4 ms·

It's important to remember that it's not "those systemd guys" who are breaking everything. It's their backer, Redhat. Redhat is leveraging its strong position i

by alrs 10y ago

It's important to remember that it's not "those systemd guys" who are breaking everything. It's their backer, Redhat. Redhat is leveraging its strong position in the free software ecosystem to bend all Linux distributions to its way of doing things. I think they're mostly guided by a desire to keep Canonical penned-in and in a defensive position.

busterarm 10y ago
Canonical does the same thing though (Mir).
- alrs 10y ago
  They're the same class of jerks, but they don't have the leverage to strong-arm everyone the way that Redhat is doing it.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Frankly i see Canonical being a lesser issue. They are doing basically the same that gave us the various BSD flavors. They are not tying together originally independent projects so that others has to conform or else. They build their own thing to their own needs, and if you find you have the same needs then your free to help out.
sandGorgon 10y ago
Redhat funds almost every kernel developer there - including several core libraries and security. Canonical does not spend so much on employing core developers and feeds mostly on upstream. That in itself is not a problem...but your presumption is wrong. If you track the systemd inclusion process in Debian, you will find that it was not subverted but was a free and open fight. Systemd won on its perceived superiority by people much smarter than me.
- alrs 10y ago
  I'm making no defense of Canonical. I'm not an Ubuntu user. Redhat has been doing the right thing for years, with paid employees in prominent positions throughout the ecosystem, including the kernel, as you note. The problem is that they've taken all that goodwill and soft power and weaponized it to back GNOME against Unity.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Frankly i think they are more worried about Oracle than they are about Canonical. While RH and Oracle has a long history of cooperation, Oracle now have their own distro thats a fork of RHEL. This fork prompted RH to end some policies that made life easy for CentOS (who now happens to be sponsored by RH), regarding the packaging of various patches.
- gaius 10y ago
  That's not quite it - it "won" because the Debian project only has the time and people to support one option, and they got railroaded.
  - riyadparvez 10y ago
    I am not sure what is your definition of "won". There is only one option can be supported, and debian picked systemd over other options. It seems exactly fits the definition of "won".
    - gaius 10y ago
      Perhaps you should re-read your Thucydides, specifically the Melian Dialogue.
  - tremon 10y ago
    That's not quite correct though: all of my Debian systems (jessie and stretch) are happily running with either sysvinit or openrc. Maybe there's a problem running Gnome without systemd, but I'm not using that anyway. The only thing the TC decided is that daemons must be able to run under systemd -- which can be achieved by providing a (cross-init) sysv script, or a systemd service file.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
erikb 10y ago
Also getting things done your way instead of the reasonable way can save a lot of money in the short term, and a huge part of business is exactly that. It's not nice, but you can't survive in business if you don't use leverage to make things easier sometimes.
justabystander 10y ago
> breaking everything This behavior can be disabled by the distro or admin with a single line change, and there's a policy for users to be able to set the behavior for themselves with a single line. They fixed a problem with that policy two days ago, but the fixed policy could be backported for those who need it immediately before the next release. This is in addition to being able to control it on a per-process level. Obviously they gave us so many ways to control this because they wanted to break things. "Breaking everything" is nothing but hyperbole. This change won't make it to the users unless the package maintainers just let it through. And I can guarantee after this stink that every systemd packager will be informed of the decision. Yes, asking tmux to request this behavior by dbus was amazingly short-sighted, bordering on stupid. I don't think anyone really wants to argue that. Plenty of developers get caught up in the importance of their project and fail to recognize that not everyone else wants to use it. So he's easily earned some criticism. I suspect it was well intentioned; he probably heard people complaining about how this change affected tmux, and wanted to help people "resolve it". He obviously didn't understand that this is not the way tmux would want to handle it. > Redhat is leveraging its strong position ... to bend all Linux distributions to its way > guided by a desire to keep Canonical penned-in This reactionary stuff is completely out of hand. We have people: * claiming that the default should always be to let everything run forever because that's the way it's always been isn't much better. Since the moment Linux supported multiple users, letting processes continue after logout was a bad default. * insisting that any compiled code beyond the absolute minimum in the boot process is a bad idea. * Insisting on bad faith when developers don't consider their singular workflow. * Stating that standards don't matter if only one system implements them. Despite the fact that most standards start with 0-1 implementations. * engaging in constant tinfoil hat conspiracy claims against Gnome, Redhat, and any other group of contributors larger than 2 people. Obviously they're trying to control us and not, you know, trying to make things work the way they want to work. The fact that these corporations fund major portions of the ecosystem and contribute heavily to all levels of the stack doesn't matter anything - they're obviously trying to get a "monopoly" on linux through open source code. Or working with the NSA. Yes, someone's actually said that. It beyond ridiculous to think that there's anything guiding these decisions other than the perception of what makes a good product to those involved. They might be wrong, but they're not malicious. It's disgusting that these systemd threads always spiral out of control like this, stirring up a disturbing level of vitriol. We have constant mudslinging over things that can be fixed with default configurations at the distro level. The fact that we still have these periodic flamewars and monthly hatefests about any groups or projects (even systemd) makes working in the FOSS community an undesirable minefield. We should be embarrassed as adults that we lack the self-control to deal with this in an adult fashion.

