5 ms·

Voting share ? There is no vote unless you work for RH. And even then. An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you ma

by gens 6y ago

Voting share ? There is no vote unless you work for RH. And even then. An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you made it you have no right to say anything. Have you ever made an init system ? Researched what exactly goes into it ? Sure, there's more then just starting programs. But not much more. The only really complicated thing about getting a [linux] computer from kernel boot to firefox is setting up devices. And even that [udev,"hotplug"] is not complicated as much as it is.. obscure. I know about these stuff, do you ? I'l defend a newbies right to say anything. Nobody was born with all the knowledge of the world. I will not have compassion for your kind of ignorance. SystemD is about as much an init as my foot is me. That is the problem that most of those you so casually dismiss have with it. That and that it wants to become mandatory. Could they have just extended udev instead of integrating it ? An i wrong to say that ? Is my opinion wrong because i don't have "Red Hat senior engineer" next to my name ? Programming is just a hobby for me. I don't even have a degree in it. So i'm ignorant on the subject ? Funny thing.. most of those on teh internets who are vehement in favor of systemD don't know much about how a computer system boots and what goes into that. edit: Never mind. I see feelings and fancy words are still more valuable then knowledge or thinking. Maybe one day, when computing is not as young of a science as it is now.

acdha 6y ago
> An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you made it you have no right to say anything. Have you ever made an init system ? Researched what exactly goes into it ? Sure, there's more then just starting programs. But not much more. The only really complicated thing about getting a [linux] computer from kernel boot to firefox is setting up devices. And even that [udev,"hotplug"] is not complicated as much as it is.. obscure. I know about these stuff, do you ? I know enough to know that you left out networking and authentication, network service dependencies, filesystems, volume encryption, etc. – not to mention automatic restarts, conditional behavior based on the network or other devices (stuff needs to happen when I leave the office), and the various edge cases which I’ve seen in three decades running Unix systems. Every other operating system Linux is competing with has a much better model than SysV init (Windows has since the early 1990s!), and the world changed from static servers which rarely changed to most systems needing dynamic behavior – what worked in an old server room isn’t a good fit for a laptop! Again, I’m not saying that systemd is perfect but that most of the complaints tend not to acknowledge the many problems it solved and a decade of angry forum threads doesn’t seem to have resulted in any concerted effort to build a serious competitor. The Debian community had a deep examination of the alternatives and picked systemd because it made sense, not because Red Hat has some brainwashing program.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Weren't Debian maintainers affected by the fact that it was... problematic to run Gnome without systemd? (Which might be entirety not systemd's fault.)
  - tapoxi 6y ago
    GNOME didn't have any significant systemd integration until well after Debian had decided to go ahead with it. I remember this being a strong supporter, among others: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00287.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00287.html
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      Then why did Josselin Mouette, a GNOME packager for Debian, write this in October 2013: "GNOME in jessie will need systemd as the init system to work with all its features, just like it needs the network configuration to be handled by NetworkManager."
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Correct. By the time the question of default init system was being decided by the Technical Committee, the tentacles of systemd were so entrenched that its relative merits or detriments as an init system were of little importance. As Russ Allbery (a committee member) pointed out at the time: "We’re not really talking about choosing between two competing ecosystems. Rather, we’re talking about whether or not to swap out a core component of an existing integrated ecosystem with a component that we like better." Also (to try holding back the tide of historical revisionism) let me highlight that Debian's decision was in no way unanimous and the process was not without its own controversy. In reality, the Tech Committee was divided down the middle when it came to their vote on the default init system, and the tie was only decided by the double vote of Bdale Garbee, the chairman of the committee.
- gens 6y ago
  udev was the biggest step towards "dynamic systems". Or should i say "hotplug" was, since it is more or less the same thing. I completely agree that the init should be an event based system. I'm not arguing that. I never argued that. I did not in fact argue much other then the statement that nobody should say their opinion about anything. You say i left out stuff. I did. A lot more stuff then you wrote here. It would be a looooooong list of things, all of them simple (including "networking" and encrypted filesystems). I mentioned udev as an example of something slightly more complex, but even it is not. > .. much better model than SysV init .. You talk as a user, as in an admin. I talk as someone who was once interested in how all these stuff actually work. What i played with (read about, coded, and researched in general) includes init, udev, network hardware management (how ip and iw actually do stuff, excluding wpa), and more. What have i learned ? That almost all of it is done by the kernel. SystemD is not the only.. program that responds to events and goes over a graph and such. In fact, it is not even that hard to do what it does. Remember how i asked why udev doesn't have a generic event.. protocol ? You can scrap udev if you don't use systemD. And why ? For better integration ? The kernel tells udev when a device appears. So why doesn't udev just send a message of some sort ? It could even have a "mode" where it doesn't do anything unless it receives a message telling it to. So why not ? Oh, i don't think it's malice. > The Debian community had a deep examination of the alternatives and picked systemd because it made sense, not because Red Hat has some brainwashing program. The debian debate was a clusterfuck of grand proportions. There was one (1!) post on the whole debate that addressed the technical aspects. In the end the conclusion was that it is easier to just use systemD as stuff depends on it more and more (GNOME, notably, funny). RH is a huge company, they are not altruistic in their goals. I wouldn't say malice, but i wouldn't say innocence either. And again, nothing of substance was said. Just fancy words and feelings. Brainwashing.. PS Fun fact: Xorg depends on udev to send it events over dbus when you plug something related to it. It still works without it, until you re-plug your mouse.
bsder 6y ago
As a FreeBSD and Mercurial user, I get more than a little schadenfreude when Linux users complain about something being foisted on them by someone with a more dominant mindshare or marketshare. Linux users spoke and set the system up to do exactly what it does--use a dominant position to drive out alternatives. They only complain when they suddenly wind up on the receiving end. Perhaps if you don't like getting the pointy end of the stick, maybe you shouldn't sharpen it in the first place?
Accacin 6y ago
> Funny thing.. most of those on teh internets who are vehement in favor of systemD don't know much about how a computer system boots and what goes into that. Why can't you have a discussion without childish insults?

