29 ms·

So, you don't like a component because you ran software which requires that component, and you intentionally ran it in an environment without that component. T

So, you don't like a component because you ran software which requires that component, and you intentionally ran it in an environment without that component. That does not make sense to me?

rezonant 2y ago
Well, I tried to run a Mac binary on Windows and it didn't work, so now I don't like Mac.
vpzom 2y ago
The popularity of systemd encourages people to require it, which is the major problem that said iirc udev was formerly separate and active forks still exist
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > The popularity of systemd encourages people to require it, which is the major problem The usefulness of systemd encourages people to require it. Projects most often require it in cases where either there isn't an alternative, the alternative isn't maintained, or the alternative is missing functionality.
  - Xeamek 2y ago
    Self perpetuating growth. Systemd integrates many functions so people default using it and add even more functionality that bring even more people into ecosystem. Which is basically how every tech ecosystem works. The problem is that linux is supposed to not be just_another_centrally_controlled_ecosystem, so when systemd abuses their popularity by enforcing whole ecosystem (rather then cut itself into separate pieces), that is worrying
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      It seems like you're attributing to perceived malice ("enforcing") what is better explained by a combination of trying to get things done and not prioritizing replaceability higher than the benefits of integration. In other words, a project that simply has different priorities. It turns out that many other people also like seeing stuff get done more so than they care whether the project in question is trivially replaceable.
Xeamek 2y ago
No. I don't like a framework that promotes using components that are arbitrary dependent on it. To use udev, I need systemd-init, and to use systemd-init I need systemd boot. I really don't believe it MUST be this way, and those requirements aren't at least partially arbitral. Why systemd refuses to run in chroot?
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  You don't actually need to use systems-boot to use systemd-init. They're two separate things.

So, you don't like a component because you ran software which requires that component, and you intentionally ran it in an environment without that component. That does not make sense to me?

rezonant 2y ago

Well, I tried to run a Mac binary on Windows and it didn't work, so now I don't like Mac.

vpzom 2y ago

The popularity of systemd encourages people to require it, which is the major problem that said iirc udev was formerly separate and active forks still exist

JoshTriplett 2y ago
> The popularity of systemd encourages people to require it, which is the major problem The usefulness of systemd encourages people to require it. Projects most often require it in cases where either there isn't an alternative, the alternative isn't maintained, or the alternative is missing functionality.
- Xeamek 2y ago
  Self perpetuating growth. Systemd integrates many functions so people default using it and add even more functionality that bring even more people into ecosystem. Which is basically how every tech ecosystem works. The problem is that linux is supposed to not be just_another_centrally_controlled_ecosystem, so when systemd abuses their popularity by enforcing whole ecosystem (rather then cut itself into separate pieces), that is worrying
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    It seems like you're attributing to perceived malice ("enforcing") what is better explained by a combination of trying to get things done and not prioritizing replaceability higher than the benefits of integration. In other words, a project that simply has different priorities. It turns out that many other people also like seeing stuff get done more so than they care whether the project in question is trivially replaceable.

Xeamek 2y ago

No. I don't like a framework that promotes using components that are arbitrary dependent on it. To use udev, I need systemd-init, and to use systemd-init I need systemd boot. I really don't believe it MUST be this way, and those requirements aren't at least partially arbitral. Why systemd refuses to run in chroot?

BenjiWiebe 2y ago
You don't actually need to use systems-boot to use systemd-init. They're two separate things.