boycott systemd

Message

bark_bark_bark · #31 Post by **bark_bark_bark** » Sat 17 May 2014, 00:41

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

Iguleder · #32 Post by **Iguleder** » Sat 17 May 2014, 09:10

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).

mcewanw · #33 Post by **mcewanw** » Sat 17 May 2014, 13:26

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

matiasbatero · #34 Post by **matiasbatero** » Fri 23 May 2014, 03:49

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?

saintless · #35 Post by **saintless** » Fri 23 May 2014, 08:06

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 · #36 Post by **bark_bark_bark** » Fri 23 May 2014, 18:09

Atleast the slackware developer has a negative attitude towards systemd.

James C · #37 Post by **James C** » Mon 18 Aug 2014, 15:17

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 · #38 Post by **jamesbond** » Mon 18 Aug 2014, 16:26

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

(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*.

James C · #39 Post by **James C** » Mon 18 Aug 2014, 16:38

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

gcmartin · #40 Post by **gcmartin** » Mon 18 Aug 2014, 19:15

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.

mavrothal · #41 Post by **mavrothal** » Mon 18 Aug 2014, 19:31

jamesbond wrote: I suppose Canonical doesn't get a decent enough return from its effort while RedHat does

You see Canonical does not have the US army as its big(est) client...

Thank God there is puppy with all its cumbersome and outdated init and scripts

greengeek · #42 Post by **greengeek** » Mon 18 Aug 2014, 20:19

jamesbond wrote:You know another company that writes their own init system (I think their init system is called "goldfish" init system)?.. I leave it as an exercise to find out which company I'm referring to

I tried googling this but just got stuck in an infinite loop :-]

technosaurus · #43 Post by **technosaurus** » Tue 19 Aug 2014, 01:07

greengeek wrote:
jamesbond wrote:You know another company that writes their own init system (I think their init system is called "goldfish" init system)?.. I leave it as an exercise to find out which company I'm referring to
I tried googling this but just got stuck in an infinite loop :-]

http://www.vogella.com/tutorials/Androi ... ticle.html

I just don't like android's close binding to java. If I were going to pick the language i least like to program in, Java would be it. The only good thing to come from Java is smarter IDEs... because they have to be, or you couldn't get anything done.

bark_bark_bark · #44 Post by **bark_bark_bark** » Tue 19 Aug 2014, 12:30

Security is alien to Java developers.

gcmartin · #45 Post by **gcmartin** » Tue 19 Aug 2014, 19:18

I'm so old that I remember plugging wires in a board to get computer to do tasks. Machine language, then to Assembler, then to Fortran, Cobol, RPG, .... to today's languages of which python, Java, HTML, etc exist. In my life, I have heard so many voices about this language or that. A language is a compiler, for the most part and the compiler is written in a former language of some sort. Languages themselves provide an attempt to allow an easy understanding to produce a runnable code.

We, as Linux people,should use caution in "damning" any Language. But, I come to understand that people look for communication tools that they can easily manipulate to express a concept thru and in some language. Thus, a program/utility/compiler/service/subsystem is exactly that...an expression for functionality. Is it "language flawed"...YES! They all are. But, remember and understand its mission. JAVA has a very good mission. So does C. So does Javascript, so does PDP. so does Perl. so does...

Bias aside, one earlier member points out, the industry as a whole is NOT as backward as some would like to think it is because of any singular item. All components, together, constitutes a production. And its never exactly perfect.

At least in this thread, I want to share some additional information for community consideration:

December 2, 2013

If you use an Android phone or tablet, there are a lot of benefits that come from Android’s open nature--customization and choice are the most obvious. But an often overlooked benefit of openness is security: by developing in the open, anyone can check Android’s code to verify that it’s trustworthy or discover areas where it can be improved. Furthermore, the security community can even write code to make Android stronger and protect it against unrealized attacks.

Google has always worked closely with the security industry to make the products you use safer and more secure, and we wanted to highlight a few recent examples of that cooperation on Android:
Android, now part of the Google Patch Reward Program: That’s right, Google actually pays developers when they contribute security-related patches to popular open source projects, and Android is now a part of this program. As a user, this means that you have the broader security community looking out for you and preventing possible threats, before they are acted upon.

Security improvements in Android 4.4, from the community: In Android 4.4, we reinforced the Android sandbox (which prevents applications from extending outside of their own area and damaging other parts of a device) by putting SELinux into enforcing mode, providing one of the strongest security systems available. The core of SELinux, as well as many of the Android specific extensions have been contributed by third-parties through open source, an example of real security improvements from the community you can use today.

Pwn2Own Mobile, with Android: Android was a contributor to the bounty in this year’s PacSec Security conference, where teams of security researchers tried to exploit popular mobile devices. And while no exploit was found in Android on the Nexus devices provided, we were ready and waiting to create a patch in the event of an exploit!
The Android team works very closely with the security research community at large to foster public discussions and implement improvements such as the ones above. This openness has helped make the Android phone or tablet you carry with you everyday much more secure.

This reference is NOT an endorsement of anything. It is presented as a view of people providing clarity in efforts taken.

Our task can be to contribute, in word or deed, as best we can to advance efforts herein, where we address our overall requirements for a productive environment recognizing that it, too, is never going to be a perfect solution for some/any.

Cheers!

bark_bark_bark · #46 Post by **bark_bark_bark** » Fri 22 Aug 2014, 19:26

Too bad Oracle isn't making any effort to fix Java. Well honestly, I would just like to see Java die altogether.

darkcity · #47 Post by **darkcity** » Fri 29 Aug 2014, 17:49

https://www.diasp.de/posts/1626534

01micko · #48 Post by **01micko** » Tue 02 Sep 2014, 08:18

The signs are ominous since Linus still wants the desktop.

This is Lennart's plan. It's a long read but worth it no matter which side of the fence you are on. darkcity, that meme might need several additions!

On the other hand BSD is fighting back with systembsd which has been thrown around in slackware circles.

Q5sys · #49 Post by **Q5sys** » Tue 02 Sep 2014, 12:00

technosaurus wrote:
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.

I have quite a few friends who use BSD, and they've been constantly trying to pull me over. just for a thought excersize i looked into what would be needed to make a BSD variant of puppy. The biggest issue i found was the lack of AUFS. That for me is the showstopper as im nowhere smart enough to port AUFS to BSD or to figure out how to make Puppy work with the older UnionFS.

amigo · #50 Post by **amigo** » Tue 02 Sep 2014, 16:56

Using unionfs instead of aufs would be nearly the same -the only thing you'd lose would be the ability to dynamically change the layers. Go for it!

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

boycott systemd