Systemd Is The Future Of Debian

[GreatEmerald]

Yes, just so no to people who wants to help you and improve your project. That will make your software great.

I love input from Debian developers. They are usually the reason things work on all kinds of weird hardware and specific configurations that I would never bother to test myself.

You're missing the "Debian-specific bugs" part. Upstream cannot do anything about those in the slightest. Those are not real bugs in the upstream package. If they messed the integration downstream, there is nothing upstream can do to help.

Otherwise, the bugs would not be Debian-specific and present in upstream in general; in which case it doesn't matter what distribution the developers use. They'll be able to reproduce and fix the bugs.

[valeriodean]

You're missing the "Debian-specific bugs" part. Upstream cannot do anything about those in the slightest. Those are not real bugs in the upstream package. If they messed the integration downstream, there is nothing upstream can do to help.

Otherwise, the bugs would not be Debian-specific and present in upstream in general; in which case it doesn't matter what distribution the developers use. They'll be able to reproduce and fix the bugs.

Agree.
If, for example, Debian's maintainers try to cut off logind from systemd and then send a bug to upstream asking for fix, very likely they will see a big "closed downstream" on their face.
I remember the Kwin maintainer be really clear about such situation (speaking about Mir patches to Kwin): one distro solution remains a downstream problem, will not be implemented upstream.
So, also for me, it is pretty clear that the cost of the L approval will be on the maintainers side and for this reason, I guess, will be someone that will call a GR to erase that decision.
At the end of the story, with a couple of GRs (one for the init system and another one for L/T), all that mess will see the end.

[justmy2cents]

NVidia is crap on Linux. I have optimus myself, but get much smoother desktop performance if I force it to Intel mode even though NVidia mode is 4-10 times faster in games (plus that right now I have to reboot to switch mode because nvidia still doesn't have decent optimus support in Linux).

I know about the deficiencies of XOrg, but the comparison video you posted was still completely idiotic and has nothing to do with any of the issues.

let me clue you about few things. it wasn't me who posted video and even original poster never posted it as definitive benchmark. He posted it as "Already more usable than XOrg in SOME cases". your brain really had to take some wrong turns in life in order to be able to create conspiracy theory out of that.

next thing. neither did i ever said it is a benchmark. i was praising $25 worth hardware doing perfect frame which my machine with XOrg can't on XOrg deficiency. again... your brains show that you think that is a competition, where i tried to show with next answer that developers them selves agree on the fact that XOrg sucks. and it does, they reached limits on what one can do long ago and all they are doing right now is avoid XOrg more and more, where ending up with wayland is obvious conclusion. whole world except you agrees that XOrg is fucked up.

to come to you yapping at me about idiotic video which i didn't post it in the 1st place. only idiot here seems to be you coz it seems that you can't even solve the meaning of sentence.

btw, XOrg in that video is irrelevant on 2 points, XOrg it self is too bloated to be able to run decently on R-Pi, wayland was optimized to run on it from Collabora. and wayland running as smooth on R-Pi part on the other hand is like seeing yeti and Jesus making miracle at the same time.

before proclaiming other people idiots, check if you're not maybe talking about your self

[inhuman4]

No expert on Debian inner workings, but neither Jackson's ballot nor Allbury's amendment to it, have been put to the TC, but then again, several of the CTTE members are also Policy members. I even think several CTTE members was actually in the process of discussion the implications of the CTTE decision, in order to reach a compromise. Rather messy.

I don't think that Jackson's L-coupling have much chance in a GR either, it is too extreme. His GR proposal will probably slightly softer. If he plays it well, he can split the opposition to gather around a compromise text leaning in his direction, like he tried with the first ballot. So even if his proposal looses the GR, the winning proposal will be much closer to his aim than if he hadn't sponsored a GR.

Well, I do think upstream would be frustrated about a third, Debian only stack. How would the precious few upstream developers handle Debian bugs if none, or only few of them actually would develop or test this stack? I mean, which developer would voluntarily run a distro, that deliberately crippled the developers program?

I think at this point they might as well just pass the decision off to a GR. Ian's latest proposal basically boils down to: "If I don't get my way: GR." I think Keith spells it out quite diplomatically in his reply to Ian's latest CFV.

Probably more problematic though is Ian's non-apology apology Hello again message completely fails to reset things back on to a proper footing. He closes by promising an ultimatum. Then proceeds to change his vote on one of his earlier CFVs, but still hasn't done so on the one calling for Bdale to step down.

I think at this point things have become too heated (and personal in Ian's case) for continued discussion.

[liam]

Oh for fuck sake there is no true spirit of Linux!

