5 ms·

About removing support for what they call split-usr and unmerged-usr: Why does a init system and daemon manager even need suppport for a certain directory layou

About removing support for what they call split-usr and unmerged-usr: Why does a init system and daemon manager even need suppport for a certain directory layout, shouldn't it be agnostic? Having a separate usr-space saved my bacon in the past a couple of times. The thing I dislike most about Systemd is that it leads to homogenisation, where to me, running Linux is about choice.

Macha 4y ago
The kernel initramfs only mounts the root partition - parsing fstab and running mount is handled as part of init. This means that an init system needs to support split-usr by ensuring it can go without the contents of /usr at least long enough to bootstrap (which requires special treatment of the mounting scripts/units) or else avoid using /usr at all
dsr_ 4y ago
I believe that the end goal of systemd is to end Linux distributions as anything other than a flavor. This will not work completely, but it may work well enough that non-systemd linux will be considered an unusual eccentricity.
- LeSaucy 4y ago
  One could make the argument we are already there.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Until some eccentricity works well enough that everybody adopts it. Then it's only a matter of barriers and lock-in... And systemd imposes a lot of those.
VLM 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HNDV 4y ago
http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ >where to me, running Linux is about choice. Quote : "From: Adam Jackson To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: Linux is not about choice [was Re: Fedora too cutting edge?] Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:58:45 -0500 > Linux is about choice. If I could only have one thing this year, it would be to eliminate that meme from the collective consciousness. It is a disease. It strangles the mind and ensures you can never change anything ever because someone somewhere has OCD'd their environment exactly how they like it and how dare you change it on them you're so mean and next time I have friends over for Buffy night you're not invited mom he's sitting on my side again. As a consumer, yes, you have lots of choices in which Linux you use. This does not mean Linux is in any sense _about_ choice, any more than because there are so many kinds of cars you can buy that cars are about choice. The complaints up-thread about juju and pulse are entirely valid, but the solution is not to try to deliver two things at once. If you try to deliver both at once you have to also deliver a way of switching between the two. Now you have three moving parts instead of one, which means the failure rate has gone up by a factor of _six_ (three parts, and three interactions). We have essentially already posited that we have insufficient developer effort to have 100%-complete features at ship time, so asking them to take on six times the failure rate when they're already overburdened is just madness. Alternatively, we could say that we're integrating features too rapidly, but you do that at the expense of goal 1, to be the showcase for the latest and greatest in free software. Software is hard. The way to fix it is to fix it, not sweep it under the rug. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about where and how we draw the line for feature inclusion, about how we increase and formalize our testing efforts, and about how we develop and deploy spike solutions for corner-case problems like the one device class that juju happens to do worse than the old stack. But the chain of logic from "Linux is about choice" to "ship everything and let the user chose how they want their sound to not work" starts with fallacy and ends with disaster. - ajax "
- captainmuon 4y ago
  Hah, I knew somebody was going to post this and almost added a disclaimer. When I say Linux, I'm talking about Linux distributions. Not the bare kernel, not embedded Linux. If I choose to use Linux over macOS or Windows, the #1 reason is that it gives me greater choice. On the desktop, to choose different desktop environments, to customize it to a greater extent than what is possible on other platforms. (That even applies to some extent to the server, I can choose from a greater selection of alternative services and am more flexible than in the Windows Server world, where it is more often a IIS, MSSQL, .NET stack.) If I don't value choice, than frankly there is very little to make me choose Linux over whatever is preinstalled on my Laptop. I used to have fun tinkering with my Linux installation and developing my own tools and workflows etc., but now that I'm older and don't have so much disposable time I prefer something that is good enough out of the box. I'm sure many people can relate. If the greater Linux community still embraced "Linux is about choice", and I could still run stuff in the "mix and match" spirit of ca. 2009, but with a modern kernel and modern apps, then I would immediately switch to desktop Linux. But you can't choose your window decorations, themes, desktop panels independently anymore and get a somewhat matching look and feel. It's only Gnome island, KDE/Plasma island, and hacker-minimalist island.

Macha 4y ago

The kernel initramfs only mounts the root partition - parsing fstab and running mount is handled as part of init. This means that an init system needs to support split-usr by ensuring it can go without the contents of /usr at least long enough to bootstrap (which requires special treatment of the mounting scripts/units) or else avoid using /usr at all

dsr_ 4y ago

I believe that the end goal of systemd is to end Linux distributions as anything other than a flavor. This will not work completely, but it may work well enough that non-systemd linux will be considered an unusual eccentricity.

LeSaucy 4y ago
One could make the argument we are already there.
marcosdumay 4y ago
Until some eccentricity works well enough that everybody adopts it. Then it's only a matter of barriers and lock-in... And systemd imposes a lot of those.

VLM 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

HNDV 4y ago

http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ >where to me, running Linux is about choice. Quote : "From: Adam Jackson To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: Linux is not about choice [was Re: Fedora too cutting edge?] Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:58:45 -0500 > Linux is about choice. If I could only have one thing this year, it would be to eliminate that meme from the collective consciousness. It is a disease. It strangles the mind and ensures you can never change anything ever because someone somewhere has OCD'd their environment exactly how they like it and how dare you change it on them you're so mean and next time I have friends over for Buffy night you're not invited mom he's sitting on my side again. As a consumer, yes, you have lots of choices in which Linux you use. This does not mean Linux is in any sense _about_ choice, any more than because there are so many kinds of cars you can buy that cars are about choice. The complaints up-thread about juju and pulse are entirely valid, but the solution is not to try to deliver two things at once. If you try to deliver both at once you have to also deliver a way of switching between the two. Now you have three moving parts instead of one, which means the failure rate has gone up by a factor of _six_ (three parts, and three interactions). We have essentially already posited that we have insufficient developer effort to have 100%-complete features at ship time, so asking them to take on six times the failure rate when they're already overburdened is just madness. Alternatively, we could say that we're integrating features too rapidly, but you do that at the expense of goal 1, to be the showcase for the latest and greatest in free software. Software is hard. The way to fix it is to fix it, not sweep it under the rug. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about where and how we draw the line for feature inclusion, about how we increase and formalize our testing efforts, and about how we develop and deploy spike solutions for corner-case problems like the one device class that juju happens to do worse than the old stack. But the chain of logic from "Linux is about choice" to "ship everything and let the user chose how they want their sound to not work" starts with fallacy and ends with disaster. - ajax "

captainmuon 4y ago
Hah, I knew somebody was going to post this and almost added a disclaimer. When I say Linux, I'm talking about Linux distributions. Not the bare kernel, not embedded Linux. If I choose to use Linux over macOS or Windows, the #1 reason is that it gives me greater choice. On the desktop, to choose different desktop environments, to customize it to a greater extent than what is possible on other platforms. (That even applies to some extent to the server, I can choose from a greater selection of alternative services and am more flexible than in the Windows Server world, where it is more often a IIS, MSSQL, .NET stack.) If I don't value choice, than frankly there is very little to make me choose Linux over whatever is preinstalled on my Laptop. I used to have fun tinkering with my Linux installation and developing my own tools and workflows etc., but now that I'm older and don't have so much disposable time I prefer something that is good enough out of the box. I'm sure many people can relate. If the greater Linux community still embraced "Linux is about choice", and I could still run stuff in the "mix and match" spirit of ca. 2009, but with a modern kernel and modern apps, then I would immediately switch to desktop Linux. But you can't choose your window decorations, themes, desktop panels independently anymore and get a somewhat matching look and feel. It's only Gnome island, KDE/Plasma island, and hacker-minimalist island.