Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Gentoo 'lining up behind systemd'?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1167

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
ulenrich wrote:
I thankfully appreciate in this special case the lost freedom! Rationale: Decision in this case is an opportunity to develop further!
I really don't think you understand what it is your advocating quite frankly ...
I do understand. I deal with it quiet long: Winnt, OsX, Debian-insserv,openrc,systemd

What it seems to me you do not acknowledge: A decision deletes the freedom, but is the precondition for the next decision. Perhaps, we can agree to disagree?
khayyam wrote:
ulenrich ... except that complexity is not a "strong principle" nor a good principle in engineering. Also, if you engineer out the engineers, that is, your engineers are vertical integrators, and introduce wider fragmentation (linux is not the only *nix) then your ecosystem will exhibit the same effects produced by invasive species, monocultures, etc.
Systemd will bring unifications to the linux ecosystem. And I think in ten years it will be a very well tested commodity. Complex as modern cars but reliable. Keep it simple but do not over simplify! Otherwise many workarounds will produce more complexity than needed in the first place...
_________________
fun2gen2


Last edited by ulenrich on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 1510

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since the issue of consolkit has come up here, let me say that I do my best to limit me or is a broken concept. I do not run consolekit, policykit, upower, udisks, unforked udev, or systemd on my desktop. The *kits represent a broken concept, upower and udisks are way to complicated for the job they are supposed to preform, udev was attempting to force me to use an initramfs to mount /usr and was threatening to force me to use systemd. To me, systemd is also broken on many levels.

The first flaw with it was very poor init system management compared with OpenRC. I can use rc-update and control when alsasound starts, whereas systemctl does not let me modify when a service starts as that is defined in the unit files. Systemd was also no faster on my computer, so there is no speed improvement and the loss of bash scripts really does hurt.

ulenrich, I really must disagree that systemd offers anything that is new and must be implemented. It has a few shiny new features, but they are all extra. I see no reason why it should be forced into Linux, especially since they are desktop-based and linux is NOT a desktop OS! It is a flexible OS that can be built to run whatever you need it to, whether that is a server, a router, or a desktop. Nothing in systemd supports this.

My system as it is now uses OpenRC with forked udev as well as my own version of kdebase-meta with powerdevil removed. I have auto mounting capability through uam, a blazing fast modern desktop with desktop effects and other flashy features I could possibly want. What I don't have (or need) is the semantic-desktop or systemd to solve problems that I don't have. I have had many issues with first hal and then udisks mounting media. uam has never given me any grief, it just works. The problem here is that systemd promises much, and offers it at the point of a gun. I left windows to get away from a closed system. Why would I want Lennart to close Linux?

EDIT: Re complexity: whenever I program, I always use the motto "Objects should control their own destiny". The result is that I can have many classes that all require information or changes in another class, but in the end each class is responsible for exactly its own thing. This means that if one class starts behaving improperly, I know the bug is in that class. Systemd is like a large set of classes, each with public fields. I have no way of telling who is altering the fields that are causing the bugs. This means that it is harder to maintain since its harder to isolate the problem. I don't see why having 10 programs do 10 jobs well is a problem that needs to be solved with 1 program doing 15 jobs, and not doing them as well or as maintainability.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1167

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@The Doctor, your point of view as a user is correct: You don't need systemd!
There yet is no new software which needs systemd. Perhaps application developers don't even know what they could use? Perhaps faszinating new ideas will be born in the near future!

I was able to improve my system with systemd. When I see problems with openrc in the forums, I think they should better use systemd. But I could be wrong and there would be tons of problems with systemd?
Are there people using systemd without problems?
Is it harder to fix misconfigurations?
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 1510

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why should we prepare for a future that is not being developed?

Just because the semantic-desktop could be useful in the future is no reason to surrender 1 Gig or more of ram to it.
Similarly, if systemd offers nothing new, requires more RAM, detracts form my duties as the admin (slightly exaggerated as I am also the only user), and attempts to force broad changes in my system configuration such as pre-mounting /usr and /var why should I consider it any less of a debacle? And a better question is what makes it any more likely that it will return benefits for these in the future? Currently, only a few KDE specific apps require semantic-desktop, and they don't do their jobs very well. What makes you think systemd-specific apps will be any different?

While I have absolutely no objection to Lennart developing his "perfect" system, I do object to him changing and merging projects to make his init system mandatory. I also object to replacing mature projects without a good reason.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.


Last edited by The Doctor on Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Quote:
I really don't think you understand what it is your advocating quite frankly ...

