| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you want systemd as default on Gentoo? |
| I <3 systemd!! I want Gentoo to switch!! |
|
12% |
[ 26 ] |
| Get that horse-crap away from Gentoo as far as possible! |
|
87% |
[ 186 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 212 |
|
| Author |
Message |
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
That guy comment on uselessd are useless too ; to sum up i can do a paper like that too :
- systemd lovers like pasta
- systemd haters doesn't like shit
-> Well, they are both right and wrong, it's true systemd is made of pasta with shit....
What a useful analyse of the problem... That guy mistake a lot, he see it as a cruel irony that systemd's attempts at unify distributions endup "creating a huge rigt on two communites : desktop and minimalist".
I'm not a minimalist, i have a destktop, a mouse and i have electricity in my house (and not coming from someone that run on a bicycle in my garage).
I'm getting upset seeing the "not for systemd" guys are named like a bunch of retards against future, change or technology. I'm not, and i don't think people are ; how can anyone involve with computers could be that kind of guy???
I haven't seen people complaining against runit, openrc or anything new that is related to init. Never seen anyone insulting kernel guys because they add cgroups, never seen forum flood with complains against busybox...
I don't care the systemd merits and code quality, as long as the politic force it link on programs, we will endup with "who control systemd control linux".
And that's something i don't want redhat to do on my distro.
merits, code quality... of systemd just made it even worst for me as many things looks broken by design for me, but i never tried it, and just assume it's working as it should, this won't change my mind against it. I don't want be redhat slave, even in a gold castle (something i have doubt, as the golden castle looks like it was made in gold but built with feet). If i would want that, i would just use redhat distro.
The "Year of the Linux Desktop" my ass! If he had catch it, he would had speak about "Year of Redhat attempt to control linux".
That guy just didn't just see the primary problem and even funnier he is a bsd guy!!!
It might not be clear for some Linux users as they still have gnome (if they accept to enslave them to systemd) ; but i don't get how he miss that point as a bsd guy, as redhat already shown what they will do with that power : bsd users have no more gnome...
What's next??? Link wayland to systemd? Because bsd don't need wayland... Maybe link xorg to systemd then, why bsd users need xorg anyway...
I really fail to see the technical merits of bsd users loosing gnome???
It's just politic ; end of story. If redhat wins, redhat will get linux distro future and do whatever redhat wish do with that (and you must be really dumb if you think they will use it fairly or wisely, they will use it to increase their profits).
For me, if i were redhat, my primary goal to increase my profits would be less opponents. Control linux so you can remove opponents and kill distro diversity, once everyone see only the redhat distro is the one to run, and only redhat can provide support on linux ; profits.
I would be against openrc if tomorrow gentoo gave openrc over to canonical and if canonical start to tied something with openrc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
In accordance to my previous post:
Maybe somebody should write a guide for daemons which complements the misleading guide from freedesktop.org and explains how to really write a modern daemon which plays nice with all init-systems (even with systemd). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1816
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | tld wrote: | | He really nails it. |
Hell, yeah. |
Especially this:
| Quote: | | I fall on the side of the anti-systemd crowd for the very simple reason that all they are asking for is the same freedom of choice that brought most of them into the *nix world in the first place, whereas the pro-systemd crowd just seems to want everyone to be forced to use their brand new toy. No one has yet said anything on this issue that has convinced me I need to know more than that. |
Can I get an Amen? 
That's precicely why it makes my skin crawl when people talk about the issue like it's some sort of "partisan bickering" that they're "sick of hearing about". What I'm sick of is people ignoring the simple fact that the systemd side is the only side forcing anything on anyone, and doing so with unnecessary, and even malicious, dependencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | Just for the record: The perl question I posed above is solved and has been tested.
Although it still appears somewhat hackish, the only problem is lacking "official" support in perl: It only needs to be raised to a documented solution. (But this is only perl- and not systemd-related.) |
Ah excellent :-) Glad you got that sorted out.
Seems to me it's definitely supported, or you wouldn't have the fdopen() method, but yeah would be good to have it documented as you mention. The settings you discuss are pretty easy from C, though there are a couple that can only be inherited, iirc. (which i think is where xinetd offers some options.) We discussed it in ##posix a couple of years ago, but I don't remember the detail.
