinit + udev + consolekit + cron + anacron + syslog + logrotate + various network scripts (+ dhcp client/server) + time server

            This kind of departs from the idea to have seperate daemon's / software handle specific and well definied tasks. And to handle these well.

            However, systemd can still be stripped to a bare minimum of sysvinit + udev according to it's developers.

            I *am* starting to wonder: when will it end? Eventually it might become too big and end up like HAL.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
              ...
              Systemd is currently:

              sysvinit + udev + consolekit + cron + anacron + syslog + logrotate + various network scripts (+ dhcp client/server) + time server

              This kind of departs from the idea to have seperate daemon's / software handle specific and well definied tasks. And to handle these well.

              However, systemd can still be stripped to a bare minimum of sysvinit + udev according to it's developers.
              ...
              There doesn't seem to be any evidence that systemd handles that stuff any worse than "separate daemons". I'm not very knowledgeable about systemd's internals, but it looks like everything acts as a separate daemon anyway... The fact that the it's all in the same repository and branded with a single name "systemd" doesn't mean it's any less stable or capable than multiple different software programs.

              The way people talk about "windowzisation" make it look like they're saying standardization (which is what systemd is doing) is bad and not actually making a comparison to the way windows work. People are still free to use the linux kernel and build their own stuff on top of it. Don't complain if other people like standards and so are building on top of systemd.

              It's not that much different than Qt, GTK or even OpenGL. Their purpose is to create a standard layer that abstracts what's going under the hood for you. In the end what matters is that you're able to do everything you want, and if systemd isn't able to do that yet, lend a hand and contribute your patches...

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by mdias View Post
                There doesn't seem to be any evidence that systemd handles that stuff any worse than "separate daemons". I'm not very knowledgeable about systemd's internals, but it looks like everything acts as a separate daemon anyway... The fact that the it's all in the same repository and branded with a single name "systemd" doesn't mean it's any less stable or capable than multiple different software programs.
                True.

                Originally posted by mdias View Post
                The way people talk about "windowzisation" make it look like they're saying standardization (which is what systemd is doing) is bad and not actually making a comparison to the way windows work. People are still free to use the linux kernel and build their own stuff on top of it. Don't complain if other people like standards and so are building on top of systemd.
                I'm not complaining. However, if you don't like how systemd is handling something on the sysvinit part you have to fork the entire tree to make modifications.

                Furthermore, I think that people are not charmed by the idea that many different components are now governered by the same group of people. This could explain the resistance against systemd as a whole.

                Originally posted by mdias View Post
                It's not that much different than Qt, GTK or even OpenGL. Their purpose is to create a standard layer that abstracts what's going under the hood for you. In the end what matters is that you're able to do everything you want, and if systemd isn't able to do that yet, lend a hand and contribute your patches...
                The big difference IMHO is that QT, GTK and OpenGL have a well defined purpose. QT and GTK provide widgets to build graphical user interfaces. OpenGL is a standard to facilitate 3D programming over a broad range of cards / configurations.

                What is the point of systemd in one sentence?

                - To provide reliable process management. (but what about the syslog and network capabilities?)
                - To provide a central place for system configuration. (didn't sysvinit do that already?)
                - To provide a standard way of configuring and handling system services. (what problem does it solve?)

                I see more and more functionality being concentrated into one project. That is not (IMHO) a bad thing by definition. It's just that sometimes the benefits are not clear to me.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                  What is the point of systemd in one sentence?
                  systemd starts up and supervises the entire system (hence the name...).

                  It is what "void" is to the space.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                    Temporarily, my ass.


                    No, R.I.P. Linux.
                    No, R.I.P. crappy Linux, hello awesome Linux!

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by nerdopolis View Post
                      It's relying on a feature in systemd/logind (I THINK it's communicated with dbus but I am not sure) that allows an underprivileged program to get access to the input device files (/dev/input/event*), instead of relying on multiple instances of setuid helpers. This is useful for display servers like weston, and mutter, and I think possibly xorg could take advantage of that feature too.
                      Actually, both weston and mutter link directly to systemd library due to using some sd_* functions., but looking at mutter patch, it mainly uses D-Bus to communicate with logind.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X