boycott systemd

News, happenings
Message
Author
bark_bark_bark
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
Location: Wisconsin USA

#46 Post by bark_bark_bark »

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

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#47 Post by darkcity »


User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#48 Post by 01micko »

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.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#49 Post by Q5sys »

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
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#50 Post by amigo »

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!

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#51 Post by Q5sys »

amigo wrote: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!
Oh... I thought there would be far more to deal with. I'll add it to the lenghty list of things I want to work on. :P

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

#52 Post by James C »


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

#53 Post by James C »


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

Poetterisation of GNU/Linux

#54 Post by James C »

Poetterisation of GNU/Linux

http://slated.org/the_poetterisation_of_gnu_linux
I've found a disturbing trend in GNU/Linux, where largely unaccountable cliques of developers unilaterally decide to make fundamental changes to the way it works, based on highly subjective and arrogant assumptions, then forge ahead with little regard to those who actually use the software, much less the well-established principles upon which that OS was originally built. The long litany of examples includes Ubuntu Unity, Gnome Shell, KDE 4, the /usr partition, SELinux, PolicyKit, Systemd, udev and PulseAudio, to name a few.

I hereby dub this phenomenon the "Poetterisation of GNU/Linux".

The broken features, creeping bloat, and in particular the unhealthy tendency toward more monolithic, less modular code in certain Free Software projects, is a very serious problem, and I have a very serous opposition to it. I abandoned Windows to get away from that sort of nonsense, I didn't expect to have to deal with it in GNU/Linux.

Clearly this situation is untenable.
Reading the Ubuntu forums is an exercise in courting abject despair, as one witnesses an ignorant hoard demand GNU/Linux be mutated into the bastard son of Windows and Mac OS X. And Shuttleworth, it seems, is only too happy to oblige, eagerly assisted by his counterparts on other distros and upstream projects, such as Lennart Poettering and Richard Hughes, the former of whom has somehow convinced every distro to mutate the Linux startup process into a hideous monolithic blob, and the latter of whom successfully managed to undermine 40 years of UNIX security in a single stroke, by obliterating the principle that unprivileged users should not be allowed to install software system-wide.

GNU/Linux does not need such people, indeed it needs to get rid of them as a matter of extreme urgency. This is especially true when those people are former (or even current) Windows programmers, because they not only bring with them their indoctrinated expectations, misguided ideologies and flawed methods, but worse still they actually implement them, thus destroying GNU/Linux from within.

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

#55 Post by mavrothal »

OK... lets pretend we are impartial :roll:
(Actually some of the "answers" are pretty revealing)
== [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] ==

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#56 Post by 01micko »

Ha, it is Poettering's blog, and written well before Homer Slated's rebuttal.

Interesting the name "Pid Eins".

Note that Linus chewed out Sievers well after that. (kdbus, systemd related).

Pulse audio is a mess, so why would systemd be any different?

Just my opinion, it is a blatant grab for fame and fortune and Linus lets it go to a degree (re my "Linus still wants the desktop" link).

Greed is contagious unfortunately.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

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

#57 Post by jamesbond »

mavrothal wrote:OK... lets pretend we are impartial :roll: (Actually some of the "answers" are pretty revealing)
Yes, the answer is more revealing that the so-called "myths" themselves.

So here is my comment on that FAQ.

When I said "bunk" I mean the "debunking answer" is baloney and the so-called "myths" are not myths, they are real concerns, unless noted otherwise. For those I can't give any fair comment because I haven't looked into the details, I leave it as "no comment".

1. Bunk. Linux kernel also consists of vmlinuz + hundreds of kernel modules. Yet everyone calls Linux as "monolithic" kernel. Ever wonder why? Same as systemd.

2. Bunk. Systemd is being sold and promoted as the *fast* init system. Saying that systemd is not about speed is two-faced. As an side: what exactly has systemd achived in that 900ms? You can get a shell in less than 900ms by booting with init=/bin/ash (busybox shell) ...

3. I give you this one for the myth, fast bootup is useful for all. But the "debunking" text has the gut to say that sytemd is for useful containers, while (until as late as Feb 2014) it has this bug: https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/sh ... i?id=74589. Note that the "socket-activation" stuff is bunk and rife with issues, see http://ewontfix.com/15/.

