Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian Is Back To Discussing Init Systems, Freedom of Choice

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
    Stupid question: Why are upstream projects relying on functionality from the Init system?
    Generally speaking, they aren't. There are two things called systemd. The first is the init system, systemd. However, systemd is also the name of a group of lower-level userspace tools that upstreams can make use of. The systemd init system is one of these tools, but so are udev, logind, etc.

    Generally speaking, when you hear about upstream projects relying on "systemd", it is these tools they relying on (usually logind and/or udev). And, generally speaking, when you hear about upstream projects "relying" on these tools, usually what they are relying on is a few well-documented dbus interfaces that any tool could conceivably implement. The reason that projects are relying on them is simple: it is a lot easier than rewriting the tools themselves from scratch, and nobody has stepped up to maintain alternatives. Any program that provides the necessary dbus interfaces would work.

    Now there are cases where direct depencies on the systemd init system happen. For example, KDE plasma workspaces plans on using systemd socket activation under wayland to handle their services, because their home-grown service startup scrip has become a monstrosity that nobody dares touch not to mention greatly expand to support wayland. But again, conceivably any system that provides the necessary service handling tools would work. But nobody else provides such tools, and nobody is willing to do the work to port the script, so that is how things ended up.

    The other case is daemons that are meant to be started and stopped by the init system. Those often ship configuration files or startup scripts for various init systems. In that case, it is up to the developers what init systems they want to take the time to support.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
      Stupid question: Why are upstream projects relying on functionality from the Init system? Seems to be there's a more fundamental problem at work here: one of basic kernel design.
      See here for a practical example.
      Though I do believe that logind could work without systemd explicitly being PID1 (although it couldn't guarantee security anymore).

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Stauffen View Post
        If we had the money and the power of RedHat we not only would do as well as "forcing" the adoption of our Operating System for all major Distro. For now only the RedHat can do this.
        systemd is not a redhat project. stop spreading bullshit. if in your fantasy world redhad can force other distros, then whining is pointless. they will force gentoo and freebsd anyway. and also they will force you
        Last edited by pal666; 21 October 2014, 09:20 AM.

        Comment


        • #44
          Sorry friend, has two things not worth discussing:

          1) yes Systemd is a project of RedHat.'s She who pays the salary of Lennart and a few others. If I were the RedHat I do the same way. How to not stress I get what Julian Assange said: http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/...ed-by-the-nsa/
          "
          From the start, my revelations on this blog about Red Hat's deep control of Linux, along with Their large corporate / government connections, Has not Been just about spying, but about losing the distributed engineering quality of Linux, with Red Hat Centralizing control. Yet the former and an cypherpunk crypto software developer, as soon as I started using Linux years ago, I Noted que all the major distributions used watered-down encryption (to use stronger encryption in many areas, such as AES-loop, you needed to compile your own kernel and go to great lengths to manually bypass They put in place barriers to the use of genuinely strong encryption). This Told me que then controlled distributions Those Who Were deeply in the pockets of intelligence networks. So it comes to no surprise to me que They jumped on board to systemd When Told, mock Despite the publicized choice to users - there was never any option.
          "

          2) The Systemd take away freedom of choice also. I do not like him and this idea that I can make my distro is slapstick. If the Debian project, a giant project, much work will have to rely on their software rather think systemd

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Stauffen View Post
            Sorry friend, has two things not worth discussing:

            1) yes Systemd is a project of RedHat.'s She who pays the salary of Lennart and a few others. If I were the RedHat I do the same way. How to not stress I get what Julian Assange said: http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/...ed-by-the-nsa/
            "
            From the start, my revelations on this blog about Red Hat's deep control of Linux, along with Their large corporate / government connections, Has not Been just about spying, but about losing the distributed engineering quality of Linux, with Red Hat Centralizing control. Yet the former and an cypherpunk crypto software developer, as soon as I started using Linux years ago, I Noted que all the major distributions used watered-down encryption (to use stronger encryption in many areas, such as AES-loop, you needed to compile your own kernel and go to great lengths to manually bypass They put in place barriers to the use of genuinely strong encryption). This Told me que then controlled distributions Those Who Were deeply in the pockets of intelligence networks. So it comes to no surprise to me que They jumped on board to systemd When Told, mock Despite the publicized choice to users - there was never any option.
            "

            2) The Systemd take away freedom of choice also. I do not like him and this idea that I can make my distro is slapstick. If the Debian project, a giant project, much work will have to rely on their software rather think systemd
            Do we have a translator in the building?