Pretty sure Stevens discusses them too (see below).
| Quote: | So I confirm now - in this case which at a first glance seemed to be one of the hardest to avoid - that it is absolutely possible to write code which does not depend on an init system, even if socket-based activation and other apparent "features" of systemd are used:
All dependencies you see in programs have only political and no technical reasons. |
(emphasis added)
| Quote: | | Maybe somebody should write a guide for daemons which.. explains how to really write a modern daemon which plays nice with all init-systems |
That would be UNP:
"UNIX Network Programming" -- "Vol 1: The Sockets Networking API" Stevens, Fenner and Rudoff, 3rd ed (Addison Wesley, 2004) "Vol 2: Interprocess Communications" Stevens (Prentice-Hall, 1999)
However you really need APUE first (2005 ed is good, since Stevens sadly passed in 1999), and that should come after UPE/K&R2.
Admittedly that's the C side (and I'd recommend you purchase the original UNP from 1990 too, if you're serious; it's pretty cheap 2nd hand now), but everything else builds on that, ime.
No amount of good coding on our side, will change the broken-concepts involved in systemd however, nor stop them being broken.
It's a mish-mash of amateur-hour idiocy, vendor lock-in and dependency-hell, and we've all been through this before with M$.
The only sane solution is: "Delete that sh1t!" and let your machines breathe again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | That guy's comment on uselessd are useless too; to sum up i can do a paper like that too :
- systemd lovers like pasta
- systemd haters doesn't like shit
-> Well, they are both right and wrong, it's true systemd is made of pasta with shit....
What a useful analysis of the problem... |
LMAO.
| Quote: | That guy mistakes a lot; he sees it as a cruel irony that systemd's attempts to unify distributions endup "creating a huge rift on two communities: desktop and minimalist".
I'm not a minimalist, i have a desktop, a mouse and i have electricity in my house (and not coming from someone on a bicycle in my garage).
I'm getting upset seeing the "not for systemd" guys are named like a bunch of retards against future, change or technology. I'm not, and i don't think people are; how could anyone involved with computers be that kind of guy? |
Exactly. Anyone involved with computing has to stay current with new things. The problem is when you've seen the latest new thing come in 4 or 5 times, every few years, you start to get a bit jaded; and rightly so (previously-linked).
It's just more false dichotomies as saellevan mentioned; as usual value-laden descriptions of anyone who doesn't drink the kool-aid are slipped in, and you either have to pick them apart or just ignore it; it's hard to avoid flipping the bozo-bit on whoever wrote it, though.
Yet it must be done, as we all change over the years, even if we tell ourselves we haven't really (you're always somewhere between 17 and 22 in your own self-ideation, since that's typically when your adult identity was formed; even if your body tells you otherwise every day, and night..;)
In this case, I'd say he's well-aware that the two sides use value-laden terms. I agree he should be less foolish in his own analysis; using the same idiotic terms only lends them credence.
However there's no way to avoid value-laden terms when you're analysing something; that's the whole point of you taking time to conceptualise the problem, and to both think and discuss around it. If we can't call it crap when it is, then you can keep it.
GIGO still rules, w/e any nub-skool "philosophy" says. And it's awfully hard to see any real thinking going on, apart from how to apply socio-political pressure.
| Quote: | It's just politics; end of story. If redhat wins, redhat will get linux distro future and do whatever redhat wish do with that (and you must be really dumb if you think they will use it fairly or wisely, they will use it to increase their profits).
For me, if i were redhat, my primary goal to increase my profits would be less opponents. Control linux so you can remove opponents and kill distro diversity, once everyone see only the redhat distro is the one to run, and only redhat can provide support on linux: profits.
I would be against openrc if tomorrow gentoo gave openrc over to canonical and if canonical start to tied something with openrc... |
Yeah, true; that's the fundamental difference between the two camps, I think. We don't throw away principles for convenience.
Instead, we build convenience on top of robustness, flexibility and elegance.
| Kernhighan & Plauger wrote: | It is more important to make the purpose of the code unmistakable than to display virtuosity.
The problem with obscure code is that debugging and modification become much more difficult, and these are already the hardest aspects of computer programming. |
Seems to me that debugging and modification are much harder for systemd users than the rest of us.
As such, we'll work more effectively, and they will lose out in the longer-term.
