boycott systemd

News, happenings
Message
Author
anikin
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012, 06:16

#21 Post by anikin »

The devil isn't as black as painted. Before subscribing to the boycott, it won't hurt to have a look at the other side's views.
Lennart Poettering wrote:But first, let's clear a few things up: is this kind of logic new? No, it certainly is not. The most prominent system that works like this is Apple's launchd system: on MacOS the listening of the sockets is pulled out of all daemons and done by launchd. The services themselves hence can all start up in parallel and dependencies need not to be configured for them. And that is actually a really ingenious design, and the primary reason why MacOS manages to provide the fantastic boot-up times it provides. I can highly recommend this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjrtySM9Dns where the launchd folks explain what they are doing. Unfortunately this idea never really took on outside of the Apple camp
https://freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

To my layman's reason, the logic behind the boycott is akin to saying "boycott fuel injection, becuase it threatens our carburetors." The only impact I can think of is that we noobs - brave mouse-pushers, like myself and gcmartin, will have to do a lot of reading. Not only to understand what systemd is, bot what it's designed to replace in the first place.

bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#22 Post by bark_bark_bark »

let's not forget why systemd is bad here. systemd is a tool for RHEL developers to establish a monopoly.
....

gcmartin

#23 Post by gcmartin »

I not convinced that the industry is RedHat. It appears that Microsoft and Apple and Intel and AMD and ... have contributed.

Why is the Unix/Linux industry, now, RedHat?

I just recently booted an Alpha7 in a KVM guest that has, to my surprise, systemd built in. I am NOT suggesting anyone, here, do anything beyond what they feel is right. But, seems some distro developers in the Linux industry are moving. I wonder if their decision was to some benefit they perceived or for a greater understanding for what they envision for their future?

Personally, again, I have NO concern as either way, for me, my needs are at the subsystem-application levels. So, I am only trying to offer some ideas, just as others are presenting for a rational approach that will benefit Puppy distro developers as we march into its future. Same as was done with WOOF-CE as it presents a platform for good solid future life in Puppyland.

This will be my last post, here, because I am not a device developer or a system developer (was long ago). Systems developer ease and certainly simple easy to understand and use future needs would be a good review. Or create a brand-new model and present to Linux industry while we maintain and use such in Puppyland as a working model for industry review. Otherwise, we can weigh its beneficial side and use what would help Puppy slide into the future...just as we do when we use EFI, debian, slackware, Citrix, RHEL, and the many other ideas and products found in Open Source Community and certainly in Linux and used to make good/better Pups.

Here to help

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#24 Post by greengeek »

I'm not technically able to contribute any info about the merits of systemd but from what I read it continues a trend of taking control away from the end user (which can be both good or bad depending on your preferences).

What I mean is - as the kernel has developed and expanded it now contains functions that used to reside outside of it (mouse / video functions etc that used to be standalone). The development of systemd sounds like a continuation of a trend that puts code 'beyond the reach' of people like me - I really enjoy being able to get 'under the hood' and strip / modify code just for the heck of it. I'm not good at it, but I like the feeling of having that control.

Does the development of systemd contribute towards the creation of a "black box" approach - where functionality is modular and the user is locked out from having total control? It seems to me that systemd has the same ugly odour as UEFI - an unnecessary level of isolation that prevents me doing what I want.

User avatar
technosaurus
Posts: 4853
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 01:24
Location: Blue Springs, MO
Contact:

#25 Post by technosaurus »

greengeek wrote:... the same ugly odour as UEFI - an unnecessary level of isolation that prevents me doing what I want.
fwiw uefi isn't bad. The partition info is all at 1 location with distinct magic for each filesystem and that also allows it to be specified on the bootloader command line (PARTUUID=...). The existing infrastructure had magic values and UUIDs scattered all over the partitions which increased complexity (see guess_fstype) and reduced reliability (a usb drive may be sdb, sdc, ...) the tools just need(ed) updated.

systemd is no different than any other tool like it aside from the fact that it has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight of the past mistakes of others, it could just as easily use busybox ash with builtins like readahead (to preload files), wait $PID (to handle parallel processes) and inotifywatch on a tmpfs (for message transfer) along with judicious use of nofork/noexec applets and shell builtins. As it is, instead of parsing shell scripts, they have to parse config files and then separately load and run many external programs (this load/run takes much longer than even the forking-type busybox applets) ... but then again RedHat doesn't have me bigbass or amigo to audit their scripts, but do have a lot of experienced C programmers that would otherwise be F-ing up GTK+. I say support them on the projects we don't really care about (like systemd) so they spend less time with their fingers in the pie that we eat (gtk)
Check out my [url=https://github.com/technosaurus]github repositories[/url]. I may eventually get around to updating my [url=http://bashismal.blogspot.com]blogspot[/url].