4. Bunk. When people say "shell scripts" and init, they are saying about controlling system initialisation with shell scripts, not about "executing" shell scripts.

5. No comment. New things *does* always come with a learning curve.

6. Bunk. See no #1 above. And "modularity" at compile-time is not modularity at all, it is not the the kind of "modularity" that matters.

7. I give you this one. Systemd is definitely geared for servers. Desktop has no need for such elaborate system management services. And can you imagine systemd in embedded system? Yeah.

8. Bunk. It's obvious enough.

9. I give you this one. This is not freedesktop.org project, it is indeed P&K project (paid for by RH), but masqueraded and forced into freedesktop.org. Just like MS bought their way to ISO for OOXML standard.

10. Bunk. Systemd violates every tenet of Unix philosophy. Especially when near the end of the "debunking text" it written: "Ultimately the question whether something is UNIX or not matters very little" :)

11. Bunk. It is complex not because it has to, but because it keeps swallowing that should have been separate services.

12. Bunk. See #11.

13. Bunk. Systemd is written and designed to work only on *Linux* from day one. Saying otherwise is re-writing history.

14. Not relevant. Debian has now adopted systemd as their "alternative" init service.

15. Bunk. *Everything* can be emulated. See for example the effort on "systembsd" or systemd-shim from debian. Why not P&K do it? "Becaused I don't get paid by RH to work on porting", obviously.

16. I give you this one for the myth (see #13), but the "debunking" answer is junk. Systemd isn't portable because it is *designed from day-one* to be so, because all that matters to its paymaster is Linux. As an aside: many of the Linux-specific features are *already* exposed to the users. What systemd exposed to the "users" are definitely not user-friendly - what's so user-friendly about init system?

17. I give you this one. The log file, however, (very important when you have a crash and want to be able to view its content offline), is binary.

18. Bunk. It is obvious. More and more services have been subsumed under systemd, the last few ones I'm aware is dhcpcd, and linux VT are coming soon ... The reason given? "Because it's better for systemd to perform that function." Yes.

19. Bunk. I don't want to elaborate, there are many stories around this. They copied a page from MS EEE concept.

20. No comment.

21. Bunk. "run vast majority of init scripts work unmodified"? What are you smoking?

22. No comment, although I suspect it is bunk. Scripting with "dbus-send or gdbus" is definitely not for the weak-hearted.

23. No comment.

24. Bunk. Many "bug reports" are closed with a simple comment of "works here" and "work as designed".

25. I give you this one. The more correct statement is "systemd isn't easily debuggable" or more accurately "Once I can't boot to shell then I'm doomed through and through".

26. Bunk. P&K are known to change interfaces without any consideration for backward compatibility.

27. Bunk. It is obvious enough I won't even draw the details.

28. No comment.

29. No comment although I suspect this is bunk, too.

30. Bunk. Especially the "debunking" text. Can you control systemd by writing directly to its socket?
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

#58 Post by James C »

Posted in off-topic, Lennart Poettering's Linus Torvalds rant
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 862#802862

Interesting read.

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

systemd-consoled

#59 Post by jamesbond »

And next time, if you don't have systemd you don't have console altogether (if they can convince Linus to drop the in-kernel console code, that is - which I'm pretty sure they'll attempt that)): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n ... px=MTgwNzQ.

Xorg blows up in your face? Vsync too high not supported by your monitor? Thought you can drop to "console" and fix it? Oh, you can't find the console too ?! Bwahahahahaha, DEAL WITH IT, you systemd-hater! :twisted:

The era of Linux where fixing a broken system requires "Recovery CD" has begun :twisted: We are one step closer to Windows, guys, so don't panic. Soon all those Windows refugees will feel like home when they use Linux :twisted:
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
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#60 Post by greengeek »

But what is the effect on us? Does this simply mean that we have to capitulate if we want to use NEW hardware (and therefore new kernels) - but we can still do what we want with the old hardware (and old kernels)?

What if we are happy to stick with old kernels - can we avoid systemd and instead graft in new modules to cope with new hardware?

rokytnji
Posts: 2262
Joined: Tue 20 Jan 2009, 15:54

#61 Post by rokytnji »

greengeek wrote:But what is the effect on us? Does this simply mean that we have to capitulate if we want to use NEW hardware (and therefore new kernels) - but we can still do what we want with the old hardware (and old kernels)?