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Stauffen View Post
              Sorry friend, has two things not worth discussing:

              1) yes Systemd is a project of RedHat.'s She who pays the salary of Lennart and a few others.
              Suse, Canonical, Arch Linux, Tizen (contributed by Samsung and Linux Foundation), CoreOS, Jolla contributors are now paid by Red Hat?

              If I were the RedHat I do the same way. How to not stress I get what Julian Assange said: http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/...ed-by-the-nsa/
              "
              From the start, my revelations on this blog about Red Hat's deep control of Linux, along with Their large corporate / government connections, Has not Been just about spying, but about losing the distributed engineering quality of Linux, with Red Hat Centralizing control. Yet the former and an cypherpunk crypto software developer, as soon as I started using Linux years ago, I Noted que all the major distributions used watered-down encryption (to use stronger encryption in many areas, such as AES-loop, you needed to compile your own kernel and go to great lengths to manually bypass They put in place barriers to the use of genuinely strong encryption). This Told me que then controlled distributions Those Who Were deeply in the pockets of intelligence networks. So it comes to no surprise to me que They jumped on board to systemd When Told, mock Despite the publicized choice to users - there was never any option.
              "
              The above quote is from the author of the blog himself not Julian Assange. Basically taking someone quote and twist to suit his own interpretation and spreading FUD.

              2) The Systemd take away freedom of choice also. I do not like him and this idea that I can make my distro is slapstick. If the Debian project, a giant project, much work will have to rely on their software rather think systemd
              Hardly systemd fault when majority of projects adopting it because they found it solves their real problems. Meanwhile, most systemd detractors wasted their times with willing full ignorance and misinformation by attempting of denying the evolution of Linux ecosystem in the modern world of technologies. No wonder they have very few developers working on alternative.
              Last edited by finalzone; 21 October 2014, 08:07 PM.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                Suse, Canonical, Arch Linux, Tizen (contributed by Samsung and Linux Foundation), CoreOS, Jolla contributors are now paid by Red Hat?


                The above quote is from the author of the blog himself not Julian Assange. Basically taking someone quote and twist to suit his own interpretation and spreading FUD.


                Hardly systemd fault when majority of projects adopting it because they found it solves their real problems. Meanwhile, most systemd detractors wasted their times with willing full ignorance and misinformation by attempting of denying the evolution of Linux ecosystem in the modern world of technologies. No wonder they have very few developers working on alternative.
                Friends, sorry my English.

                It does not matter the author, important is what speaks, and what he said makes sense. Being modern does not guarantee better be. systemd fanboy always say the same words: Make a fork, modern systemd, no one forced ... But look Windows Linux, little freedom.

                We will not be enemies for this cause, but it is my opinion.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Stauffen View Post
                  Friends, sorry my English.
                  Your English is fine.

                  It does not matter the author, important is what speaks, and what he said makes sense. Being modern does not guarantee better be. systemd fanboy always say the same words: Make a fork, modern systemd, no one forced ... But look Windows Linux, little freedom.
                  It actually does because the author is all talk. He did not propose the real alternative for systemd and relies on fear, uncertainty and doubt. He would mostly mention technical part should he be honest. Using an outdated software broken by design like Sysvint no longer cuts it. As explained before, the heavy use of shell command made it fragile. Systemd is compatible with sysvint command, most components are optional.
                  The freedom is still present in Linux ecosystem because the code source is available under General Public License and its variants unlike Microsoft Windows series. No string attached. Care to explain over 500 contributions for systemd.

                  We will not be enemies for this cause, but it is my opinion.
                  It is no longer an opinion when the same misinformation keeps repeating. Better do a proper research.
                  Last edited by finalzone; 22 October 2014, 11:58 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Stauffen View Post
                    Friends, sorry my English.
                    It's not that bad, just that I got lost sometimes while trying to read it. I can understand about 75% of it and try to piece together what I can, but I was having trouble in a few places so I just gave up.

                    Here's my systemd opinion:

                    1) systemd is good. More choice is still more choice. Old scripts shouldn't break, and the new scripts will be more secure, as well as execute faster. That's all that really matters to me.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Shall we fork Fedora?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X