> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile
>> <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> what does in-house tool mean?  i'm a gentoo developer but i also
>> work
>>>> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use.
>>>> some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i've
>>>> spoken with the various distros --- slack, parted magic, puppy.
>> they
>>>> get what's going on and they still see eudev is the best way forward
>>>> for now.  it may not be in the future, but neither will a udev
>>>> extracted from a compiled full systemd codebase.
>>> How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users?
>>> Look, I get it, some people don't like systemd.  That's fine.
>>> However, you have to realize at this point that a non-systemd
>>> configuration is anything but mainstream.  There will always be a
>>> "poppyseed linux" whose purpose in life seems to be to preserve linux
>>> without sysfs or some other obscure practice.  I just think that
>>> Gentoo should offer the choice to do those things, but have a more
>>> mainstream set of defaults.
>> The new mainstream is docker. Docker recently switched to Alpine Linux,
>> which uses OpenRC+eudev:
>> https://www.brianchristner.io/docker-is-moving-to-alpine-linux/
>> That dwarfs whatever marketshare systemd has in the same way that
>> Android+iOS dwarfed whatever marketshare Windows has.
>> If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the
>> logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what
>> the Linux ecosystem will be using going forward.
>> I do not think userbase should be the sole means by which we make
>> decisions, but those that think otherwise should now join the
>> eudev+OpenRC camp. It has the bigger userbase share going forward.
>> To put it another way, the war is over. Welcome abroad. :)
> Oh, the new thing every cool kid users these days. I have only one question 
> in return: for how long?
> Today Alpine uses eudev. But people change, distributions change. One year 
> from now, it may be using systemd.
> Today docker uses Alpine. Tomorrow it may use something else. Or even require 
> systemd by design.

The Alpine Linux developers use eudev where mdev is a pain to use and prefer 
mdev to it. They also prefer busybox init to just about everything else. The 
only way Alpine Linux would use systemd is if it were merged into busybox, but 
the busybox developers dropped systemd support last year because the systemd 
developers were not great at collaborating. The "busybox is a joke" remarks 
that I got from them before that happen means that they have been actively 
sabotaging that relationship for a long time.

I think it is safe to assume that Redhat will drop Linux for Windows before 
Alpine Linux uses systemd.

> Today docker is the cool thing. One year from now, nobody may remember about 
> it. Didn't things like this happen before?

The iPhone did the same thing to Windows. Then Android came along. Neither 
contribute to Windows hemomgeny, which is dead. The same is true for systemd. 
Coincidentally, neither Android nor iOS use systemd.

> Now, let's extend this to a perspective of few years. What is more likely to 
> be extinct: userbase of eudev or systemd?

systemd will always have its niche. The same is true for eudev. The latter will 
always exist as long the the former exists though as there are too many people 
who have been alienated by systemd development for them to accept a system 
running it.

That is unlikely that will change unless developers who the systemd developers 
alienate were to all die at once.

>>>> it needs to be in the new stage4s to make a bootable system.  imo a
>>>> stage4 should be bootable modulo a kernel.
>>> Sure, a stage4 based on systemd makes a lot of sense.  I don't really
>>> see the point in leaving a kernel out though - I'd even stick a
>>> precompiled one in /boot on top of having the sources installed.  Why
>>> not make a stage4 install something that takes all of 5 minutes?
>>> I think that offering an eudev-based distro as a default just doesn't
>>> make sense in 2016.  I just think the better road to take is to start
>>> treating virtual/udev as something that gets installed post-stage3.
>>> We can't even get people to agree on vi vs emacs as a default.
>> We can leave virtual/udev out of stage3, but that doesn't diminish the
>> need to select sensible default for the virtual/udev provider.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny (by phone)

Reply via email to