Much like everyone sane moved their webservers off M$, including M$ who couldn't make their own OS work for their own company, hotmail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tld wrote: | Especially this:
| Quote: | | I fall on the side of the anti-systemd crowd for the very simple reason that all they are asking for is the same freedom of choice that brought most of them into the *nix world in the first place, whereas the pro-systemd crowd just seems to want everyone to be forced to use their brand new toy. No one has yet said anything on this issue that has convinced me I need to know more than that. |
Can I get an Amen? ;) |
Amen ;) and Hallelujah!
| Quote: | | That's precisely why it makes my skin crawl when people talk about the issue like it's some sort of "partisan bickering" that they're "sick of hearing about". What I'm sick of is people ignoring the simple fact that the systemd side is the only side forcing anything on anyone, and doing so with unnecessary, and even malicious, dependencies. |
Verily. And the Lord spake unto them and said: "Go Forth: and LISPify" ;-)
Gotta have a laugh, or you'd weep at the person-hours wasted on bulshytt. How many times have people got to go through this abusive cycle before they realise: he's just no good for you (music). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | mv wrote: | | Although it still appears somewhat hackish, the only problem is lacking "official" support in perl |
Seems to me it's definitely supported, or you wouldn't have the fdopen() method |
The problem is that fdopen is only inherited from IO::Handle, hence does not fill any IO::Socket or IO::Socket::INET-specific information, and there is no guarantee that the rest of the initialization (of those data not inherited from IO::Handle) is appropriate, that is, it is not really documented that IO::Socket::INET() (with empty parameter list) returns an object whose "only" data missing is the information about the filehandle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RazielFMX
l33t
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 835
Location: NY, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's not a problem at all. A socket, a file, a pipe, all of these things are the same. Before there was IO::Socket::INET, you used to have a normal file handle that would have to remember was a Socket and call Socket methods on it. The operating system knows what the file handle actually is. Should you try something illegal, you will get a proper error code. The information in the constructor you have lost is used merely to establish the socket... but that has already been done for you so you are good.
_________________
I am not anti-systemd; I am pro-choice. If being the latter makes you feel that I am the former, then so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: |
As for http://debianfork.org/ someone should tell those guys they don't need to fork anything; just use mirabilos' prevent-systemd-completely package (which is "Important: yes") and keep integration-testing with whatever pid1 and rc-manager they want. Then swap notes and do the QA work to keep it going as a collective, using debian infra where they want as it's a perfectly valid use of debian. |
How to Remove Systemd and Related Packages from Your Debian
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=118197
(and if I may remind you, steveL --and readers pls. take just that good side of the correspondence there-- I got back then the information from you: here of Gentoo)... BTW, I found the link to MirDebian WTF also on http://debianfork.org/ again, by some user, not clickable there, but it's this link: http://users.unixforge.de/~tglaser/debs/debidx.htm and went installing the metapackages. Works flawlessly! Free! Finally!
I see mirabilos has posted here
A big big thanks to you mirabilos. Keep it up, keep is strong! Shine! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's hundreds of messages there. Unless readers here on Gentoo Forums dedicate loong time to sift through there, they won't even know that there have been three proposals, not only two, as pointed out and discussed here in Gentoo Forums; the third being unbelievably mandacious/deluding by the systemd proponents, proposed by Luca Falavigna.
You can, with much less time expenditure, read a kind of résumé of some striking points of the discussion on that third proposal, all unaswered IIRC, but of the conversations only up until last two days ago (haven't read afterwords myself yet):
Debian Is Back To Discussing Init Systems, Freedom of Choice
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=118118&p=557203#p557203
You have very fine points there by: Thorsten Glaser, Dimitri John Ledkov, Simon Richter and already mentioned in this topic somewhere, Craig Sanders.
But I have to revise what I wrote there on Debian Forums. The second proposal is so cleverly worded that I thought at first it was acceptable...
No, it isn't This is the right take on it:
| steveL wrote: | | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | Debian is already dead, the head just hasn't informed the body so it's flopping around like a chicken with its head cut off. |
I found that a laughable idea at first, but having read that thread, I'm forced to concur.
| Marco d'Itri wrote: | | even then, if this alleged pressure has been strong enough to make every non-kooky distribution adopt systemd then it should be obvious that resisting it would be futile for us as well. |
Such spine, it's amazing isn't it? If only we could be half as resolute.. /s.