I do understand. I deal with it quiet long: Winnt, OsX, Debian-insserv,openrc,systemd

ulenrich ... the above list is just a mixture of OSes and init systems, anyone can rattle off such a list, it does not not mean you understand the issues involved or have a clear understanding of what it is your advocating. I base my judgement on your posts in this forum, the general lack of being able to clearly articulate what your views are, your rambling monologes, goal post shifting, and general avoidance of dialogue .... examples of which can all be found in this very thread.

ulenrich wrote:
What it seems to me you do not acknowledge: A decision deletes the freedom, but is the precondition for the next decision. Perhaps, we can agree to disagree?

well, no, its a "precondition" because you say its a "precondition". I can make decisions and have options with regard to the outcomes of those decisions. Nothing need be sacrificed, certainly not freedom. Your invoking a determinist argument which states that by having made a decision freedom is sacrificed on the alter of that decision, this is a fallacy used only to subsitute freedom for necessity. Thats not something I would willingly agree with.

ulenrich wrote:
khayyam wrote:
except that complexity is not a "strong principle" nor a good principle in engineering. Also, if you engineer out the engineers, that is, your engineers are vertical integrators, and introduce wider fragmentation (linux is not the only *nix) then your ecosystem will exhibit the same effects produced by invasive species, monocultures, etc.

Systemd will bring unifications to the linux ecosystem. And I think in ten years it will be a very well tested commodity. Complex as modern cars but reliable. Keep it simple but do not over simplify! Otherwise many workarounds will produce more complexity than needed in the first place...

... and here is a perfect example of the avoidance of dialogue, you are not really responding to me, but rattling off your own predictions for the future, and speculations on "complexity". As I've said in previous threads, "discussions" with you are more like echo chambers than actual discussions.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ryao
Developer
Developer


Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:19 am    Post subject: Re: Gentoo 'lining up behind systemd'? Reply with quote

aCOSwt wrote:
ryao wrote:
If Gentoo ever switches to systemd, it is quite likely that P = NP will have been proven long before the switch.

<trolling>
ryao, on some other place of the internet... wrote:
I have reason to believe that P = NP has been solved

So... Richard, what's next ? :wink:
Riemann hypothesis ?
</trolling>


I happened to be aware of an attempt at solving it when I said that. Afterward, a flaw was found that lead it to being retracted before publication.

khayyam wrote:
ulenrich wrote:
- ability to integrate (systemd is integrated since some time)

That is not what was said ... "the ability to use systemd [...] largely depends on their ability to integrate it in a way that plays nicely with everything else in Gentoo".
ulenrich wrote:
- plays nicely with everything else (not one little peace of software plays well with everything else)

Thats certainly true of systemd, but this all depends on what we mean by "plays nicely", anyhow, again, see the the above. From the perspective of "everything else in Gentoo" then requiring systemd is not "playing nicely with everything else".


That was a typo. It should have been "the ability to use systemd in Gentoo largely depends on their ability to integrate it in a way that plays nicely with everything else in Gentoo".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yngwin
Developer
Developer


Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4398
Location: Suzhou, China

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
But the problem might be openrc has maximal 10 percent of the fast pace and developer resources of systemd.

The problem is that the systemd developers are running very fast into a direction that we, the great majority of Gentoo developers, do not want to go. Add to that the controversial history of Lennart Poettering as a software developer, and the total disregard which the current systemd/udev developers are showing for the needs of Gentoo as a distro. It is pretty safe to conclude that systemd as default on Gentoo is never going to happen.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1167

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@yngwin, Lennarts youthful folly pulseaudio I don't want to discuss. And the "/usr" move I think is a pretty uninteresting little change. But could you elaborate more the direction the majority of you don't like to follow?
I think the forum users would like to know more about.

Isn't the udev/systemd mangling problem solved for Gentoo? I never saw other packages which could publish upstream releases before their announcement upstream ....
_________________
fun2gen2


Last edited by ulenrich on Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dr.Willy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 352
Location: NRW, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
I think the forum users would like to know more about.

I think it's called vendor lock-in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Surely you will be able to implement following with openrc:
- catch daemons, which behave badly
- having this you will be able to provide better virtualisation features
- replace consolekit without its flaws and its hundreds of dead entries
- having this you can offer automatic multiseat features
- implement dbus better integrated
- implement inetd ondemand capabilities
- offer dependend service starting facilities for user space

This is a nice list of the nonsense of systemd: A sane and secure system should have nothing of these:

A badly behaving daemon should be fixed in the daemon in the first place and not by fixing some symptom; virtualization is actually not really related. All systems here run great with USE=-consolekit - no need for that security hole. Similar remarks hold for dbus and inetd. Especially inetd and also your last point are even security nightmares. Multiseat features should be a question of proper permissions and appropriate scripts for the login manager, not of complex daemons. (And BTW, wasn't it you who claimed that systemd is not related with policykit?)

Concerning the other "advantages" you mentioned earlier: AFAIK cgroups is supported by openrc (I never examined details, because I do not need it).
And the "great unification" is actually only the unification of redhat, suse and perhaps other poor distros who can offer no choice anymore: The unification is from the very beginning guaranteed not work on other unix systems like sun, bsd, ... - in fact, politically it is an attempt to divide into redhat-like linux (AKA Gnome OS) and "other" systems which should be kicked off the market; it is not accidental that all its developers are paid by redhat, is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2923
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
@yngwin, Lennarts youthful folly pulseaudio I don't want to discuss.

Yeah you said the same to be about consolekit, both pieces of crap I associate with Poettering, and he still defends consolekit to this day.