by gens 6y ago

acdha 6y ago

> An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you made it you have no right to say anything. Have you ever made an init system ? Researched what exactly goes into it ? Sure, there's more then just starting programs. But not much more. The only really complicated thing about getting a [linux] computer from kernel boot to firefox is setting up devices. And even that [udev,"hotplug"] is not complicated as much as it is.. obscure. I know about these stuff, do you ? I know enough to know that you left out networking and authentication, network service dependencies, filesystems, volume encryption, etc. – not to mention automatic restarts, conditional behavior based on the network or other devices (stuff needs to happen when I leave the office), and the various edge cases which I’ve seen in three decades running Unix systems. Every other operating system Linux is competing with has a much better model than SysV init (Windows has since the early 1990s!), and the world changed from static servers which rarely changed to most systems needing dynamic behavior – what worked in an old server room isn’t a good fit for a laptop! Again, I’m not saying that systemd is perfect but that most of the complaints tend not to acknowledge the many problems it solved and a decade of angry forum threads doesn’t seem to have resulted in any concerted effort to build a serious competitor. The Debian community had a deep examination of the alternatives and picked systemd because it made sense, not because Red Hat has some brainwashing program.

nine_k 6y ago
Weren't Debian maintainers affected by the fact that it was... problematic to run Gnome without systemd? (Which might be entirety not systemd's fault.)
- tapoxi 6y ago
  GNOME didn't have any significant systemd integration until well after Debian had decided to go ahead with it. I remember this being a strong supporter, among others: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00287.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00287.html
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Then why did Josselin Mouette, a GNOME packager for Debian, write this in October 2013: "GNOME in jessie will need systemd as the init system to work with all its features, just like it needs the network configuration to be handled by NetworkManager."
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Correct. By the time the question of default init system was being decided by the Technical Committee, the tentacles of systemd were so entrenched that its relative merits or detriments as an init system were of little importance. As Russ Allbery (a committee member) pointed out at the time: "We’re not really talking about choosing between two competing ecosystems. Rather, we’re talking about whether or not to swap out a core component of an existing integrated ecosystem with a component that we like better." Also (to try holding back the tide of historical revisionism) let me highlight that Debian's decision was in no way unanimous and the process was not without its own controversy. In reality, the Tech Committee was divided down the middle when it came to their vote on the default init system, and the tie was only decided by the double vote of Bdale Garbee, the chairman of the committee.
gens 6y ago
udev was the biggest step towards "dynamic systems". Or should i say "hotplug" was, since it is more or less the same thing. I completely agree that the init should be an event based system. I'm not arguing that. I never argued that. I did not in fact argue much other then the statement that nobody should say their opinion about anything. You say i left out stuff. I did. A lot more stuff then you wrote here. It would be a looooooong list of things, all of them simple (including "networking" and encrypted filesystems). I mentioned udev as an example of something slightly more complex, but even it is not. > .. much better model than SysV init .. You talk as a user, as in an admin. I talk as someone who was once interested in how all these stuff actually work. What i played with (read about, coded, and researched in general) includes init, udev, network hardware management (how ip and iw actually do stuff, excluding wpa), and more. What have i learned ? That almost all of it is done by the kernel. SystemD is not the only.. program that responds to events and goes over a graph and such. In fact, it is not even that hard to do what it does. Remember how i asked why udev doesn't have a generic event.. protocol ? You can scrap udev if you don't use systemD. And why ? For better integration ? The kernel tells udev when a device appears. So why doesn't udev just send a message of some sort ? It could even have a "mode" where it doesn't do anything unless it receives a message telling it to. So why not ? Oh, i don't think it's malice. > The Debian community had a deep examination of the alternatives and picked systemd because it made sense, not because Red Hat has some brainwashing program. The debian debate was a clusterfuck of grand proportions. There was one (1!) post on the whole debate that addressed the technical aspects. In the end the conclusion was that it is easier to just use systemD as stuff depends on it more and more (GNOME, notably, funny). RH is a huge company, they are not altruistic in their goals. I wouldn't say malice, but i wouldn't say innocence either. And again, nothing of substance was said. Just fancy words and feelings. Brainwashing.. PS Fun fact: Xorg depends on udev to send it events over dbus when you plug something related to it. It still works without it, until you re-plug your mouse.

bsder 6y ago

As a FreeBSD and Mercurial user, I get more than a little schadenfreude when Linux users complain about something being foisted on them by someone with a more dominant mindshare or marketshare. Linux users spoke and set the system up to do exactly what it does--use a dominant position to drive out alternatives. They only complain when they suddenly wind up on the receiving end. Perhaps if you don't like getting the pointy end of the stick, maybe you shouldn't sharpen it in the first place?

Accacin 6y ago

> Funny thing.. most of those on teh internets who are vehement in favor of systemD don't know much about how a computer system boots and what goes into that. Why can't you have a discussion without childish insults?