Essentially he's saying "we should just capitulate to political pressure".
Daniel Kahn Gillmor gets sidetracked into his runit-based tools, apparently ignoring the exception for tools designed to work closely with a particular init-system. He later uses that as justification for supporting a much weaker GR, which has me staggered by this beauty:
| Lucas Nussbaum wrote: | | All software that currently supports being run under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no technically feasible way to do so. |
I just can't get my head round this idea of a daemon "supporting" an init-manager (or even more laughably, a particular init-process). It sounds totally wrong-headed to me; it reads like nonsense, and just makes me doubt the basic competence of anyone even presenting such a notion.
I can see where he's coming from in terms of wanting everyone "just to get along" so "let's just write up what people are saying", but this is the "leader" of the project?
Here's how to support sysvrc (which is what they're actually talking about) or any other daemon-manager: act as if they don't exist. A good one shouldn't need anything more from you than the ability to accept cli-switches when you're run. The same ones you've always put in to your daemons, depending on what they do.
Don't add any code which relies on a daemon-manager as that would be insane. Do nothing, instead, and add less bloat to your software.
Just make sure you don't insist on double-forking; at least provide a switch to do less, so we can manage the process directly via the kernel.
By all means support operation under xinetd: it's useful, and means we can "socket-activate" you if we want. Again, it simply means an option to do less: the parent process will pass you the listening socket, or spawn-per-request for the very simple cases.
As for debilian, I agree they're heading for the exit unless they wake up to the corporate 5th-columnists in their midst. I find it hard to believe that those career "developers" from other distros really are that stupid, for all their sheeple conformity. They're very good at the politicking, I'll give them that. (And would never, ever want people like that on a distro I were involved with; not that we get much option.)
| Florian Lohoff wrote: | The arguments to replace the init system were dishonest (We need dependency booting because booting is slow) in the beginning, and the arguments got replaced with completely different feature argumentation now.
..
Now - after a comparatively short time we are already in the position that degradation of the OSes capabilities when not using systemd is acceptable to some/most/all? of our developers.
|
|
The only thing, SteveL missed to give us here the reference links to some of the respective pages with the original mails that he here cites from, on https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/ , so some parts of his text quoted above are unclear (EDIT: only, in fact, the last quote from Florian Lohoff, just reread it all, and, to try and wake my Debianers up, shared the entire SteveL's post there). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| avx wrote: | Dunno, following conspiracy theory, easier access to low-level userinput? Log shell input with this, log process communication with kdbus, log audio with pulse, systemd as root has direct raw access to devices - binary logs hide stuff and make it corrupt on demand(thus notabug)? Likely, don't know, possible, yes.
Just saw PHK's "operation orchestra" speech yesterday, maybe I'm still high on that.  |
Only putting link in there if I may. You can also read trascription of a part of that speech, and I also mention it a few times in somewhat dramatic context on page 13 of this topic you are reading. I believe we need to to try and defend our freedom. It is hugely at risk to be lost for us. Last bastions Gentoo, the BSDs, and... if only, if only Debian survives... with the acceptance of Ian Jackson's GR proposal...
Last edited by miroR on Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My apologies and sympathies go out to Debian Forums users who got linked here from that rambling self-absorbed drivel. Seems like nowhere is safe from his green-ink trolling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: |
So libinput is the new HAL for input devices.
The more I hear of wayland the less enamored I am of it. Unless xorg server quits being worked on, I'll stick with that. |
It seems to be more NIH syndrome than actually addressing the shortcomings of X and why (with eventual technical evidence to back). Until then it's just more counting of pre-hatched chickens. Still, I'm hopeful a real improvement alternative may someday emerge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| miroR wrote: |
It's hundreds of messages there. Unless readers here on Gentoo Forums dedicate loong time to sift through there [...] |
While it's nice to see some spirit put back against the cart before the horse as evidenced earlier in the year, much of the responses on that list were of the dismissive and troll-like category. Ansgar being a good example. You can readily skim the changed subject headers in that thread to see where it evolved. I think I'm done letting Debian decision-making suck away any more hours of my life. Hopefully they put their users first as many of us expected of Gentoo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now I'm starting to get annoyed with the f'ing reprobates (idiotic sysd devs)
Get up this morning and see that xinit wants to downgrade, go looking to see why and find
| Quote: | # Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org> (26 Oct 2014)
# Changes in vt allocation break startx on non-systemd, bugs #526762 and
# #526802.
>=x11-apps/xinit-1.3.4 |
I mean, wtf. First they try and screw up wayland, now it's an attack on X itself by way of
messing with startx/consolekit, not that I care about consolekit per se, but it seems
they are trying to deliberately kill anything not using logind, even if one starts from a console.
