7 ms·

I was about to ask you to walk us through the thought process that lead you from this video to that strange conclusion. But after reading your last few comments

I was about to ask you to walk us through the thought process that lead you from this video to that strange conclusion. But after reading your last few comments, this seems quite pointless.

anonbanker 11y ago
How nice of you to create a new account to ask me such a favor. you systemd guys sure get around. I'll be happy to oblige. as GNOME requires SystemD to operate (battery, login, logging, etc, udev) [1], and as SystemD is only a Linux technology (more specifically, a Red Hat Technology), and BSD would either have to a) recreate systemd in their software stacks, or b) make a shim so that GNOME will continue working[2], and as every *BSD conference talk in the last year has at least one derogatory mention of systemd therein, Therefore, the fact that we can now use GNOME under OpenBSD is thanks to the hard work of a lot of people who really do not like systemd, and are working extra hard to ensure it doesn't infect their OS. 1. https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome-3-14-and-beyond/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome... 2. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140915064856 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140915064856
- peveechi 11y ago
  One of your premises seems to be equal to your conclusion. So I still don't see, how this video has anything to do with it.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    This video is a sign of the systemd shims (workarounds) getting to the point where GNOME runs fully in OpenBSD. now, if they liked SystemD, why would they create shims, rather than reimplement it in OpenBSD?
    - peveechi 11y ago
      This video is a sign that either the OpenBSD/Gnome-porters are sucessfully maintaining the old non-systemd codepaths (as e.g. this https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-January/msg00109.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-Janu... message from the guy who made the video indicates), or that they have implemented enough of the systemd-interfaces to get Gnome running. What exactly do you mean by "reimplement it in OpenBSD" and what would be the difference to the current approach you call "shims"?
      - anonbanker 11y ago
        all the non-systemd codepaths were explicitly removed in gnome 3.14. two revisions ago. As GNOME 3.14 is quite different in many incompatible ways with 3.16[1], the fact that they're making that old code work, and updating it to 3.16 is not exactly a trivial task. they haven't implemented any systemd interfaces. they have essentially redirected the systemd calls to proper utilities supported on OpenBSD (such as ntpd), which is defined as a "shim"; GNOME thinks systemd is there, but in reality, the apps that handled stuff before systemd are still handling everything while lying to GNOME. 1. https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome-3-14-and-beyond/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome...
        peveechi 11y ago
        (Sorry for the long delay; new accounts are somewhat throttled.) The article you link to doesn't support your claims. It explicitly states that Gnome 3.14 (which, btw, is only one revision ago, since Gnome uses the old Linux kernel version scheme) would still support ConsoleKit (i.e. a non-systemd codepath). In fact, Gnome 3.16 still supports ConsoleKit, at least in gdm (see the configure-option here [1]). Can you point out commits where non-systemd support was removed in Gnome 3.14? And what exactly do you mean by "redirected the systemd calls"? Gnome calls certain methods on certain D-Bus objects; if there is a process on OpenBSD that receives these method calls and acts appropriately, why not call that implementing that particular interface? I don't want to diminish the amount of work that went into this port. I find it really great that someone is doing all that work. But I don't think that the picture you paint of this is entirely accurate. You assume that the OpenBSD-guys hate systemd. That might be the case (it probably is for a lot of them), but I don't think that this has anything to do with this video. If the video e.g. had shown that they removed any reference to systemd whatsoever from the Gnome code and inserted some sneering comments, I might agree with your conclusion. But it simply shows that they succeded in porting Gnome 3.16 to OpenBSD. How would this video have had to look, to persuade you of the opposite (i.e. that there were OpenBSD developers that love systemd)? 1. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0#n241 https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0...

I was about to ask you to walk us through the thought process that lead you from this video to that strange conclusion. But after reading your last few comments, this seems quite pointless.

anonbanker 11y ago

How nice of you to create a new account to ask me such a favor. you systemd guys sure get around. I'll be happy to oblige. as GNOME requires SystemD to operate (battery, login, logging, etc, udev) [1], and as SystemD is only a Linux technology (more specifically, a Red Hat Technology), and BSD would either have to a) recreate systemd in their software stacks, or b) make a shim so that GNOME will continue working[2], and as every *BSD conference talk in the last year has at least one derogatory mention of systemd therein, Therefore, the fact that we can now use GNOME under OpenBSD is thanks to the hard work of a lot of people who really do not like systemd, and are working extra hard to ensure it doesn't infect their OS. 1. https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome-3-14-and-beyond/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome... 2. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140915064856 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140915064856

peveechi 11y ago
One of your premises seems to be equal to your conclusion. So I still don't see, how this video has anything to do with it.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  This video is a sign of the systemd shims (workarounds) getting to the point where GNOME runs fully in OpenBSD. now, if they liked SystemD, why would they create shims, rather than reimplement it in OpenBSD?
  - peveechi 11y ago
    This video is a sign that either the OpenBSD/Gnome-porters are sucessfully maintaining the old non-systemd codepaths (as e.g. this https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-January/msg00109.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-Janu... message from the guy who made the video indicates), or that they have implemented enough of the systemd-interfaces to get Gnome running. What exactly do you mean by "reimplement it in OpenBSD" and what would be the difference to the current approach you call "shims"?
    - anonbanker 11y ago
      all the non-systemd codepaths were explicitly removed in gnome 3.14. two revisions ago. As GNOME 3.14 is quite different in many incompatible ways with 3.16[1], the fact that they're making that old code work, and updating it to 3.16 is not exactly a trivial task. they haven't implemented any systemd interfaces. they have essentially redirected the systemd calls to proper utilities supported on OpenBSD (such as ntpd), which is defined as a "shim"; GNOME thinks systemd is there, but in reality, the apps that handled stuff before systemd are still handling everything while lying to GNOME. 1. https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome-3-14-and-beyond/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome...
      - peveechi 11y ago
        (Sorry for the long delay; new accounts are somewhat throttled.) The article you link to doesn't support your claims. It explicitly states that Gnome 3.14 (which, btw, is only one revision ago, since Gnome uses the old Linux kernel version scheme) would still support ConsoleKit (i.e. a non-systemd codepath). In fact, Gnome 3.16 still supports ConsoleKit, at least in gdm (see the configure-option here [1]). Can you point out commits where non-systemd support was removed in Gnome 3.14? And what exactly do you mean by "redirected the systemd calls"? Gnome calls certain methods on certain D-Bus objects; if there is a process on OpenBSD that receives these method calls and acts appropriately, why not call that implementing that particular interface? I don't want to diminish the amount of work that went into this port. I find it really great that someone is doing all that work. But I don't think that the picture you paint of this is entirely accurate. You assume that the OpenBSD-guys hate systemd. That might be the case (it probably is for a lot of them), but I don't think that this has anything to do with this video. If the video e.g. had shown that they removed any reference to systemd whatsoever from the Gnome code and inserted some sneering comments, I might agree with your conclusion. But it simply shows that they succeded in porting Gnome 3.16 to OpenBSD. How would this video have had to look, to persuade you of the opposite (i.e. that there were OpenBSD developers that love systemd)? 1. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0#n241 https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0...