3 ms·

> hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space What "innovations" have been prevented or hindered by systemd? I guess you could argue "well, we can't

> hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space What "innovations" have been prevented or hindered by systemd? I guess you could argue "well, we can't know" but then what is the argument here really? I'm guessing there is something concrete your thinking about here, that systemd made impossible, but I'm not understanding what you're referencing, I can't recall anything like that.

blueflow 9mo ago
alternate libc's like musl. the eglibc controversy showed this was necessary but poettering initially refused to support a "non-useful libc". his words.
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  But musl exists today? And even I use it from time to time, mostly I think in Alpine Linux. How was musl hindered if we can use it? Maybe it isn't as popular as you would have wanted, but I don't think that's the same as claiming it's been hindered by systemd.
  - egorfine 9mo ago
    > But musl exists today Yes and the systemd crowd wants to embrace and extinguish it as well [1] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS
    - embedding-shape 9mo ago
      I got to line 1500 before I gave up, what from that indicates they want to "extinguish" musl?
      - egorfine 9mo ago
        1. Support musl 2. Become mainstream with musl distros 3. Become dependency in practical terms 4. Then even software optimized for musl-based distros has to deal and support systemd
        embedding-shape 9mo ago
        But do you have any proof for beyond #1? Seems like a far jump here, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.
        egorfine 9mo ago
        Nope. It's my view of the situation and I'm confident that will be the case. Not that it's an evil plan. Just a nature taking its course. This is how I see it.
    - the_why_of_y 9mo ago
      So if systemd refuses to support musl, it's "hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space", and when they change their mind and work to add support for musl, it's "to embrace and extinguish it".
      - egorfine 9mo ago
        Paradoxically that's how I see it. Being an old fart and sysvinit pundit I am course wrong.

blueflow 9mo ago

alternate libc's like musl. the eglibc controversy showed this was necessary but poettering initially refused to support a "non-useful libc". his words.

embedding-shape 9mo ago
But musl exists today? And even I use it from time to time, mostly I think in Alpine Linux. How was musl hindered if we can use it? Maybe it isn't as popular as you would have wanted, but I don't think that's the same as claiming it's been hindered by systemd.
- egorfine 9mo ago
  > But musl exists today Yes and the systemd crowd wants to embrace and extinguish it as well [1] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    I got to line 1500 before I gave up, what from that indicates they want to "extinguish" musl?
    - egorfine 9mo ago
      1. Support musl 2. Become mainstream with musl distros 3. Become dependency in practical terms 4. Then even software optimized for musl-based distros has to deal and support systemd
      - embedding-shape 9mo ago
        But do you have any proof for beyond #1? Seems like a far jump here, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.
        egorfine 9mo ago
        Nope. It's my view of the situation and I'm confident that will be the case. Not that it's an evil plan. Just a nature taking its course. This is how I see it.
  - the_why_of_y 9mo ago
    So if systemd refuses to support musl, it's "hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space", and when they change their mind and work to add support for musl, it's "to embrace and extinguish it".
    - egorfine 9mo ago
      Paradoxically that's how I see it. Being an old fart and sysvinit pundit I am course wrong.