User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Distribution quote of the week

If we were less of an enthusiast/choice distro then the obviously solution would be to just ship a working udev and wait and see how the whole mess works itself out elsewhere. It will be messy for a while for Gentoo, because we generally strive to be "interesting." :)
-- Rich Freeman
(Log in to post comments)

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Aug 30, 2012 22:32 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

And a couple of links away from that we find *this*:

<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-...>.

Wonderful. So, in the end, it's use Lennart's constantly growing tumour of an init system (yes, it may be nice, but it wants to take my entire system over: no thanks), or lose dynamic device management? (Since, doubtless, things will come to depend on the 'new features' that are not going to be added to non-systemd udev anymore.)

I note that people are working on a fork of udev with this madness removed. Thank goodness.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Aug 31, 2012 1:28 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Uhm, he plans to support the current udev-with-crappy-init in life-support mode. I quite support him in that.

What's wrong with it?

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Aug 31, 2012 1:50 UTC (Fri) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

disagreements over the definition of "life-support mode" and the fact that they took a active project and changed it to "life-support mode or use systemd"

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Aug 31, 2012 18:07 UTC (Fri) by bosyber (guest, #84963) [Link]

While I tend to agree with the sentiment, I do wonder, given that some of the main udev developers seem to be involved in the merged systemd project, whether perhaps udev wasn't already walking around with a vein ready to burst followed by ambulance transport to be put on life-support, ie. living on borrowed time.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 1, 2012 3:38 UTC (Sat) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

systemd is a lot more than just an init system.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 1, 2012 6:50 UTC (Sat) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

and this is the core of the disagreement.

Some people see this as a good thing, others see this as a bad thing.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 1, 2012 8:22 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Everything except the init system is optional. You don't have to use it.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 1, 2012 21:26 UTC (Sat) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]

Please stop trotting out this argument like it actually means anything. What exactly do you propose we use instead, when all the formerly independent system components have been integrated into systemd and are no longer developed or maintained, just left to rot on the vine?

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 2, 2012 3:38 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

If you really need them - then fork them and maintain them. And if nobody steps in to do this, then what's to mourn? I certainly can't care less that yet another piece of unnecessary fragmentation goes away.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 2, 2012 18:14 UTC (Sun) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]

Haha, it seems I have picked the wrong person to argue with. Your comments prove you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'll go find someone who actually understands the gibberish they're spewing.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2012 15:29 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Hm, that made little sense. Was it meant to be a last-ditch ad hominem?

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2012 19:33 UTC (Mon) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]

I'm sorry about that. Someone thought it would be funny to "borrow" my laptop and wreck havoc wherever I was logged in. (those responsible have been sacked)

It's funny you're concerned about unnecessary fragmentation, because that's exactly what systemd is all about! Consider this: We all worked together for years to develop a fully-featured system stack. It wasn't perfect, but it mostly worked. Then along came systemd with a new take on init systems (and one I like BTW). Fair enough. But then systemd started to grow like some kind of open source katamari ball, picking up system components left and right as it rolled through town. Suddenly the projects that we had been relying on, the software we helped write, were shells of their former selves. Key developers were missing. Contributors had disappeared. The community had been split. So don't tell me that systemd is about reducing fragmentation when one of its key design goals seems to be to screw over everyone not using systemd.

Yes, we can fork all the projects that systemd destroyed, but it's going to be a hell of a lot of work. Do you understand why we might be a little peeved about it? I know, sucks to be us, but try and think about the situation we're in before making your comments.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2012 20:40 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

This is just stupid at this point. Let me translate from English to English.

So don't tell me that systemd is about reducing fragmentation

Don't say systemd authors are trying to reduce fragmentation…

when one of its key design goals seems to be to screw over everyone not using systemd.

…when they are clearly trying to reduce fragmentation.

This is kind of… inconsistent.

The only way to reduce fragmentation is to remove number of possible distinct configrations. One effective way to do that (in fact the only effective way to do that as history shows) is to pick winners and kill losers. All attempts to "reach harmony" by designing a system which reflects "suggestions from all users" don't really work: they usually produce horrible Frankensteins which are even worse then what was before in the "anarchy" period. If they provide anything at all.

Now, if you feel that these particular choices are bad then you can rally and organize support for some other choices. And since…

Key developers were missing. Contributors had disappeared.

You'll be forced to drop support for many-many configurations, too. This means in the end you'll have two or three surviving confugurations—which is exactly how "reduced fragmentation" looks like.

You may protest against "reduced fragmentation" as a goal—that's fair, but to say that systemd authors are somehow not driven by this goal is absurd: they do what people must do to reduce fragmentation. There are no other way: you can not "reduced fragmentation" and "offer bunch of choices". These are direct opposites.

"The ability to build udev without systemd" assumes there are some other init (for how else your system will even boot?) which gives you two configurations right there. If you want to build systemd without dbus then this increases number of configurations to three or may be four. Add choice of dozen of "plumbing" packages—and you are back to the mess we had before introduction of systemd.

Windows developers are pretty outraged by the fact that Microsoft splintered the Windows by offering six main different versions (and few specialized ones)—but differences between all these versions are trivial in comparison to differences between system with systemd and systed without systemd or system with dbus and system without dbus.

Distribution quote of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2012 10:00 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

The wonderful thing about Free Software is that only the scarcity involved is the natural scarcity of suitable interested labour; there is no "rights holder" directly creating an artificial scarcity in order to exact a rent. As such, if a software project is left to rot on the vine, that means that the supply of suitable interested labour for their maintenance and development is insufficient (in quantity, quality, or both). The remedy is simple:

  1. Find other people who also want the derelict project to continue to be developed and maintained.
  2. Cooperate with those people to arrange for the necessary labour to be applied, using some combination of "doing it yourselves" and "paying someone else a decent hourly rate to do it".


Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds