On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:09:40 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> > How Integrated? The TCP/IP stack *is* integrated. But it is *protocol* >> > integration, *standards* integration not *software* integration. You do >> > want >> > tight integration where it just can't work otherwise, but the design of >> > Unix >> > provides (well, again repeating this), and almost any robust design should >> > provide, the ignorance of one abstraction level about another. Why HAL? Why >> > udev? Why drivers as modules? Why not just go and integrate all stuff into >> > the kernel, well (again!) like MS do, and don't please say I compare wrong >> > things just because MS is not OSS. >> >> You make a wrong comparison, because MS is not free (libre) software. >> With Linux, and systemd, and OpenRC, and HAL, and devfs, and sysv, we >> have been able to try new technologies (and see that some of them >> fail, like HAL [yuck!]), because we have the source. > > But the comparison is quite right. When one have to deal with software > lock-in, this means that one have to fork a huge stack of software > which is theoretically doable (because software is free), but is > impractical unless one owns a corporation with large number of full > time paid developers. The same way one in theory can change everything > in MS by changing assembler code of their software. Well, this will > require some time, but asm is nothing more than low-level programming > language, thus formally one have "the sources".
You cannot distribute changes that you do to proprietary disassembled code. So again, the comparison makes no sense. > The key feature here is deliberate and malicious lock-in: as long as > software enforces one, it is non-free in practical terms. We are running around in circles; I told you why is not a reasonable comparison, and I failed to convince you. You told me that it's a right comparison to make, and you failed to convince me. We could keep beating a dead horse, but it's better if we agree to disagree on this point. (Which kinda makes the rest of the discussion moot, but whatever). >> As you said, you can replace the whole of Linux if you so desire (and >> have the technical ability). >> >> You will never be able to do that with any MS software, and so the >> comparison makes no sense. > > Hey, but people are already doing this! Google for ReactOS or Wine. I mentioned ReactOS in this thread; from [1]: "If enough people, willing and able, want to do it, they will. Look at ReactOS. Or Syllable. Or Hurd. Or Debian/kFreeBSD." However, the ReactOS people aren't disassembling code; they are coding a different (but compatible) implementation. Same goes with Wine. And even if you say that disassembled code is the same as carefully written code (which is not), we have comments inside the code [2], and DCSV logs [3], and tons of documentation. With proprietary code we don't; sometimes a little documentation for how to *use* the code, but not how to *change* it or *understand* it. >> The thing (and that's also my point), apparently *most* of the people >> willing and able to create cool software have decided that systemd is >> the way to go. And, even if you want to attribute that to a simple >> monetary issue, most of them do it *happily* because many things are >> just easier to do with systemd. > > Most people should never care what init system is in charge while > writing end-user software. If software (e.g. some daemon) depends on > specific init system, it is broken by design. They don't care about the "init" system. They care about the *features* systemd provides; logind, the journal, timedated, hostnamed, etc. Obviously systemd is much more than just an init system. >> > They'll be able to >> > stuff everything into it, making effectively a thing in itself which will >> > dictate you where to go and what to do, just because you're not technically >> > competent enough to deal with it -- hence more support calls and more $ etc >> > etc. >> >> Oh, but nobody will be able to do that to me. I know how to write >> code. I'm willing (and I believe able) to write and/or modify software >> if I don't like how it does things. I've done it before; I could do it >> again. > > Even if you have superior and outstanding programming skills I doubt > you have time and resources to rewrite the whole software stack (e.g. > systemd and everything depending on it) yourself. As I said, that is moot since Linux+systemd+GNOME are taking Linux to the place I always wanted it to be. >> >> If *someone*, *willing* AND *able* steps up to do ALL that work, MAYBE >> >> it would happen. >> >> >> >> But don't complain if no one does, and it doesn't. >> > >> > >> > That's your point -- and mine. We aren't complaining -- we want to prevent >> > this. >> >> Prevent what? People writing new software that offers cool features, >> and therefore distros are using them? > > Prevent loosing our freedom in practical sense: while the software > will be still free in FSF license terms, it will be so locked onto > itself that it will be eventually impossible for anyone besides large > corporations to replace it. Thus in the end we'll be dictated what to > do and how to do. You will never loose your freedom in the most practical of senses: the code is free. >> > The forward-looking people must unite, it may sound ridiculous, >> > against systemd >> >> You cannot stop people for writing new cool stuff, nor distros for >> wanting to using them. You CAN write your own cool stuff, and >> convincing people that is better than the alternative. > > And you can't force people to use your cool stuff because you're > assuming it is cool. Who is forcing you? If at some point in the future the Gentoo council sets systemd as the default recommended init system for the distribution, OpenRC will still be available. Nobody is forcing no one to anything. > That's called freedom, freedom of choice. That > is what I love Gentoo for. That's why I support systemd > profile propose. Well, "support" is code, not words. This is not a democracy; the users don't "vote" what they want. If that's the option you prefer, help the devs achieve it. > That's why I will do my best to protect this freedom > in our community. Do it with code, not arguing in a mailing list. And I'm not talking about C; ebuilds, overlays, the profiles settings, even documentation; anything that helps the distro go in the direction you want it to go. Again, arguing in the ML has no real impact in the distro. >> > You know what it is: everything's free but nothing to choose from. We had >> > it >> > before, it's called communism. Maybe it is not that bad but we don't want >> > it >> > anymore. >> >> (Really? A cold war reference?) > > Yes, we have a software^Wcorporation war right upon us. There is no war; we are all on the same side, the FLOSS side. Regards. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/272617 [2] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/journal/sd-journal.c#n63 [3] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/log/ [4] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/#manualsanddocumentationforusersandadministrators -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
