| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1483
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| krinn wrote: | What next systemd, kdbus "funny" feature will be add, set mandatory... on a distro that is not own by RedHat, is under the hands of RedHat.
That's the state of debian & other distros now, their future is under RH's hands. And for me that's not even future, i consider that even today,
... |
Watching the numbers I see Redhat developers at the top since decades. The past ever having been "under RH's hands". You must qualify some changes to see anything different.
| Quote: | | ... many debian users flee from it, they flee to gentoo, bsd... But if tomorrow they wish comes back into a systemd driven release, it should be clear for them that the logical best distro for that would be RH and not the old one they left that don't own systemd ; so most users they lost, may comes back but not to them, for the distro that is the top with systemd, and this distro is RH. |
Ever there has been the most longterm and stable distro CentOS directly RH driven. But with new stuff this is different: Fedora is the Lab for RH commercial Linux created by about 40 fulltime RH employees and a bunch of young guys wanting to become a RH employee. Here it is told what RH expects by investing millions of dollars into Fedora: What does Red Hat want? - Denise Dumas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb3zTQMJggo&index=53&list=PL0x39xti0_64fA6uRtcfoJPkHfZdeVTRC
Saying they are working on features Redhat figured out their customers want, such as server rolekit and hardening. Maybe this is not what I need most for my private desktop. There are much better alternatives for a distro if I want kdbus: Gentoo and openSUSE are the ones GKH is part of the maintainership.
Maybe at some point systemd needs to have kdbus. But do you have to have systemd? Alike it is possible to use mdev instead of udev. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1858
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow...the comments on that one are very telling...none of the expected systemd fanboy FUD and flamewars...nothing supporting it whatsoever. Everyone who's rolled over (or whose distro has rolled over) and given the reigns to these jackasses is truly starting to see what will get forced on them as a result, and it's not pretty. It's starting to look to me like people have just plain had it...like firebombs and pitchforks in the street sort of had it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ulenrich wrote: | | <more FUD> |
Basically the usual vague nonsense that doesn't say anything but pushes buttons.
| Quote: | | Maybe at some point systemd needs to have kdbus. But do you have to have systemd? Alike it is possible to use mdev instead of udev. |
Followed by the quick one-liner to make out like you're really on "our" side, even though we don't acknowledge the battle-lines, since they're part of the con.
Seriously, get a grip man. No-one's buying it any more, if they ever were.
Mildly amusing though.
No doubt you're going to claim this is more "surreal" stuff, and you're just "abstracting to avoid grief" or w/e specious rubbish it is, but it all smells a lot like a shill account.
If it looks like crap, and smells like crap.. keep it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| phantomfive wrote: | ok, I just spent my morning researching the problem, and why the feature got built, starting from here [github.com] (linked to in the article). Essentially, the timeline goes like this:
1) On Linux, the su command uses PAM to manage logins (that's probably ok). |
It's more than OK: you're only questioning it at all because poeterring has spread so much idiocy about PAM, back in the day, along with every other thing in UNIX besides the kernel.
| Quote: | | 2) systemd wrote their own version of PAM (because containers) |
Because they're idiots, you mean. Oh sorry, no this is all part of a clever ploy to fsck up everyone else's PAM installation.
If not, they'd simply have patched PAM with w/e was needed for containers, if anything more truly were (I doubt it: it's all in the config, which is what admins are good at. Until someone made everything crap.)
OFC to do that they'd have to understand PAM, and understanding what has come before (aka: doing your research) is not a strong point for this set of nubs.
Since RH originally implemented it, back in the days before they were part of a multinational conglomerate, they don't want anyone else realising PAM is all that was ever needed, and instead want to lock people into systemd, since that entangles rather than supports the rest of userland.
And that ofc means they can pretend to be the new Microbloat, leeching an entire community's work via vendor lock-in.
| Quote: | | 3) Unlike normal su, the systemd-pam su doesn't transfer over all environment variables, which led to: |
Ah so, it was actually a problem with their implementation. Funny that: could've sworn the hullabaloo was all about how "su is broken".
Getting a bit tired of reading "X is broken" or "X considered harmful"; how about:
systemdbust is broken: by design, and by intent.
| Quote: | 4) A bug filed by a user, that the XDG_RUNTIME_DIR variable wasn't being maintained when su was run.