It's like, if tomorrow somebody made a car engine that was able to work with 1/10th of the oil to achieve the same momentum, with increased safety for the user, wouldn't you expect every car manufacturer to switch to this engine ? If I was a politician I would definitely ask for a law making illegal other kind of engines in broad distribution.

Thank you for making this point. People like to point to the kernel as an exemplar of their philosophy when the fact is it works b/c it has a competent dictator who is very pragmatic. I other projects were as lucky and had such goals.

[Baconmon]

Some programs will be banned entirely from Debian, like the upcoming GUI journald log-viewers because they rely on systemd being PID1. I think his suggestion also make it impossible to run Wayland with user privileges, so it has to be root with all the problems that gives. Even if Debian developers are making, or are involved in making programs that require systemd as PID1, their work will be banned from Debian. And this is despite Debian CTTE have decided on systemd as PID1.

It will frustrate Upstream DE developers no end; eg. KDE SC 5/Plasma 2, will have full systemd integration (user, session management etc), but also exist in a sysvinit version with fewer features. Basically supporting the new Linux developing stack: systemd, cgroups, Wayland (and kdebus) in one version, and legacy sysvinit X.org in the other. But if this suggestion goes through, they will have to support a new, Debian only, stack too, that is a neutered mix of new and legacy. Not nice at all.

Your words really help paint a clearer picture of what effect that that would really have on debian.. It would turn in to a ridiculous franken-distrobution that probably no maintainer would want to mess with any more.. That is why I am kind of mad at some one like ian jackson.....does he realize what he is proposing??..
I'm wondering this: Hypothetically, if debian adopted loose-coupling and every thing else that ian jackson wants, and debian becomes this giant distopian frakendistrobution..I wonder what ian jackson's response would be if you asked him "Look at debian now......Are you happy? Is *this* what you wanted? Is this what you wanted debian to become?"......I wonder if he would regret the decisions he made, or if he would actually genuinely be happy..

I've said this before, but, I really don't think some one like jackson should be on the TC.. It seems like he tries to steer debian in to disasterous directions, only to be corrected by other TC members (or maybe by GR some times).. Just because jackson doesn't succeed with his ridiculous plans doesn't mean that he shouldn't leave the TC.. If he doesn't have debian's interest first and foremost, he should get off of the TC in my opinion.. He is better suited for ubuntu's TC (if ubuntu even has a TC), not on debian's..

[chrisb]

There's a comment here that sounds very plausible: https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/NstZfwXbAti
Are there examples where Red Hat has signed a CLA other than the Oracle one?

If that hypothesis is correct, then it's not a moral decision not to support a CLA, but a business decision. If the project is something that they want, then they sign. (For a moral ethics question, consider - would Stallman have signed an Oracle CLA because he wanted to use the software? That's the difference.)

Nobody outside of Red Hat knows what asymmetric CLAs they have signed, probably MySql, which is also now under the Oracle
licence, similarly OpenOffice CLA, the Intel CLA (used for OpenMP, TBB etc), and any companies involved in ARM platform (all those boot systems, drivers, firmware etc where you get the source if you sign a contract). Also they must have signed many so-called symmetric CLAs, where the IP is legally owned by an organisation but is somehow supposed to be contractually protected from being exploited, which btw is not legally solid - if the organisation owns an asset and is required by a court to pay a debt, then the courts can ultimately transfer ownership of that asset. eg CorpX sues Foundation over widget patent, Foundation loses and is ordered to pay $500M, declares bankruptcy, court assigns software ownership to CorpX. One of the dangers of having a single IP owner is that it introduces a single point of failure.

[Skrapion]

If that hypothesis is correct, then it's not a moral decision not to support a CLA, but a business decision. If the project is something that they want, then they sign. (For a moral ethics question, consider - would Stallman have signed an Oracle CLA because he wanted to use the software? That's the difference.)

What you're positing here is that moral ethics are absolute. That's a very black and white view of the world. Sometimes it's important to admit defeat if it means you can live to fight another day. In the link we're discussing, the user is saying that RedHat was forced to admit defeat on the Oracle CLA, but not on the Canonical CLA.

As far as Stallman and his uncompromising rhetoric, I'll take it more seriously after every other developer has been personally granted $1m+ like he has.

[curaga]

As far as Stallman and his uncompromising rhetoric, I'll take it more seriously after every other developer has been personally granted $1m+ like he has.

Source? The MacArthur grant was 240k, far from a million.

[uid313]

As far as Stallman and his uncompromising rhetoric, I'll take it more seriously after every other developer has been personally granted $1m+ like he has.

You don't see Stallman living in luxury and having it good.
The guy lives a very simple life.

He is no hypocrite, the guy is dedicated to what be believes in.