Bruce Hill wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:48:11AM -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote: >> To answer Alan's question - the main fault lies on the GNOME project and >> the forcing for systemd down user's systems throats. >> >> Additionally, as certina things were added to Linux to "enhance" >> capabilities, the GNOME developers (apparently) *deliberately* placed >> the programs in /usr/bin, instead of in the generally accepted place of >> /bin. >> >> Alan is correct - there is a deliberate cause of this debacle. Certain >> folks (Lennart being one of many) *are* cramming their vision of Linux >> on the whole community. >> >> I have read severl folks defending their ignoring of the old protocol of >> placing boot-required programs in /bin (and hence on root) as being >> holdovers from "ancient history" and claiming that disk space is so >> cheap these days that it "isn't necessary" to keep this distinction. >> >> As a result of the GNOMEish forcing, some distros have even gone so far >> as to *do away* with /bin - and have placed everything in /usr/bin with >> compatibility symlinks as a holdover/workaround. >> >> I lay this at the feet of GNOME, and thus, at the feet of RedHat. >> >> Linux used to be about *choice* aand leaving up to the users/admins >> about how they wanted to configure their systems. But certain forces in >> the Linux marketplace are hell-bent on imitating Microsoft's "one way to >> do it" thinking that they are outdoing the "evil empire's" evilness. >> >> I fully understand systemd and see that it is a solution seeking a >> problem to solve. And its developers, being nearly identical with the >> set of GNOME developers, are forcing this *thing* on the Linux universe. >> >> Certainly, the SystemV init system needed to have a way of >> *automagically/automatically* handling a wider set of dependencies. When >> we wrote if for System IV at Bell Labs in 1981 or so, we didn't have the >> time to solve the problem of having the computer handle the dependencies >> and moved the handling out to the human mind to solve by setting the >> numerical sequence numbers. (I was one of the writers for System IV >> init while a contractor.) >> >> OpenRC provided a highly compatible and organic extension of the system, >> and Gentoo has been happy for severl years with it. But now, the same >> folks who are thrusting GNOME/systemd down the throats of systems >> everywhere, have invaded or gained converts enought in the Gentoo >> structure to try and force their way on Gentoo. >> >> Gentoo may be flexible enough to allow someone to write an overlay that >> moves the necessary things back to /bin (and install symlinks from >> /usr/bin to /bin) so that an initrd/initramfs is not required. But I >> suspect that Gentoo and many distributions are too far gone down the >> path of deception to recover. >> >> Neil and other may disagree with this assessment, but I saw it coming >> and this is not the first time it has been pointed out - and not just by me. >> >> Who knows though? I may just have to abandon prepared distributions >> completely and do a Linux From Scratch solution, or fork some distro and >> tey to undo the worst of the damage. >> >> -- >> G.Wolfe Woodbury >> redwo...@gmail.com > And that, folks, is the best and most accurate summary I've read to date. > > Thank you, sir, for stepping up to the plate. > > A friend of mine has his own Linux distro (has for a long time), and explained > this to me some time ago. He's not effected by this. > > Bruce
Name that distro please. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
