[linux-elitists] How about a fork of Jessie without systemd?

Tomasz Rola rtomek at ceti.pl
Mon May 23 14:51:53 PDT 2016


On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:18:13AM -0700, Don Marti wrote:
> begin Greg KH quotation of Sun, May 15, 2016 at 02:14:22AM +0200:
> > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 04:38:49PM -0700, Ed Carp wrote:
> > > I'm particularly annoyed by systemd, period. Nothing wrong with the
> > > way things were
> > 
> > You are kidding, right?  Have you ever worked at that level?  Tried to
> > manage processes and services in a sane manner?  I've been dealing with
> > that problem since my first paid Linux job in 2000, and it didn't get
> > finally resolved until systemd.  There were lots of things wrong with
> > how things "were" before, perhaps you never worked down there?
> 
> I have written both init scripts and systemd unit
> files, for server-side packages of comparable
> complexity.  From the point of view of the package
> maintainer, systemd does have an edge.  You're writing
> fewer total lines and telling a well-documented
> program what to do, not invoking shell functions that
> can run arbitrary stuff.

Oh. I am not sure if this is good idea to chime in, but this sorry
thread is itching me and I somehow cannot resist. Sorry, everybody.

So you are happy with systemd, fine. And you claim it is
great. Cool. Myself, I could not care less if it is good or bad, given
that I have no technical need it could help me to with. But I have to
care, because judging how things seem to be I expect there will be
growing pressure to lock Linux in. It is possible - for a while - to
have init processes as they used to be, but this is not going to
last. Gentoo and Slackware will have to adopt systemd too, sooner or
later. And everybody who is going to run Linux kernel will have to run
systemd.

At least this is how I see it.

But IMHO it does not make you right, only self rightuous. You are the
one who asked in earlier post what is a non-systemd way of turning
Linux laptop into an alarm clock. And I would say, the non-systemd way
is to ask a question first, like "why on Earth would I want to do such
thing".

Ruben Safir, if you are reading this: it looks to me that you are
making an error too. Linux is already lost. Systemd has been adopted
into it. There were many people who made such decision, they probably
had a good reason to force it their way, majority had no reason to
oppose, and you are wasting your time. No amount of talking will undo
this change, because there were strong players (I do not know names,
does it matter?) who wanted this change to happen and so it
happened. Either accept the facts and love systemd or accept the facts
and move to another platform, where hopefully majority is still
unspoiled. FreeBSD seems to me like a good choice and if not, I can
either improve it a bit or move on, whereas I have not much
interest in improving systemd. There is still some time (medicine
calls it "grace period") before I will have to run systemd with no opt
out. The last two or so system upgrades (Debian) forced me to chase
and kill some unwanted demons (they trashed my logs with garbage,
fucked with some software and refused to die and maybe some more). The
writing was on the wall for years, I should have seen it earlier.

[...]
> > > - systemd goes completely against the Unix idea of one
> > > small utility doing one thing well, and it just comes across as change
> > > for the sake of change as a monument to someone's ego.
> > 
> > Really, you want to drag this old disputed argument out again?  Tell me
> > how your old init system was a "do one thing well" program?
> 
> I don't get the "Unix Philosophy" thing.

I do not care about "philosophy" all that much, but thing either does
a job, or can be improved or it does not do the job *I* want it to do
and should be replaced (and in such case, little does it matter how
many other things it does because I do not need them).

> Posts about "this functionality is broken on systemd
> but not OpenRC" are great, but "Unix Philosophy"?
> What did that get us?  A bunch of failing vendors in
> the 1990s, and the inevitability of Windows NT.

Windows NT, being touted as UNIX killer by marketing reps? And
silently discouraged by sales reps (because it was not doing the
advertised job). The one who required separate cpu for each service
ran (like, you wanted ftp, http and mail - buy 4-cpu machine or spend
rest of your life trying to log in, but even many cpu could not help
much). Windows "Not Today"? 

So this is what inevitable things look like.

>   http://gabriellacoleman.org/blog/?p=1729
> 
> The "philosophers" of Unix let themselves be rounded
> up and made irrelevant.

There are many kinds of philosophers.

[...]
> 
> > Remember back when Linux users were the ones pushing the boundries of
> > things, solving real problems and being happy to handle major changes in
> > the quest to making something better?  I sure do.  The real question is
> > why have the others on this list, who have been complaining about a
> > system library being replaced that they didn't have anything to do with,
> > have forgotten about why they started using Linux in the first place.
> 
> One cool systemd feature that I want to try is
> multiseat:
> 
>   https://bluehatrecord.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/multiseat-configuration-in-fedora-21/

Yes? If I am right, this was being done with X-server since 1980-ties
and with text terminals since about half a century. Wake me up when
you can do "multiseat" across a continent.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list