4 ms·

Haven't heard of this particular issue, but my main point is that the reaction should then be: "Ok, so let's fix that in systemd, upstream systemd .service file

Haven't heard of this particular issue, but my main point is that the reaction should then be: "Ok, so let's fix that in systemd, upstream systemd .service files or whatever, and it gets fixed for everybody all at once.". The reaction should not be "systemd sucks!". That is the real value of standardization. EDIT: As far as I can tell as an outsider systemd is at least engineered well enough that these things can be solved, eventually. That wasn't the case before: Everybody had their own quarter-assed solutions that only worked for their specific case and would fail horribly in other cases, etc. etc.

Koshkin 10y ago
> value of standardization But the Linux community has always prided itself on freedom and diversity. Otherwise we might as well be all using one "standard" Linux distribution.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  There are things that are worth diversifying on. Basic subsystems that only serve to keep the OS running is not one of them -- the benefits of standardization far outweigh the costs of lack-of-diversity. (Of course this is just my opinion, yours may differ.) As to freedom: I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Can you expound?
  - Koshkin 10y ago
    I think freedom and diversity simply do not exist one without the other. Freedom of choice that has been essential in making Linux popular in the first place may be severely limited by imposing more and more "standards"; I would argue that the very spirit of Linux lies exactly in this freedom. This is why we have so many distributions; and the more we standardize, the less need there is for this diversity, which, I think, is bad for Linux and, ultimately, for its users.
    - lomnakkus 10y ago
      Ah, yes, the old > freedom and diversity simply do not exist one without the other. "freedom and diversity" defense. Nobody's trying to take that away, FWIW. It may feel threatened, but I assure you that systemd is the least of your worries if you really care about F&D.
  - petre 10y ago
    When everybody standardizes on possibly the worst implementation available for that platform, then it is worth diversifying.
    - lomnakkus 10y ago
      Worst by whose standards? Obviously it works quite well for a huge number of people.
throw2016 10y ago
We have all these 'words' like standardization, fragmentation, duplication that sound good but seem unworkable in open source without creating a monolith. There is a real risk this approach ends up concentrating power and influence and destroying dynamism. I suspect Linux would not have got to where it is with 'gatekeepers'. For proper standardization the design and development has to be done openly with the collaboration of major open source vendors and inputs of users to prevent one entity gaining control rather than now of trying to push vendor controlled projects as standards which looks too self serving. If the project is already done the vendor should be willing to give up control to a 'standards body'. 'Standards' can't be controlled by a single vendor. It's not a standard then.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  See my other reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14174674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14174674 > I suspect Linux would not have got to where it is with 'gatekeepers'. Uh, Linus? ... and distros, in general? There are very few people who decide to fork their own distro because, ultimately, good enough is good enough. You're portraying this as some of cabal of nefarious shady characters trying to do back-handed deals... it really was just a case of the other non-RH distros realizing that systemd was actually good enough. This is still all Free/Libre software, so if things go awry there's always the option of forking.
  - throw2016 10y ago
    I was actually talking about standardization. If Systemd seeks to be a standard then Redhat would have to give up control to a 'independent standards body' where others can influence the design, development and direction of the 'standard' outside the influence of Redhat and its employees. That seems to be the only credible way to create workable standards. Open source ecosystems clearly do not yet have the thinking and infrastructure around standardization so it may take concerted effort and time to develop the right processes.
    - lomnakkus 10y ago

Koshkin 10y ago

> value of standardization But the Linux community has always prided itself on freedom and diversity. Otherwise we might as well be all using one "standard" Linux distribution.

lomnakkus 10y ago
There are things that are worth diversifying on. Basic subsystems that only serve to keep the OS running is not one of them -- the benefits of standardization far outweigh the costs of lack-of-diversity. (Of course this is just my opinion, yours may differ.) As to freedom: I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Can you expound?
- Koshkin 10y ago
  I think freedom and diversity simply do not exist one without the other. Freedom of choice that has been essential in making Linux popular in the first place may be severely limited by imposing more and more "standards"; I would argue that the very spirit of Linux lies exactly in this freedom. This is why we have so many distributions; and the more we standardize, the less need there is for this diversity, which, I think, is bad for Linux and, ultimately, for its users.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    Ah, yes, the old > freedom and diversity simply do not exist one without the other. "freedom and diversity" defense. Nobody's trying to take that away, FWIW. It may feel threatened, but I assure you that systemd is the least of your worries if you really care about F&D.
- petre 10y ago
  When everybody standardizes on possibly the worst implementation available for that platform, then it is worth diversifying.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    Worst by whose standards? Obviously it works quite well for a huge number of people.

throw2016 10y ago

We have all these 'words' like standardization, fragmentation, duplication that sound good but seem unworkable in open source without creating a monolith. There is a real risk this approach ends up concentrating power and influence and destroying dynamism. I suspect Linux would not have got to where it is with 'gatekeepers'. For proper standardization the design and development has to be done openly with the collaboration of major open source vendors and inputs of users to prevent one entity gaining control rather than now of trying to push vendor controlled projects as standards which looks too self serving. If the project is already done the vendor should be willing to give up control to a 'standards body'. 'Standards' can't be controlled by a single vendor. It's not a standard then.

lomnakkus 10y ago
See my other reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14174674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14174674 > I suspect Linux would not have got to where it is with 'gatekeepers'. Uh, Linus? ... and distros, in general? There are very few people who decide to fork their own distro because, ultimately, good enough is good enough. You're portraying this as some of cabal of nefarious shady characters trying to do back-handed deals... it really was just a case of the other non-RH distros realizing that systemd was actually good enough. This is still all Free/Libre software, so if things go awry there's always the option of forking.
- throw2016 10y ago
  I was actually talking about standardization. If Systemd seeks to be a standard then Redhat would have to give up control to a 'independent standards body' where others can influence the design, development and direction of the 'standard' outside the influence of Redhat and its employees. That seems to be the only credible way to create workable standards. Open source ecosystems clearly do not yet have the thinking and infrastructure around standardization so it may take concerted effort and time to develop the right processes.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago