6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      > were somehow tricked into this proposition even though it was clearly stated 10 years ago? Tricked? Please don't put words into my mouth. You're right; technically, this email doesn't indicate he's forcing anyone. What it does say, though, is that he has his own agenda, and instead of trying to achieve consensus, he's intentionally making disagreement difficult while he forges ahead irrespective of that disagreement. To me, that represents disrespect for anyone who disagrees, and he's certainly not soliciting others' input. --- From reading some of the disagreements about systemd, it seems like there's two primary points of contention. 1. Whether or not systemd represents good engineering. For example, "it makes things super easy for sysadmins" vs. "it breaks things in weird ways", or "tight integration is awesome" vs. "muh Unix philosophy". 2. Whether or not systemd was introduced in good faith. Does that sound like a decent categorization? At the very least, it would help us not talk past each other.
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        I'm not putting words into your mouth. I asked if that was what you meant. It's reasonable for you to say no and then clarify. There is no such thing as a programmer without a personal agenda. You can cargo-cult the idea of "good engineering" and accuse people of making decisions in bad faith but it's weak in these circumstances when the ship sailed a long time ago and TFA already rants about enough related to this topic. Who cares? If you ask me nothing has changed, it's variations on the same old flame wars about Linux vs BSD vs Solaris vs MacOS vs everything else, just burning and burning, forever. Do you have an actual issue with the code that needs solving? I can actually help you with that, I can't help with trying to guess whether someone is an evil supervillain or not based on some ancient mailing list posts.

by ColanR 6y ago

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.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > were somehow tricked into this proposition even though it was clearly stated 10 years ago? Tricked? Please don't put words into my mouth. You're right; technically, this email doesn't indicate he's forcing anyone. What it does say, though, is that he has his own agenda, and instead of trying to achieve consensus, he's intentionally making disagreement difficult while he forges ahead irrespective of that disagreement. To me, that represents disrespect for anyone who disagrees, and he's certainly not soliciting others' input. --- From reading some of the disagreements about systemd, it seems like there's two primary points of contention. 1. Whether or not systemd represents good engineering. For example, "it makes things super easy for sysadmins" vs. "it breaks things in weird ways", or "tight integration is awesome" vs. "muh Unix philosophy". 2. Whether or not systemd was introduced in good faith. Does that sound like a decent categorization? At the very least, it would help us not talk past each other.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      I'm not putting words into your mouth. I asked if that was what you meant. It's reasonable for you to say no and then clarify. There is no such thing as a programmer without a personal agenda. You can cargo-cult the idea of "good engineering" and accuse people of making decisions in bad faith but it's weak in these circumstances when the ship sailed a long time ago and TFA already rants about enough related to this topic. Who cares? If you ask me nothing has changed, it's variations on the same old flame wars about Linux vs BSD vs Solaris vs MacOS vs everything else, just burning and burning, forever. Do you have an actual issue with the code that needs solving? I can actually help you with that, I can't help with trying to guess whether someone is an evil supervillain or not based on some ancient mailing list posts.