5) Lennart said that's because su is confusing, and he wouldn't fix it.
6) The user asked for a feature request to be added to machinectl, that would retain that environment variable
7) Lennart said, "sure, no problem." (Which shows why systemd is gaining usage, when people want a feature, he adds it) |
Oh ffs; if he'd corrected the first bug, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Only he found it "confusing" so rather than allow people to use the "traditional" su, which let's not forget had no such bug, he refused to fix it, and now you're claiming that his workaround for his own refusal to correct a bug in his own "work", is a good thing?
As ever, via a sudden appeal to the social, in the midst of a "technical" explanation, though it reads more like a press-release.
| Quote: | | It's important to note that there isn't a conspiracy here to destroy su. The process would more accurately be called "design by feature accretion," which doesn't really make you feel better, but it's not malice. |
It's design by idiot is what it is. The "accretion" was unnecessary, as per above.
The whole thing is a bad idea; container setup can be done by admins already. Sticking another idiotic tool in, written by someone who doesn't actually understand what it's meant to do, and now trumpets his workaround for his dumbass implementation that he "refused to fix" because the thing he's supposed to implement is "confusing", is NOT HELPFUL.
As I said before: "I don't understand su" is now used as justification for "su is bad" like so many other perfectly decent parts of the UNIX ecosystem. It used to be POSIX and PAM, but now both are essential for systemd (only we won't mention what we used to say about them.)
That this moron is "in charge" of the "design" is beyond belief.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's what is "important to note." Thanks for talking down to us, though.
No doubt you'll find another thing to be a fanboi of next year, or whenever you finally realise what all those "old-school" people have been banging on about, or more likely when the latest bandwagon shows up.
Software development by "trends". Who'd have thought it..
Last edited by steveL on Sun Aug 30, 2015 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 55013
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved last 8 posts from the kdbus in the kernel topic
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1483
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | ulenrich wrote: | | <more FUD> |
Basically the usual vague nonsense that doesn't say anything but pushes buttons. |
I posted to
the @krinn argument RH is changing to become the new Ms
my opinion It is not true.
For to find anything new in reality I linked a talk some "vice" RH recently gave. Which is boring if nothing changed ...
| steveL wrote: | | <defining thread purpose to take sides or to amuse> |
I am happy to | steveL wrote: | | Mildly amusing though. |
but disappointed this doesn't suffice to get your certification to be qualified for this chat. In contrast your following post
| steveL wrote: | | systemdbust is broken: by design, and by intent. |
motivates me to read, if it is about the
theory of everything
is motivated by bad intentions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Basically the usual vague nonsense that doesn't say anything but pushes buttons. |
| ulenrich wrote: | I posted to the @krinn argument RH is changing to become the new Ms
my opinion It is not true.
For to find anything new in reality I linked a talk some "vice" RH recently gave. Which is boring if nothing changed ... |
Oh right, that's all you did, and said, is it? So what about: | ulenrich wrote: | | Watching the numbers I see Redhat developers at the top since decades. The past ever having been "under RH's hands". You must qualify some changes to see anything different. |
which has no real meaning, in terms of software development and moving forward.
All it's about is claiming that "RedHat is in charge (and that's a good thing)" because it's been like that for "decades" (implying that's where Linux has come from in this fantasy.)
There is no reasoning to back up this claim ofc, and we've heard many reasons why it is in fact a bad thing to have any GPL codebase, but especially the kernel, effectively locked-in by a multinational conglomerate of questionable ownership, no doubt tax-dodging like mad.
As for: | Quote: | | Ever there has been the most longterm and stable distro CentOS directly RH driven. But with new stuff this is different: Fedora is the Lab for RH commercial Linux created by about 40 fulltime RH employees and a bunch of young guys wanting to become a RH employee. |
it completely ignored the actual point krinn was making (about lock-in) and instead reads more like a press-release from RedHat.