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#26 Post by mavrothal »

bark_bark_bark wrote:let's not forget why systemd is bad here. systemd is a tool for RHEL developers to establish a monopoly.
I'm not sure that monopolizing is the intention here. Using the words of Lennart Poettering, one of the 2 systemd credited developers (now removed from his wikipedia page!)
Linux is still too fragmented, and a developer targeting Linux will have to choose from a variety of APIs, a bazaar of somewhat matching but mostly just chaotic choices that will work on some systems but not on others. I think it would be in our greatest interest to streamline the platform top to bottom, and thus have a clear message what the Linux OS is. And of course, I believe my work in cleaning up the lower levels of our userspace stack is helping to work in that direction
.
The only thing is that in order to achieve that he wants to brake away from the so far APIs and code...
Not having to care about portability has two big advantages: we can make maximum use of what the modern Linux kernel offers these days without headaches -- Linux is one of the most powerful kernels in existence, but many of its features have not been used by the previous solutions. And secondly, it greatly simplifies our code and makes it shorter: since we never need to abstract OS interfaces the amount of glue code is minimal, and hence what we gain is a smaller chance to create bugs, a smaller chance of confusing the reader of the code (hence better maintainability) and a smaller footprint.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#27 Post by bark_bark_bark »

mavrothal wrote:
bark_bark_bark wrote:let's not forget why systemd is bad here. systemd is a tool for RHEL developers to establish a monopoly.
I'm not sure that monopolizing is the intention here.
I disagree, but I would think the only one in their way is Mr Shuttleworth. Mr Shuttleworth is more likely to get total control of linux because he is trying to make people think that Ubuntu and Linux are the exact same thing.
Linux is still too fragmented
IMO, linux is not fragmented. It needs more variety. Too many distros are becoming too similar to each other. and it is only getting worse. If linux doesn't get more fragmented, real innovation will halt and we would basically have a "new windows".
Last edited by bark_bark_bark on Fri 16 May 2014, 12:58, edited 2 times in total.
....

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#28 Post by jamesbond »

mavrothal wrote:Isn't it time for a BSD puppy? :lol:
Did they ever fix the FAT32 bug?
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#29 Post by bark_bark_bark »

systemd will probably end BSD's existence.
....

User avatar
technosaurus
Posts: 4853
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 01:24
Location: Blue Springs, MO
Contact:

#30 Post by technosaurus »

bark_bark_bark wrote:systemd will probably end BSD's existence.
if anything system will reinvigorate the BSDs. I for 1 have plans to puppify a BSD.
Check out my [url=https://github.com/technosaurus]github repositories[/url]. I may eventually get around to updating my [url=http://bashismal.blogspot.com]blogspot[/url].

bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#31 Post by bark_bark_bark »

BSD survival relies on software natively available on linux. If all these linux programs require systemd, then BSD is screwed.
....

User avatar
Iguleder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 09:36
Location: Israel, somewhere in the beautiful desert
Contact:

#32 Post by Iguleder »

Here's a good example. They lost GNOME 3 to systemd, but they were lucky enough to have MATE (and it's a question of time until it's Linux-only, too).
[url=http://dimakrasner.com/]My homepage[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]

mcewanw
Posts: 3169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug 2007, 10:48
Contact:

#33 Post by mcewanw »

Red Hat certification academies have become pretty much as huge as Cisco certification programs in colleges and polytechnics worldwide. If RedHat say systemd, then systemd is what will be taught to these probably millions of aspiring Linux professional engineers/system admins.

http://www.redhat.com/training/red-hat-academy.html
github mcewanw

User avatar
matiasbatero
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri 12 Oct 2012, 01:27
Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina

#34 Post by matiasbatero »

Its funny to see Puppy on BSD, but.. it is inviable!

Now, a linux system without systemd will be still alive if developers, uses systemd as optional dependency.. if not, is a serious trouble. I think that it is very difficult to maintain a Linux system in this direction. But, "maybe" the union with BSD at least, can share the pain.

