12 ms·

As a FreeBSD user I find this kind of comment hilarious given I see Linux specific code littering upstream open source projects with no thought for other platfo

As a FreeBSD user I find this kind of comment hilarious given I see Linux specific code littering upstream open source projects with no thought for other platforms on a regular basis. I occasionally see resistance to fixing these issues as well.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
As a Linux user I find this kind of comment hilarious given I see FreeBSD specific code littering upstream open source projects with no thought for other platforms on a regular basis. Why for example are Jails not compatible with Linux? Is that not considered upstream because FreeBSD's "integrated"? How convenient. I think what you see is happening because these "upstream" projects are actually primarily for Linux and by Linux devs. They just happen to work on BSD as well, but weren't you guys saying this whole time how the BSD approach of having everything integrated into one system is better and the whole GNU/Linux ecosystem of several upstream components is strictly worse? So what exactly are you complaining about? Us trying to use Linux-specific features to make the Linux ecosystem the best, rather than target the lowest common denominator while you guys take full advantage of FreeBSD's specifics? Seems less than fair to me.
- adamrt 6y ago
  > I see FreeBSD specific code littering upstream open source projects Any examples? > Why for example are Jails not compatible with Linux? What? Jails originated in FreeBSD over 20 years ago? This question doesn't make sense. The OP was referring to systemd affecting upstream by requiring systemd for things (ie Gnome). Are you saying there are pieces of software you have always used, but no longer can because they directly rely on jails? I don't even use FreeBSD, but this was a weird argument.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    I am saying GNOME is primarily a Linux desktop environment, developed practically exclusively by Linux users and thus it makes sense for it to make use of Linux specific features, just as it makes sense for FreeBSD technologies to take full advantage of FreeBSD-exclusive features. Just because GNOME wasn't using systemd in the 90s when systemd didn't even exist does not mean it should not use it ever, even if it makes sense for GNOME devs to do so now.
traverseda 6y ago
I think a lot of that is coming from redhat/IBM, which is currently doing their own take on EEE. Believe me I get pissy about that too.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  Honest question, is your opinion that we should have been stuck with something like SysVinit just so it's more convenient for the BSDs, while the likes of RedHat contribute the majority of the work? And if yes, can you point to an example of *BSD doing something similar while pushing their platform forward?
  - traverseda 6y ago
    I don't think we should have stuck with something like SysVinit, there's definitely room for improvement, but saying "it's either SysVinit or systemd" is a false dichotomy. If I was approaching building an init system I'd make a better language for writing init scripts than bash, some kind of interpreter that processes mostly declarative init files, sets things up, and then exits. An incremental improvement that works with existing systems instead of putting a whole bunch of new (generally un-audited) code into PID 1, with all the security implications that implies. Redhat may contribute the majority of the work but they're also very good at positioning themselves so that outsiders can't really contribute any work, or get any independently developed standards implemented.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > If I was approaching building an init system I'd make a better language for writing init scripts than bash, some kind of interpreter that processes mostly declarative init file Guess what systemd does? > sets things up, and then exits And that's the crux of the issue isn't it? Because on modern systems, things need setting up and tearing down all the time.
      - traverseda 6y ago
        > things need setting up and tearing down all the time. Well not really, that's an artifact of systemd's over-engineered design. There's nothing stopping you from tearing something down from an init script or doing more complicated dependency management using the CLI as your RPC mechanism (but red hat needed a reason to use their in-house RPC mechanism). Honestly something like systemd could be pretty reasonable if it wasn't created with the express intent of "combating fragmentation". Not that there aren't a whole bunch of technical and architectural issues with it, but still.
soraminazuki 6y ago
Linux getting first-class support from applications isn't a valid basis for criticism. It's not like Linux is actively doing harm to FreeBSD or anything.
AlexMax 6y ago
Frankly, I don't see what's so funny. I don't presume to know if EEE is Microsoft's strategy here, but if it is, do you think a fleeting moment of amusement at Linux's comeuppance is worth the damage done to the larger open source ecosystem in its wake? Linux and FreeBSD are on the same team here.

