-------------------------------------------- On Wed, 8/24/16, Brad Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev] To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 1:55 AM > On 24/08/16 13:57, Steve Litt wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:37:53 +0800 >> Brad Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 24/08/16 11:13, Steve Litt wrote: [snip] >>>> >>>> These saboteurs just won't quit. It's our job to get out the word so >>>> bus1 fares no better than kdbus, because Lennart bragged about his >>>> plans when he gets the kernel to enforce use of systemd. >>> >>> I'm not worried. Mantra from get-go has been "Don't break userspace". >>> If there is a valid use-case for a feature there will be plenty of >>> opposition to it's removal. >> >> [snip] >>> >>> If bus1 really has technical merit, can demonstrate it solves real >>> problems and has all its shortcomings addressed there is no reason it >>> shouldn't be integrated into the kernel. They can't then just go and >>> remove netlink to spite non-systemd users. It has an existing >>> userspace and other use cases. >> >> Assuming by "they" you mean the Lennart and the Redhats, they already >> have an established pattern and practice of breaking user space. If you >> mean the kernel developers, they won't be the ones breaking userspace, >> but a kernel-included bus1 will act very much like the firmware chips >> they put into toner cartridges just so you won't buy competing toner. > > I'm not entirely sure you understand what I mean by "break userspace". > It is entirely in the context of the kernel and its interface with > userspace and absolutely nothing to do with userspace itself. It means > they can't just go and rip bits out of the kernel that mean *our* > userspace won't run on it. I don't care what they do with *their* userspace. > >> We're way past the point of thinking the world is a technocracy. >> >> Edbarx said it best: "attempting to remove systemd from SID is more >> like attempting to remove the DNA from living cells expecting them not >> to die." >> >> That sounds very much like breaking userspace to me. > > No, again you have the wrong end of the "userspace". You refer to > distributions, and I don't care what those distributions do, what they > break or which init they use. What I care passionately about is ensuring > that stuff that runs right now continues to run on newer kernels. Oddly > enough, history has shown that's generally what Linus appears to care > about also. > > It takes *years* of notice and warning for features to be marked > deprecated, and then years for them to be removed. *If* during those > years we discover that our device manager is going to cease to function, > we have several years to figure out a solution and get it implemented > and tested. That's a BIG *IF*. > > Don't Panic. > Apropos of this discussion . . . there is a new troll on FDN ramping up the rhetoric. It is revisionist history in action! Number one on his list speaks volumes: 1. systemd users don't care about compatibility to other NIXes in the same way that BSD doesn't care about compatibility to us or our licenses. There hasn't been 100% POSIX in ages. http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=623008#p623008 golinux _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