What if we are happy to stick with old kernels - can we avoid systemd and instead graft in new modules to cope with new hardware?
You are stuck if wanting to use XFCE, certain apps, a modern linux operating system. A modern computer. (Even bsd even eventually). Systemd is tied into a lot of stuff.

I am neutral. I have lived long enough to see this rant before. Just in a different way. Motorcycles and Cars.

Computers are not needed in motor vehicles. Neither is fuel injection needed on motorcycles. Too many sensors that can break in the mix.
But guess what. You ended up with those features anyways.

So ranting about systemd and thinking you will effect how this will play out
kinda reminds me of that turtle yelling at the fencepost to let it go.

Just a exercise in futility. So you are stuck like the turtle below.
Attachments
postturtle1.jpg
(34.04 KiB) Downloaded 1188 times

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

Systemd: The Biggest Fallacies

#62 Post by James C »

Systemd: The Biggest Fallacies

http://judecnelson.blogspot.fi/2014/09/ ... acies.html
Over this past year, I've seen a lot of frequently-used but logically invalid arguments for using systemd. This blog post is meant to serve as a repository of common but invalid arguments for using systemd that I and others have had to refute multiple times. This is meant to be a living document--I'll update it with more fallacies as I encounter them, and I will direct people here who make these mistakes.

Please be informed that this post is not meant to be a criticism of systemd or its authors. For the record, I personally believe that the question "is systemd good or bad?" can only be answered in terms of a particular user's requirements.

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

Debian "Administration" cancels systemd-shim to force system

#63 Post by James C »

Debian "Administration" cancels systemd-shim to force systemd lock-in upon "users"

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/7/254
A few days ago the Debian administration ruled out any use of a systemd "substitute"
>(cancelling its own systemd-shim project for desktop users) and now requires systemd whole
>hog.
We knew that would happen. Accommodations are only a temporary
stratagem with the systemd people. They are out to conquer. They need
to be stopped, halted.

There has been no General Resolution amongst debian package maintainers.
Red Hat has instituted a regulatory capture of the "bug squashing" committee
within debian (the "Technical Committee") by having current or former (but
stock holding) employees moonlight in debian and gradually gain membership
in that comittie.

Once their numbers were sufficient they proceeded to file a bug report on
the fact that systemd was not standard in debian.

This is illicit abuse of process and they need to be prosecuted.

Debian is an unincorporated association. It has bylaws, trade
practices, and dealings
by which it was governed. The RedHat associated members of the
Technical Committee have illegally and in bad faith abused their
positions in-order to
realize financial and strategic gain for their employer.

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

Debian leader says users can continue with SysVinit

#64 Post by James C »

Debian leader says users can continue with SysVinit

http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/ ... h-sysvinit
Users of Debian GNU/Linux will be able to continue using SysVinit as their init system, despite the project having switched to systemd as the default, according to the leader of the Debian project.
Lucas Nussbaum (pictured) told iTWire that a package named systemd-shim had been made available for this purpose. It was already in the testing stream and would be available in the next release, Jessie, when that hits the download servers.

The Debian technical committee decided to change the default init system from SysVinit to systemd in February this year. There has been an avalanche of opposition from users for various reasons, mainly that the new system has unprecedented levels of complexity and seeks to take over the running of too many things.

This has not gone down well with those who believe in the UNIX way of doing things - one thing at a time and that done well.
In response to a query, Nussbaum said: "It is still possible to install and use sysvinit instead of systemd on Debian. However, there is software in Debian (e.g. GNOME's or XFCE's login and power management features) that now require specific interfaces which are provided by systemd components such as systemd-logind.
"For people wanting to use sysvinit or upstart as PID 1, there is a package (systemd-shim) that works as an emulation layer between systemd components like systemd-logind and an alternate init system: GNOME/XFCE talks to systemd-logind, which talks to systemd-shim (instead of systemd)."

Nussbaum said systemd-shim was likely to be available in Debian Jessie (it is already part of 'testing'). Jessie, the next release, is due to be frozen in November - which means no new packages will be added after that - and released within the next few months after bug-testing has been done and release-critical bugs have been fixed.

samhain
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2014, 16:15

#65 Post by samhain »

So Debian does not know what it's up to ...

Post Reply