Are you sure you don't work for them?
| Quote: | | steveL wrote: | | <defining thread purpose to take sides or to amuse> |
I am happy to |
Now you're just making stuff up; patting yourself on the back for what the voices are apparently telling you, doesn't make an argument.
| Quote: | | but disappointed this doesn't suffice to get your certification to be qualified for this chat. |
And now you cast yourself as the underdog, "woe is me, having to cope with a bully who thinks his certification is required for others to interact."
This is ofc complete nonsense, but absolutely typical of systemdiots; when you cannot browbeat people, you suddenly make out like you're victims, not perpetrators. You retreat to "social" insults, and in effect play off other people's decency, expecting them to feel sympathy for you, instead of dealing squarely with whatever issue is under discussion.
| Quote: | | In contrast your following post motivates me to read, if it is about the theory of everything is motivated by bad intentions. |
Oh please; if I see someone trying to steal my car, I don't need to waste time with idiot ideas about their "motivation" and "intentions".
Feel free to come back when you've worked out how to reason, and to present that reasoning in a manner others can follow.
ATM you appear to be doing your usual "talk out of my ass and call it surreal" bit, and no, that's really not working for you.
Consider changing the record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1483
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | There is no reasoning to back up this claim ofc, and we've heard many reasons why it is in fact a bad thing to have any GPL codebase, but especially the kernel, effectively locked-in by a multinational conglomerate of questionable ownership, no doubt tax-dodging like mad. |
When talking about tax Google comes into mind. While looking at Debian sid special adaption of systemd I see they manage quickly and Debian wishes are seriously considered upstream on a regular basis. I don't fear Redhat locking me in. As long as | Linus wrote: | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area.
Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision.
Yeah, I've had some personality issues with some of the maintainers, but that's about how you handle bug reports and accept blame (or not) for when things go wrong. If people thought that meant that I dislike systemd, I will have to disappoint you guys. |
said at http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews-linus-torvalds-answers-your-question
But this two month ago perhaps Linus Torvalds is just changing his mind, because systemd got a special wrapper to start a bash into virtual machines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2310
Location: Adendorf, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's take this apart:
| ulenrich wrote: | | Linus wrote: | | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. |
|
Let's acknowledge how Linus restricts his non-hate to the init area... | ulenrich wrote: | | Linus wrote: | | Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision. |
|
Again, the init part is mentioned as being a positive aspect, while another (binary logging) is not.
Actually this is my main problem with systemd as well. A good idea about init infrastructure, bombed into smithereens by a Borg-like behaviour in areas far outside any init system.
_________________
Edited 220,176 times by Yamakuzure |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | There is no reasoning to back up this claim ofc, and we've heard many reasons why it is in fact a bad thing to have any GPL codebase, but especially the kernel, effectively locked-in by a multinational conglomerate of questionable ownership, no doubt tax-dodging like mad. |
| ulenrich wrote: | | When talking about tax Google comes into mind. While looking at Debian sid special adaption of systemd I see they manage quickly and Debian wishes are seriously considered upstream on a regular basis. I don't fear Redhat locking me in. |
Again, this is not reasoning: it's just spouting a couple of other names, as if that somehow provides rationale.
It does not: it's just an appeal to something or the other, and like so much of your "reasoning" it's all about name-dropping, which is simple crap afaic.
At least we got the truth out of you: you're on RedHat's side.
I note you did not answer the straight question put to you: Do you work for RedHat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Linus wrote: | | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. |
Like he said, he's never really explored the whole area of init in userland.
| Linus wrote: | | I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision. |
If he had, he'd realise Roy Marples' openrc (as originally conceived, not as bastardised by the totally unsuited Hubbs) was the real game-changer, and a much better design, in every way.
But like he said, he's not getting into this area, so he doesn't really know it.
Ergo this is all by the by.
What next? Your grandma's opinion on init-systems? Sheesh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2310
Location: Adendorf, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Linus wrote: | | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. |
Like he said, he's never really explored the whole area of init in userland.
| Linus wrote: | | I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision. |
If he had, he'd realise Roy Marples' openrc (as originally conceived, not as bastardised by the totally unsuited Hubbs) was the real game-changer, and a much better design, in every way.
But like he said, he's not getting into this area, so he doesn't really know it. |
Exactly. I do not recall anyone maintaining openrc posting wild demands or half-cooked patches on the lkml, so he hardly ever heard of it. 
