5 ms·

Lennart had other stated goals besides what you laid out there. Below is from the systemd-devel mailing list in 2010. [1] "Well, it is definitely our intention

by ColanR 6y ago

Lennart had other stated goals besides what you laid out there. Below is from the systemd-devel mailing list in 2010. [1] "Well, it is definitely our intention to gently push the distributions in the same direction so that they stop supporting deviating solutions for these things where there's really no point at all in doing so. "Due to that our plan is to enable all this by default in "make install". Packagers may then choose to disable it by doing an "rm" after the "make install", but we want to put the burden on the packagers, so that eventually we end up with the same base system on all distributions, and we put an end to senseless configuration differences between the distros for the really basic stuff. "If a distro decides that for example the random seed save/restore is not good enough for it, then it's their own job to disable ours and plug in their own instead. Sooner or later they'll hopefully notice that it's not worth it and cross-distro unification is worth more." [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-September/000391.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-Se...

CameronNemo 6y ago
Sure, but all that could have happened without systemd too. The big radical changes were what mostly fell flat.
- ColanR 6y ago
  I don't think there's anything 'falling flat' about their big radical changes, because they aren't pushing them through via big radical changes. They're simply making it more and more difficult with the thousand-pinpricks approach to deviate from the systemd defaults. I don't think there's any evidence to indicate linux was doing anything but becoming more fragmented. Which was a good thing for diversity of thought, and the ability to evolve better designs. Here, Lennart explicity stated he was using non-overt methods to force cohesion in a non-organic fashion, which to me indicates he valued his design over good design.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    >They're simply making it more and more difficult with the thousand-pinpricks approach to deviate from the systemd defaults. I don't know what you mean by this. Even on systemd systems you can still install all your old tools and sidestep the systemd approach. >[fragmentation] .... was a good thing for diversity of thought, and the ability to evolve better designs. Here, Lennart explicity stated he was using non-overt methods to force cohesion in a non-organic fashion, which to me indicates he valued his design over good design. I didn't get that at all, the post you linked explicitly mentioned discouraging distros that deviate from the base setup for senseless reasons. You can see why this approach has caught on with distro maintainers, their job has been stuffing square pegs into round holes from the beginning. The idea of fragmentation just for the sake of fragmentation was never popular there.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      > Even on systemd systems you can still install all your old tools and sidestep the systemd approach. That's not true. The overwhelming majority of people who want to avoid systemd have said this is not realistically possible. I have enjoyed my time without systemd because I switched distros. There's a reason why Devuan never took off, and Void Linux is gathering a following. Systemd has integrated itself too far. >> Here, Lennart explicity stated he was using non-overt methods to force cohesion in a non-organic fashion, which to me indicates he valued his design over good design. > I didn't get that at all, the post you linked explicitly mentioned discouraging distros that deviate from the base setup for senseless reasons. You talked right past what I said. Again, > it's their own job to disable our [mechanism] and plug in their own instead. Sooner or later they'll hopefully notice that it's not worth it and cross-distro unification is worth more. He's explicitly doing this for cross-distro unification, and he is intentionally forcing it through by making things difficult for distro maintainers.
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        >That's not true. The overwhelming majority of people who want to avoid systemd have said this is not realistically possible. Can you please give examples? In my experience using your old init scripts, cron, syslogger, etc. with systemd still works fine. I did this for a long time on systemd machines until I felt comfortable with the systemd way. >he is intentionally forcing it through by making things difficult for distro maintainers You are talking past what Lennart said which you even quoted in your post just now: >they'll hopefully notice that it's not worth it and cross-distro unification is worth more I really cannot understand how you are trying to frame "hopefully they notice the associated costs with some decision" as anyone being forced to do anything. Are you trying to claim that systemd distros don't actually value cross-distro unification and were somehow tricked into this proposition even though it was clearly stated 10 years ago? Or are you disputing whether systemd actually accomplishes this? Either way, those are not really related to our current situation now.

by ColanR 6y ago

CameronNemo 6y ago

Sure, but all that could have happened without systemd too. The big radical changes were what mostly fell flat.

ColanR 6y ago
I don't think there's anything 'falling flat' about their big radical changes, because they aren't pushing them through via big radical changes. They're simply making it more and more difficult with the thousand-pinpricks approach to deviate from the systemd defaults. I don't think there's any evidence to indicate linux was doing anything but becoming more fragmented. Which was a good thing for diversity of thought, and the ability to evolve better designs. Here, Lennart explicity stated he was using non-overt methods to force cohesion in a non-organic fashion, which to me indicates he valued his design over good design.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  >They're simply making it more and more difficult with the thousand-pinpricks approach to deviate from the systemd defaults. I don't know what you mean by this. Even on systemd systems you can still install all your old tools and sidestep the systemd approach. >[fragmentation] .... was a good thing for diversity of thought, and the ability to evolve better designs. Here, Lennart explicity stated he was using non-overt methods to force cohesion in a non-organic fashion, which to me indicates he valued his design over good design. I didn't get that at all, the post you linked explicitly mentioned discouraging distros that deviate from the base setup for senseless reasons. You can see why this approach has caught on with distro maintainers, their job has been stuffing square pegs into round holes from the beginning. The idea of fragmentation just for the sake of fragmentation was never popular there.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > Even on systemd systems you can still install all your old tools and sidestep the systemd approach. That's not true. The overwhelming majority of people who want to avoid systemd have said this is not realistically possible. I have enjoyed my time without systemd because I switched distros. There's a reason why Devuan never took off, and Void Linux is gathering a following. Systemd has integrated itself too far. >> Here, Lennart explicity stated he was using non-overt methods to force cohesion in a non-organic fashion, which to me indicates he valued his design over good design. > I didn't get that at all, the post you linked explicitly mentioned discouraging distros that deviate from the base setup for senseless reasons. You talked right past what I said. Again, > it's their own job to disable our [mechanism] and plug in their own instead. Sooner or later they'll hopefully notice that it's not worth it and cross-distro unification is worth more. He's explicitly doing this for cross-distro unification, and he is intentionally forcing it through by making things difficult for distro maintainers.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      >That's not true. The overwhelming majority of people who want to avoid systemd have said this is not realistically possible. Can you please give examples? In my experience using your old init scripts, cron, syslogger, etc. with systemd still works fine. I did this for a long time on systemd machines until I felt comfortable with the systemd way. >he is intentionally forcing it through by making things difficult for distro maintainers You are talking past what Lennart said which you even quoted in your post just now: >they'll hopefully notice that it's not worth it and cross-distro unification is worth more I really cannot understand how you are trying to frame "hopefully they notice the associated costs with some decision" as anyone being forced to do anything. Are you trying to claim that systemd distros don't actually value cross-distro unification and were somehow tricked into this proposition even though it was clearly stated 10 years ago? Or are you disputing whether systemd actually accomplishes this? Either way, those are not really related to our current situation now.