by alrs 10y ago

busterarm 10y ago

Canonical does the same thing though (Mir).

alrs 10y ago
They're the same class of jerks, but they don't have the leverage to strong-arm everyone the way that Redhat is doing it.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Frankly i see Canonical being a lesser issue. They are doing basically the same that gave us the various BSD flavors. They are not tying together originally independent projects so that others has to conform or else. They build their own thing to their own needs, and if you find you have the same needs then your free to help out.

sandGorgon 10y ago

Redhat funds almost every kernel developer there - including several core libraries and security. Canonical does not spend so much on employing core developers and feeds mostly on upstream. That in itself is not a problem...but your presumption is wrong. If you track the systemd inclusion process in Debian, you will find that it was not subverted but was a free and open fight. Systemd won on its perceived superiority by people much smarter than me.

alrs 10y ago
I'm making no defense of Canonical. I'm not an Ubuntu user. Redhat has been doing the right thing for years, with paid employees in prominent positions throughout the ecosystem, including the kernel, as you note. The problem is that they've taken all that goodwill and soft power and weaponized it to back GNOME against Unity.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Frankly i think they are more worried about Oracle than they are about Canonical. While RH and Oracle has a long history of cooperation, Oracle now have their own distro thats a fork of RHEL. This fork prompted RH to end some policies that made life easy for CentOS (who now happens to be sponsored by RH), regarding the packaging of various patches.
gaius 10y ago
That's not quite it - it "won" because the Debian project only has the time and people to support one option, and they got railroaded.
- riyadparvez 10y ago
  I am not sure what is your definition of "won". There is only one option can be supported, and debian picked systemd over other options. It seems exactly fits the definition of "won".
  - gaius 10y ago
    Perhaps you should re-read your Thucydides, specifically the Melian Dialogue.
- tremon 10y ago
  That's not quite correct though: all of my Debian systems (jessie and stretch) are happily running with either sysvinit or openrc. Maybe there's a problem running Gnome without systemd, but I'm not using that anyway. The only thing the TC decided is that daemons must be able to run under systemd -- which can be achieved by providing a (cross-init) sysv script, or a systemd service file.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

erikb 10y ago

Also getting things done your way instead of the reasonable way can save a lot of money in the short term, and a huge part of business is exactly that. It's not nice, but you can't survive in business if you don't use leverage to make things easier sometimes.

justabystander 10y ago

> breaking everything This behavior can be disabled by the distro or admin with a single line change, and there's a policy for users to be able to set the behavior for themselves with a single line. They fixed a problem with that policy two days ago, but the fixed policy could be backported for those who need it immediately before the next release. This is in addition to being able to control it on a per-process level. Obviously they gave us so many ways to control this because they wanted to break things. "Breaking everything" is nothing but hyperbole. This change won't make it to the users unless the package maintainers just let it through. And I can guarantee after this stink that every systemd packager will be informed of the decision. Yes, asking tmux to request this behavior by dbus was amazingly short-sighted, bordering on stupid. I don't think anyone really wants to argue that. Plenty of developers get caught up in the importance of their project and fail to recognize that not everyone else wants to use it. So he's easily earned some criticism. I suspect it was well intentioned; he probably heard people complaining about how this change affected tmux, and wanted to help people "resolve it". He obviously didn't understand that this is not the way tmux would want to handle it. > Redhat is leveraging its strong position ... to bend all Linux distributions to its way > guided by a desire to keep Canonical penned-in This reactionary stuff is completely out of hand. We have people: * claiming that the default should always be to let everything run forever because that's the way it's always been isn't much better. Since the moment Linux supported multiple users, letting processes continue after logout was a bad default. * insisting that any compiled code beyond the absolute minimum in the boot process is a bad idea. * Insisting on bad faith when developers don't consider their singular workflow. * Stating that standards don't matter if only one system implements them. Despite the fact that most standards start with 0-1 implementations. * engaging in constant tinfoil hat conspiracy claims against Gnome, Redhat, and any other group of contributors larger than 2 people. Obviously they're trying to control us and not, you know, trying to make things work the way they want to work. The fact that these corporations fund major portions of the ecosystem and contribute heavily to all levels of the stack doesn't matter anything - they're obviously trying to get a "monopoly" on linux through open source code. Or working with the NSA. Yes, someone's actually said that. It beyond ridiculous to think that there's anything guiding these decisions other than the perception of what makes a good product to those involved. They might be wrong, but they're not malicious. It's disgusting that these systemd threads always spiral out of control like this, stirring up a disturbing level of vitriol. We have constant mudslinging over things that can be fixed with default configurations at the distro level. The fact that we still have these periodic flamewars and monthly hatefests about any groups or projects (even systemd) makes working in the FOSS community an undesirable minefield. We should be embarrassed as adults that we lack the self-control to deal with this in an adult fashion.