However, the point was, that Linus' post could be mistaken for support of systemd. Liking a base concept and/or design (that it falls apart on a closer look doesn't matter) is no actual support, so those people stand corrected who might (or already have) try it.
_________________
Edited 220,176 times by Yamakuzure |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7471
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | However, the point was, that Linus' post could be mistaken for support of systemd. |
In ulenrich's world of two colors, you're black or white.
And if you aren't against systemd, you are then a systemd lover!!! So is Linus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Linus wrote: | | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. |
| steveL wrote: | Like he said, he's never really explored the whole area of init in userland.
If he had, he'd realise Roy Marples' openrc was the real game-changer, and a much better design, in every way.
But like he said, he's not getting into this area, so he doesn't really know it. |
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | Exactly. I do not recall anyone maintaining openrc posting wild demands or half-cooked patches on the lkml, so he hardly ever heard of it. ;) |
Lul, indeed. ;)
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | However, the point was, that Linus' post could be mistaken for support of systemd. Liking a base concept and/or design (that it falls apart on a closer look doesn't matter) is no actual support, so those people stand corrected who might (or already have) try it. |
Yes, as you say the notion that "I don't know anything about this area, but systemd seems cleaner at first-sight than sysvinit" does not at all qualify as actual support.
The bit I find irritating, is the continued description of this as "init" when the comparison is all about sysv-rc which is pid2 (for want of a better term than "init-manager", which feels like a misnomer.)
But what else should we expect from someone who freely admits they don't know about this area? It's hardly a big deal.
And yes, sure, anything is better than sysv-rc when combined with lol-bashish as exemplified by RedHat and Debian both; though the latter made a move to shell more recently, that's all down the tubes with their takeover by the systemdiots (via the "Technical Committee"; "Gentoo: this is your wake-up call" seems much more relevant now.)
That is precisely why Gentoo switched to openrc so many years ago: for a fresh conception of the whole problem (inspired by the ebuild framework in overall design.)
No-one else was interested, and we don't proselytise since we came here through choice (not because someone told us it'd be "kewl", but because we want control of the machines we're liable for.)
Now we're suddenly supposed to roll-over and use turds, because some other distro can't get its act together and hire competent shell-scripters, let alone consider the design of such a thing in the round. No thanks.
Same as I don't want config files scattered over my machine, just because RedHat can't figure out etc-update, I don't see the need to open our machines up to such a liability, and every reason not to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1483
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Linus wrote: | | I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision. |
...
What next? Your grandma's opinion on init-systems? Sheesh. |
I much appreciate you honoring my grandma. Indeed she was working with early Ibm machines as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keypunch operator.
Perhaps she wrote bug mails to Ibm 90 years ago, because she was the only employee in the office who could write english language (but never spoke one word). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 55013
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
steveL,
| steveL wrote: | | Same as I don't want config files scattered over my machine, ... |
Never fear, they will all be in the same place in a binary format called registryd soon enough.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ulenrich wrote: | I much appreciate you honoring my grandma. Indeed she was working with early Ibm machines as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keypunch operator.
Perhaps she wrote bug mails to Ibm 90 years ago, because she was the only employee in the office who could write english language (but never spoke one word). |
Hey, I remember the TTY model 33 and model 35. I'm probably your grandma's age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3530
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Hey, I remember the TTY model 33 and model 35. I'm probably your grandma's age. |
Did you ever punch (then read) the paper tape? (I did.)
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ulenrich: Just answer the question: Do you work for RedHat?
Because your comment here: | ulenrich wrote: | | Just having heard the Redhat goals talk to a Fedora audience (via youtube - I am not a member of that herd) |
indicates you do, in line with pretty much all your statements on these forums. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | Tony0945 wrote: | | Hey, I remember the TTY model 33 and model 35. I'm probably your grandma's age. |
Did you ever punch (then read) the paper tape? (I did.) |
No, not paper tape, but I spent many a Saturday morning at the computer center keypunching Hollerith cards to run FORTRAN programs on an IBM 360/40.
You could read the punches? I'm impressed!
BTW, still have my old softcover textbook "FORTRAN IV with WATFOR". Still have my S-100 computer. I'm kind of a pack rat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 55013
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tony0945,
At college, you had to read the punches. The card punches we had did not print the text on the cards.
