On Saturday 21 January 2012 17:40, Laurent Bercot wrote: > >> I have no problem with anyone building something. I have a problem > >> when someone forces this "something" on me. > > Pitty you feel that way. A NAK (and ignoring further requests) should be > > sufficient. Any "lobbying" going on in the background? > > FWIW, Denys is not the only one disliking systemd. I also fully support > the eradication of systemd from the surface of the planet, and we are a > small group of users feeling the same way. > > There are good, technical reasons for this. From an engineering > standpoint, the design of systemd makes an unacceptable amount of > newbie mistakes; it looks like it has been designed by an average > undergraduate student. The fact that the systemd people spend so > much time lobbying for it, and managed to get it integrated into > mainstream GNU/Linux distributions is just scary, and reminds me > of Microsoft practices. > > Instead of spending so much energy promoting systemd, they should > spend more energy studying software engineering and researching the > state of the art in init systems, and produce better software.
I found a startling example by Lennart himself at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00447.html: --------------------------------------------------------------- > Le mercredi 18 mai 2011 à 16:18 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > > On Wed, 18.05.11 15:49, Josselin Mouette (joss debian org) wrote: > > > I don’t have anything against requiring systemd, since it is definitely > > > the best init system out there currently, but the Linux dependency is an > > > absolute no-no for us. Having optional Linux-only functionalities is OK; > > > requiring Linux is not. > > > > Quite frankly, I'd like to question this. In the light of GNOME OS I > > think we need to ask ourselves the question if we do ourselves any good > > if we continue to support all kinds of kernels that simply cannot keep > > up with Linux anymore. > > By definition, another kernel cannot « keep up with Linux » if you > introduce the features you need in Linux and then expect others to have > them instantly available. In contrast, they also have features that > Linux does not. > > Frankly, BSD is doing quite well. They have ported upower and I expect > to have a udisks port eventually. So far nothing has prevented GNOME > from fully working on BSD, and adding an arbitrary dependency just > because you don’t want to maintain some #ifdef’s in systemd would be a > real loss. It's not just some #ifdefs. It's a ton. Lemme list a couple of Linux specific interfaces that are used in systemd, you'd have to find replacements for: - cgroups - timerfd - signalfd - epoll - autofs4 - inotify - fanotify - /proc/*/stat - /proc/*/comm - /proc/*/cmdline - libudev - POSIX mqueue as fd - AF_UNIX/SOCK_SEQPACKET - abstract namespace AF_UNIX - get_current_dir_name() - canonicalize_file_name() - O_CLOEXEC/SOCK_CLOEXEC - /proc/*/fd - numerous prctl() controls, like PR_SET_NAME, PR_CAPBSET_DROP, PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, ... - capabilities - numerous console ioctls, like TIOCLINUX, VT_ACTIVATE, TIOCSTTY/TIOCNOTTY ... - /sys - /dev/urandom - /dev/char/*, /dev/disk/by-label/*, /dev/disk/by-uuid/* - openat() and friends - O_DIRECTORY - waitid() - /sys/class/tty/console/active - /sys/class/dmi/id - ioprio - various rlimits, like RTPRIO/RTTIME - F_SETPIPE_SZ - IP_FREEBIND - oom score - binfmt_misc And this is just what I found while going through two files in systemd. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hilarious. He does not understand why mostly using portable Unix idioms and interfaces is a good idea. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