BSD migration is not free. Go for BSD implies:
1) A reduction of 60% of current packages that are available on Linux.
2) We need to assume that we losses all systemd dependent software.
3) The current packages that work, maybe 10/15% will be old in the future. Because, some updates can incorporate systemd inside.
4) We assume that BSD port needs work, to make usable as common Linux.
5) And, the worst part.. is that we don't have possitive items to contrarrest 1,2,3,4 points. O no?
Last edited by matiasbatero on Sat 24 May 2014, 06:25, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
saintless
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011, 13:43
Location: Bulgaria

#35 Post by saintless »

Boycott linux distro because it uses systemd - free linux software - just because it is not suitable for everyone?
The real problem is not systemd but any linux that can not provide optional systemd boot for the user.
Debian for example does the change from sysvinit to systemd by adding init=/bin/systemd to the boot code. Simple and elegant solution suitable for all needs. Maybe impossible to be included in similar way for Puppy but is this systemd fault?
Otherwise anyone who prefer to use systemd should boycott any linux that does not use it.
Boycotting any form of linux just doesn't feel right to me.

bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#36 Post by bark_bark_bark »

Atleast the slackware developer has a negative attitude towards systemd.
....

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#37 Post by James C »

http://alien.slackbook.org/blog/on-lkml ... nux-world/

[quote]Last week I asked the SDDM developers to reconsider their decision no longer to support ConsoleKit because Slackware does not have systemd or logind and thus we need to keep using ConsoleKit. The answer could be expected: “answer is no because ConsoleKit is deprecated and is not maintained anymore

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#38 Post by jamesbond »

Anyone who had pain because of forced upgrade to Skype and got no sound will know what the days of systemd looks like. As it happens, PulseAudio is also the brainchild of the same person who came with systemd.

I came to a renewed realisation, though. The reason why everything is moving to systemd is simple - because *the developers are paid to do that*. systemd is not a free (as in gratis) work, it is a "paid" work; the guys who work on it are on RedHat's payroll, and *they are paid to work on systemd*. Gnome moves to systemd because ... the devs are on RH's payroll too. I'm not sure about KDE. It probably isn't about conspiracy, but from RH point of view - why should they be funding their staff to work on anything other than systemd (=competitors to systemd), when systemd is the corporate agenda? And from the view point of the staff - why should they spend their hours doing non-billable work to support other systems when they can charge billable hours doing systemd-related work?

If you want support for anything else, then you'll have to do it yourself (or pay someone else to do it - like Ubuntu did with upstart). Same with Gnome - Ubuntu left Gnome and did Unity. That is simply the way the free market work. (Note: Both didn't go too well for Ubuntu, I suppose Canonical doesn't get a decent enough return from its effort while RedHat does, so they abandon the effort and just succumb to whatever RedHat dictates).

You know another company that writes their own init system (I think their init system is called "goldfish" init system)? They aren't troubled about systemd. That same company doesn't really care about Xorg incompatibility, or PulseAudio, or browser incompatibility, or Gnome, or KDE, or Flash, any other problems ... because they happen to have the financial clout to pay people to write replacements for all these, and vertically integrating all the components to deliver a nice, smooth experience (way better than systemd does). I leave it as an exercise to find out which company I'm referring to :wink: (Hint: they use Linux as the kernel too, and just like RedHat, they're getting a good return on their investment, unlike Ubuntu or any other desktop Linux companies).

It's all about the free market. People (myself included) often forget that many of the players in the FOSS are into it not for charity, nor its principles, nor for "good warm feeling you get by doing noble things for mankind" - but for purely commercial reasons. This is true either individually, or as a company. If the effort doesn't put anything back in the book, then it goes for the cutting (e.g: how many products have Google killed lately?).

Welcome to the world of Windows, where one company decides on *everything*.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#39 Post by James C »

Was going to give away the answer but some guessing might be fun. :lol:

gcmartin

#40 Post by gcmartin »

UNIX all over again. One Linux class and many books share what FOSS stands for. It doesn't mean free, per se. Nor does it mean something was arrived at 'freely'. Incentives to people is achieved at, via various means. "Money is what Moni wants" for it universal use.

Corporations and governments intend to drive us into specializations usually starting from a generalization.

Systemd, EFI, etc. are mere examples.

Post Reply