AsyncAwait 6y ago

As a Linux user I find this kind of comment hilarious given I see FreeBSD specific code littering upstream open source projects with no thought for other platforms on a regular basis. Why for example are Jails not compatible with Linux? Is that not considered upstream because FreeBSD's "integrated"? How convenient. I think what you see is happening because these "upstream" projects are actually primarily for Linux and by Linux devs. They just happen to work on BSD as well, but weren't you guys saying this whole time how the BSD approach of having everything integrated into one system is better and the whole GNU/Linux ecosystem of several upstream components is strictly worse? So what exactly are you complaining about? Us trying to use Linux-specific features to make the Linux ecosystem the best, rather than target the lowest common denominator while you guys take full advantage of FreeBSD's specifics? Seems less than fair to me.

adamrt 6y ago
> I see FreeBSD specific code littering upstream open source projects Any examples? > Why for example are Jails not compatible with Linux? What? Jails originated in FreeBSD over 20 years ago? This question doesn't make sense. The OP was referring to systemd affecting upstream by requiring systemd for things (ie Gnome). Are you saying there are pieces of software you have always used, but no longer can because they directly rely on jails? I don't even use FreeBSD, but this was a weird argument.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  I am saying GNOME is primarily a Linux desktop environment, developed practically exclusively by Linux users and thus it makes sense for it to make use of Linux specific features, just as it makes sense for FreeBSD technologies to take full advantage of FreeBSD-exclusive features. Just because GNOME wasn't using systemd in the 90s when systemd didn't even exist does not mean it should not use it ever, even if it makes sense for GNOME devs to do so now.

traverseda 6y ago

I think a lot of that is coming from redhat/IBM, which is currently doing their own take on EEE. Believe me I get pissy about that too.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
Honest question, is your opinion that we should have been stuck with something like SysVinit just so it's more convenient for the BSDs, while the likes of RedHat contribute the majority of the work? And if yes, can you point to an example of *BSD doing something similar while pushing their platform forward?
- traverseda 6y ago
  I don't think we should have stuck with something like SysVinit, there's definitely room for improvement, but saying "it's either SysVinit or systemd" is a false dichotomy. If I was approaching building an init system I'd make a better language for writing init scripts than bash, some kind of interpreter that processes mostly declarative init files, sets things up, and then exits. An incremental improvement that works with existing systems instead of putting a whole bunch of new (generally un-audited) code into PID 1, with all the security implications that implies. Redhat may contribute the majority of the work but they're also very good at positioning themselves so that outsiders can't really contribute any work, or get any independently developed standards implemented.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > If I was approaching building an init system I'd make a better language for writing init scripts than bash, some kind of interpreter that processes mostly declarative init file Guess what systemd does? > sets things up, and then exits And that's the crux of the issue isn't it? Because on modern systems, things need setting up and tearing down all the time.
    - traverseda 6y ago
      > things need setting up and tearing down all the time. Well not really, that's an artifact of systemd's over-engineered design. There's nothing stopping you from tearing something down from an init script or doing more complicated dependency management using the CLI as your RPC mechanism (but red hat needed a reason to use their in-house RPC mechanism). Honestly something like systemd could be pretty reasonable if it wasn't created with the express intent of "combating fragmentation". Not that there aren't a whole bunch of technical and architectural issues with it, but still.

soraminazuki 6y ago

Linux getting first-class support from applications isn't a valid basis for criticism. It's not like Linux is actively doing harm to FreeBSD or anything.

AlexMax 6y ago

Frankly, I don't see what's so funny. I don't presume to know if EEE is Microsoft's strategy here, but if it is, do you think a fleeting moment of amusement at Linux's comeuppance is worth the damage done to the larger open source ecosystem in its wake? Linux and FreeBSD are on the same team here.