Which seems to be a wedge to get people to switch to sysd.
The reason for my aggravation, they're messing with my system, and my choices,
all to further their "one ring to rule them all philosophy".
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
what? what got put it to startx?
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you look at the bug # especially 526762 there is some info
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526762
From one comment
This is why Linus doesn't take many patches from the LP/RH crew, they think nothing of breaking users working systems
as long as they get what they want. Everyone else should adapt around them instead of them working with others.
Note: I wasn't seeing a problem in the 2 days it was installed on my system (don't use consolekit or cksession)
so I didn't see a problem, but it's there for many others.
Edit to add: even though it wasn't affecting me (runing system wise), I did have to spend time,
researching what was going on and then decide to either unmask xinit or downgrade.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
229566
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Navar wrote: | | You can readily skim the changed subject headers in that thread to see where it evolved. |
This is a summary of various amendments proposed in that thread, by a member of the list: http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=845 Not sure how accurate it is, but it shows how alternative verbiage is proposed to make it look like there will be any choice to choose the init.
| Anon-E-moose wrote: |
Which seems to be a wedge to get people to switch to sysd.
|
So it would appear that as time passes more and more packages will introduce additional burden on maintainers to keep the choice of init available. Since I want to see X11 die and go away anyway (because it's an ancient, insecure megabloatware that served its purpose but now kthanxbai pls), what's the state of Wayland in this regard? What about Mir? Will it be exclusive to Ubuntu and with that integrated with systemd since Ubuntu decided to default to it anyway?
I'm not much familiar with alternative desktop plumbing ecosystem, with the servers being my daily habitat so please excuse if I'm asking something stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | If you look at the bug # especially 526762 there is some info |
...uh... wow.  Where to begin. The word asshattery comes immediately to mind. At least it's a small patch to revert.  *cough*
 I can honestly say the most time consuming aspect of running Gentoo since installing in 2008 has been dealing with avoiding their BS. Hell, I came to Gentoo to avoid 'em.
Last edited by Navar on Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Navar wrote: | | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | If you look at the bug # especially 526762 there is some info |
...uh... wow. Where to begin. The word asshattery comes immediately to mind. At least it's a small patch to revert. *cough*
|
there shouldn't even be a patch...
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The thing to do, and it would be easy enough is add another define inside the one they have
#ifdef logind --- would work.
Then it wouldn't affect anyone not using sysd.
Again not one thought about breaking existing user space apps, and one that isn't even theirs.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
but why did it have to change?
change for change sake? change to be annoying, change because there is an actual issue?
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | but why did it have to change?
change for change sake? change to be annoying, change because there is an actual issue? |
They don't say.
It would have been easy enough for logind to keep doing things the way consolekit did as far as the vt thing.
So, either change just because they can or perhaps that and the being annoying bit.
They still want everyone else to use sysd and it's associated programs.
If there is choice they can't control the ecosystem properly.
I think that we're likely to see more "minor" changes to programs that sysd fanbois work on,
just because it gets their foot in the door in respect to other programs.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | The thing to do, and it would be easy enough is add another define inside the one they have
#ifdef logind --- would work. |
They don't do that anywhere I've glanced at.  It's not even a thought.
| Naib wrote: | but why did it have to change?
change for change sake? change to be annoying, change because there is an actual issue? |
Obviously all of that and perhaps more. It's little obvious jabs like this that imply they'll do whatever they want now. It's irony, since I was this weekend looking back in history (xscreensaver, xlock, k. packard etc. the whole xfree86 and so on rabbit hole--don't ask) and questioning if Xorg was under the RH/FDO umbrella. Guess that settles that.
I'd like to tell them where they can go Wayland off to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just avoid asking to revert that patch at redhat please!!!
We don't need more than 1 crying session per 6 month on g+ |
|
| 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
