On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:30:10 -0600 Daniel Campbell <li...@sporkbox.us> wrote:
> On 02/15/2014 11:32 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, "Tanstaafl" <tansta...@libertytrek.org > > <mailto:tansta...@libertytrek.org>> wrote: > >> > >> On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org > > <mailto:tansta...@libertytrek.org>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but... > >>> > >>> I'm sure some or most of you have already heard about this, but I > >>> found a really decent thread discussing this whole systemd thing. > >>> It is only really comparing systemd and upstart, as that was the > >>> debate going on in the debian TC, but it is a great read, and has > >>> actually made me rethink my blind objections to systemd a bit. > >> > >> > >> One of which was logging: > >> > >> "20. Myth: systemd makes it impossible to run syslog. > >> > >> Not true, we carefully made sure when we introduced the journal > >> that > > all data is also passed on to any syslog daemon running. In fact, if > > something changed, then only that syslog gets more complete data now > > than it got before, since we now cover early boot stuff as well as > > STDOUT/STDERR of any system service." > >> > >> From: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html > > > > Also, for those of you who don't follow Linux-related news, Ubuntu > > will also change to systemd in the future: > > > > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 > > > > And I *heard* that Slackware was also discussing the possibility, > > but since I don't follow Slackware at all, I don't know for sure. > > > > Anyway, distros not using systemd, and that they are not really > > small and/or niche, seem to be disappearing. The discussion that > > Tanstaafl posted is interesting since the arguments used by the > > four TC members are really focused on the technical merits of the > > proposed init systems. > > > > Regards. > > -- > > Canek Peláez Valdés > > Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación > > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México > > > > The lack of foresight on social and political ramifications is > epidemic to most of the FOSS world, as evidenced by the creeping > adoption of systemd. Things are already depending on things that > systemd provides, and is dividing the ecosystem into "systemd" vs > "everything else". Ambitious projects like systemd are damaging to > the rich variety that should be found in the FOSS ecosystem. systemd > in particular encourages embracing vertical integration and rejection > of POSIX and UNIX principles. Its culture is adversarial to anyone > who doubts the Great Image that Lennart and his employer has. If it > were a project that was humble, without an agenda, and did not > undergo evangelism, I'd have no problems with it because choice is > something that I value immensely. But because it *isn't* humble, > *has* an agenda, only reached the adoption it currently has by *lots* > of arguing and pushing, and refuses to coexist with other init > systems, I cannot respect it as a legitimate, non-aggressive, > non-intrusive software project. I consider it a toxic threat to FOSS > and refuse to have it on any system I maintain. > > systemd has technical merits (cgroups, socket activation, parellel > execution of daemons, etc), but they fall by the wayside and become > irrelevant to me when it swallows the functionality of multiple > projects that should be separate (see: udev) and tries to be > everything to everyone (splash image, web server, boot time graphs, > etc). The social tactics at work from the systemd team (and verily, > other Red Hat projects like GNOME) are reminiscent of Microsoft > through the use of the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" methodology. > With their paid developers and more abundant resources, Red Hat (and > arguably other corporations) can use their developers to push their > agendas and, in a sense, commandeer control of the FOSS world. I will > give them no inch on my systems. I am skeptical of their involvement > in the kernel, as well. > > It's sad to see Debian giving into peer pressure. I honestly thought > that they would see the agenda miles away and prevent a monoculture. > For people who are technically intelligent, they're seriously lacking > any foresight in their decisions and are completely blind to the > social and political ramifications. Distros will regret depending on > such a project and it will set GNU/Linux development back many years > when systemd becomes a full stack and working without it is made > difficult or impractical (through the use of lock-in tactics). I hope > that Gentoo continues to be a safe haven for choice and the spirit of > FOSS. Without it, I may have to concede and either start building my > own distro, or going to the BSDs. Thank you for the explanation. I suspected this yet from the beginning of this discussion and waited for such or similar explanations. Technically, I so far know a very little on this subject and only suspect :-) that my Gentoo system uses openrc. I am quite satisfied with it and afraid of switching Gentoo default to systemd. However, I do understand your arguments concerning Ubuntu and Gnome. This year I put them both into a recycle bin as I very well felt their "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" tactics. Just my two cents too. :-) > Just my two cents. Ignore or reply at your discretion. >
