3 ms·

> We're to the point where certain software packages (GNOME comes to mind) are requiring hard dependencies on it. Wow... we've come a long way baby! Now freely

by cbsmith 12y ago

> We're to the point where certain software packages (GNOME comes to mind) are requiring hard dependencies on it. Wow... we've come a long way baby! Now freely available software that you can modify as needed without interference is taking away your freedom! ;-) > I was just today reading about some incompatibility that arises if your kernel is set up with no IPv6 support which is explicitly caused by systemd. Actually, the problem is that if you load IPv6 support after a socket was created, there's no efficient way to make that existing socket compatible with IPv6, which of course creates a nasty little integration problem. That wasn't a choice of the systemd folks, that was a choice of how the kernel folks organized their network subsystem & modules. Systemd runs fine on my system with no IPv6 support. > Sure, you're "free" to use something else, in the same way that you're "free" to patch and recompile every program that touches it to stop touching it. So "free" in the FOSS sense that nobody but developers care about. For all the complaining about NIH syndrome and absorbing other projects for political purposes, systemd actually builds on top of a lot of very well established components (dbus, udev, etc.). To the extent that software gets tightly coupled with it, it wouldn't be hard to change it so that it used those standard components without systemd... unless systemd is actually providing some unique advantages for that software that you can't live without. In which case... go out and do a better job of it! > I'm annoyed that this software is doing 5000 things where one would do. I know, Unix is annoying that way. ;-)

andrewflnr 12y ago
Call it flexibility, then. I don't think you can reasonably deny that a package that requires major surgery to work with a different init system is less flexible than one that simply doesn't care, even if said surgery is perfectly legal with the source available. That flexibility is a large part of why a lot of us came to Linux, and regardless of whether it's technically "freedom", losing it feels like losing freedom.
- cbsmith 12y ago
  > I don't think you can reasonably deny that a package that requires major surgery to work with a different init system is less flexible than one that simply doesn't care, even if said surgery is perfectly legal with the source available. I think you'll find that it isn't nearly that difficult a problem to address. For all kinds of reasons, just like every other system design that has come before it, there will need to be accommodations made to work with other stuff. Its not like the old code just disappears overnight. You can't succeed as a new platform without a way of working with the old (and again, you've mostly been sold a bill of goods... most of systemd's architecture is the old system). > That flexibility is a large part of why a lot of us came to Linux, and regardless of whether it's technically "freedom", losing it feels like losing freedom. If it feels like losing freedom to you, you don't know what that is about. You're losing someone writing code the way you wanted them to. That's not losing freedom. That's getting it.
  - jude- 12y ago
    According to your definition of "freedom", Microsoft Windows is just as Free as Linux. After all, Microsoft gives you the "source code" on the CD itself! All you have to do is start flipping bits here and there, and... Wait, what's that? Editing compiler-generated assembly code is too hard for you? Well, that's clearly your problem, since you can't expect Microsoft to bend over backwards and write code for you the way you wanted it!
    - cbsmith 12y ago
      > According to your definition of "freedom", Microsoft Windows is just as Free as Linux. After all, Microsoft gives you the "source code" on the CD itself! All you have to do is start flipping bits here and there, and... Wha? > Wait, what's that? Editing compiler-generated assembly code is too hard for you? Well, that's clearly your problem, since you can't expect Microsoft to bend over backwards and write code for you the way you wanted it! Umm. no. That's Microsoft bending over backwards NOT to give you the source code, as defined very clearly by the FSF and the OSD. More importantly, in the case of Microsoft's proprietary software (they do actually have some open source stuff which isn't encumbered like this), it's literally a violation of their license agreement for you to edit that code yourself. Am I through the looking glass or am I being trolled? Free software means you can't restrict anyone from going ahead and making whatever changes they might want to to software, distributing it to the world, and potentially garnering mindshare in the process.

by cbsmith 12y ago

andrewflnr 12y ago

Call it flexibility, then. I don't think you can reasonably deny that a package that requires major surgery to work with a different init system is less flexible than one that simply doesn't care, even if said surgery is perfectly legal with the source available. That flexibility is a large part of why a lot of us came to Linux, and regardless of whether it's technically "freedom", losing it feels like losing freedom.

cbsmith 12y ago
> I don't think you can reasonably deny that a package that requires major surgery to work with a different init system is less flexible than one that simply doesn't care, even if said surgery is perfectly legal with the source available. I think you'll find that it isn't nearly that difficult a problem to address. For all kinds of reasons, just like every other system design that has come before it, there will need to be accommodations made to work with other stuff. Its not like the old code just disappears overnight. You can't succeed as a new platform without a way of working with the old (and again, you've mostly been sold a bill of goods... most of systemd's architecture is the old system). > That flexibility is a large part of why a lot of us came to Linux, and regardless of whether it's technically "freedom", losing it feels like losing freedom. If it feels like losing freedom to you, you don't know what that is about. You're losing someone writing code the way you wanted them to. That's not losing freedom. That's getting it.
- jude- 12y ago
  According to your definition of "freedom", Microsoft Windows is just as Free as Linux. After all, Microsoft gives you the "source code" on the CD itself! All you have to do is start flipping bits here and there, and... Wait, what's that? Editing compiler-generated assembly code is too hard for you? Well, that's clearly your problem, since you can't expect Microsoft to bend over backwards and write code for you the way you wanted it!
  - cbsmith 12y ago
    > According to your definition of "freedom", Microsoft Windows is just as Free as Linux. After all, Microsoft gives you the "source code" on the CD itself! All you have to do is start flipping bits here and there, and... Wha? > Wait, what's that? Editing compiler-generated assembly code is too hard for you? Well, that's clearly your problem, since you can't expect Microsoft to bend over backwards and write code for you the way you wanted it! Umm. no. That's Microsoft bending over backwards NOT to give you the source code, as defined very clearly by the FSF and the OSD. More importantly, in the case of Microsoft's proprietary software (they do actually have some open source stuff which isn't encumbered like this), it's literally a violation of their license agreement for you to edit that code yourself. Am I through the looking glass or am I being trolled? Free software means you can't restrict anyone from going ahead and making whatever changes they might want to to software, distributing it to the world, and potentially garnering mindshare in the process.