After reading the cards, paper tape is easy
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Same as I don't want config files scattered over my machine, ... |
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Never fear, they will all be in the same place in a binary format called registryd soon enough. |
Lul, that won't work for marketing. hmm I know: confd(TM) which sends a HUP to any service you like when you edit its config files..
Let's add configd(TM) to mediate access to confd(TM) along with polkitd, which as we know has replaced the kernel, only we'll be futzing it up with kdbus next.
Confused? You will be.. until you hand over squillions to a RedHat-Certified(R) Leech^W Administrator, whereafter you'll just be part of our income-stream. ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: |
Software development by "trends". Who'd have thought it.. |
This is, in fact, everything that is wrong with computer science right now. There are far too many wanna-be-rockstar developers hobbling together crap software out of other hobbled together software so that they can use the latest Wordpress theme to make a bitching web site and go to the next hipster conference of the day to give a talk on it.
And the fact that there are so many groupies out there eager and willing to cheer for them from the sidelines diminishes everything about our discipline.
I have no idea where all of this started, but I'm looking hard in the direction of Apple's marketing team.
Linus said:
| Quote: | | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. |
I don't understand why people think Linus' opinion on systemd has any bearing on the technical discussions around it. It's not like Linus' opinions are the gold standard across the board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6073
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | steveL wrote: |
Software development by "trends". Who'd have thought it.. |
This is, in fact, everything that is wrong with computer science right now. There are far too many wanna-be-rockstar developers hobbling together crap software out of other hobbled together software so that they can use the latest Wordpress theme to make a bitching web site and go to the next hipster conference of the day to give a talk on it.
And the fact that there are so many groupies out there eager and willing to cheer for them from the sidelines diminishes everything about our discipline.
I have no idea where all of this started, but I'm looking hard in the direction of Apple's marketing team.
Linus said:
| Quote: | | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. |
I don't understand why people think Linus' opinion on systemd has any bearing on the technical discussions around it. It's not like Linus' opinions are the gold standard across the board. |
I think the linux community too often turns to Linus as a source of validation for a particular direction while forgetting his primary concern is the kernel. He is, rightly or wrongly, viewed as a benevolent dictator/steward/chairman for everything related to Linux when in actual fact he is closer to a supremeCommander for the kernel (he himself has stated a lot of the day to day kernel management is handed over to his deputies). If he see's something wrong with a submission to kernel space he will vocally raise his concerns.
He has come out quite strong against Systemd in the past w.r.t. how they handle the kernel (re. udev and firmware blobs) and equally ASPECTS of nvidia. I state aspects because it isn't 100% that they are binary JUST debugging is a PITA because it is binary... This has been twisted into "Linus hates all things nvidia" and is used as a sort of crutch by some to support their stance "Linus agree's"
Same occurred with GNOME, his personal opinion on using a UI is used to validate gnome haters.
I have stated it before... I think Linus is taking a back seat in making a clear statement w.r.t. Systemd because of the influence he has and how what he says can and would be used.
Do you know who is silent on SystemD? RMS ... and this is odd REALLY odd. Userland of "Linux" is his baby & systemd is stomping on a lot of the establish philosophies. Want to know what is even odder... the GNU distro Trisquel is using upstart. This might change next year when a decision has to be made
_________________
#define HelloWorld int
#define Int main()
#define Return printf
#define Print return
#include <stdio>
HelloWorld Int {
Return("Hello, world!\n");
Print 0; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3530
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | Do you know who is silent on SystemD? RMS ... and this is odd REALLY odd. Userland of "Linux" is his baby & systemd is stomping on a lot of the establish philosophies. Want to know what is even odder... the GNU distro Trisquel is using upstart. This might change next year when a decision has to be made |
I've wondered about RMS and SystemD. On the one hand, it is GPL, but on the other hand, it violates every bit of Unix philosophy, as well as the "Right to Repair" manifesto, which is a key motivation of the GPL.
I've also wondered about ESR's opinion of SystemD. After all, SystemD is doing everything it can to turn Linux from a Bazaar into a Cathedral. (With L.P. as its high priest)
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