I agree with khayyam: you're not interested in true discussion, you just ignore any relevant information put to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Isn't the udev/systemd mangling problem solved for Gentoo? I never saw other packages which could publish upstream releases before their announcement upstream ....

ulenrich ... have you forgotten your much appreciated "coup d'etat"? What happened between that post and this that leads you to think that the "udev/systemd mangling problem [is] solved for Gentoo"?

As for your second comment (which I think is intended as sarcasm?), no one needs a crystal ball to read "upstreams" intentions: "[...] udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop that support entirely" (Lennart Poettering, systemd-devel, 1 Aug 2012).

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yngwin
Developer
Developer


Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4398
Location: Suzhou, China

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
@yngwin, could you elaborate more the direction the majority of you don't like to follow?

The catch phrase is "vertical integration". They want one software stack that is tightly integrated, which means switching out elements will be impossible or at least pretty painful. They are moving towards GnomeOS, which will mean: linux kernel + systemd (including udev and other tools) + pulseaudio + avahi + gnome + rpm. I'm not sure what their plans are concerning dbus, policykit, consolekit, packagekit, and the like, but whatever they do, it will all be tightly integrated. And you won't be able to switch out any component for something else. It will mean you will have the take the whole package, or none of it (or ugly-hack your way around it).

That means it won't run on other kernels, which leaves out BSD, and our Prefix projects. It means you won't be able to run at least certain core gnome components without systemd (which again means no BSD, etc.). It means you won't be able to run a headless server without dbus.

Basically it means much less choice. This is antithetical to what Gentoo is about.

ulenrich wrote:
Isn't the udev/systemd mangling problem solved for Gentoo?

No. We need some ugly hacks around the broken build system to make udev build stand-alone. Upstream is unwilling to accept patches from our udev maintainer to fix the build system, since they consider udev without systemd dead. It is expected that this will become increasingly more difficult, and sooner or later we will be forced to use a udev fork or replacement instead.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 4399

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yngwin wrote:
It is expected that this will become increasingly more difficult, and sooner or later we will be forced to use a udev fork or replacement instead.


We all know what is going to happen, from the very first time when they merge udev with systemd source and keep claiming nothing will change.

What "I" don't know is how gentoo will handle it when end of road is reach : been a gnomeOS sheep, bloat to death or walking its own way with the linux philosophy like now. Looks like many gentoo devs think systemd path isn't the right one, so i'm quiet happy.

I'm just wishing that gentoo pickup a path, erk, even the systemd one, but NOW (at least i will know i have to seek another distro then). Why wait the end of road if you know where the road is going ? Don't waste time at running a dead end. An udev fork already exist, and we have many init already (and of course the one we care, openrc).
If a distro start dropping udev, systemd, or even gnome, this will be a clear message sent.
Not only you will end with a stronger system, as you have took time not to hack systemd, but debugging, fixing and making grow the udev fork. But also maybe make them rethink about their way to work.
And if they don't, well, no more gnome on gentoo, but it's not gentoo's fault. And all others WM will be support with a higher stability, user-friendly tools and fun for users : KISS tools.
I'm pretty sure many distros (Lennart & friends are really good at upsetting everyone, upto linus and kernel guys) add support for that "udev fork" too, and so adding patch and feature, making it grow at a faster rate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
genstorm
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 2475
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yngwin wrote:
No. We need some ugly hacks around the broken build system to make udev build stand-alone. Upstream is unwilling to accept patches from our udev maintainer to fix the build system, since they consider udev without systemd dead. It is expected that this will become increasingly more difficult, and sooner or later we will be forced to use a udev fork or replacement instead.

Are there any precautions yet, e.g. plans to introduce a virtual? There exists a udev fork already (see Kernel & Hardware sticky thread), but I'm unsure whether the project can go beyond trying to keep up with udev upstream minus the bad parts and for how long that might be possible with all the 'tight integration' being imminent. I was delighted to hear the voices of some kernel guys in that matter, someone there picking up the pieces could seriously oust the current udevsystemd bullies and gain authority for a change of direction immediately.

I just hope KDE does not dip too deep into gnome world, tieing itself too much to lock-in packages.
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32315
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn,

krinn wrote:
I'm just wishing that gentoo pickup a path, erk, even the systemd one, but NOW (at least i will know i have to seek another distro then)


Because of the way Gentoo is organised, I expect the choice to continue. Those that want GnomeOS and all the vendor lock in issues that come with it, just as they do with Windows will be able to
Code:
emerge gnomeos
Users who want choice will be able to emerge something else, but don't expect to be able to mix and match pieces of Gnomeos with something else, or vice versa. Thats what vendor lock in does.

The reality of Gentoo organisation is that no decision is required yet (if ever) so no decision will be made. Thats actually one of the strengths of Gentoo management. Decisions of any sort are not made until thy are absolutely required.

I don't like the direction that Gnome is headed - when it forces me to choose systemd and all the other penalties that go with 'vertical integration' I shall choose to drop Gnome instead. I am confident that there will either be a choice, or the good idea fairy will have been back to Gnome and the 'vertical integration' will never happen.
Meanwhile, I continue to use Gnome and twm.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yngwin
Developer
Developer


Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4398
Location: Suzhou, China

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:
I'm just wishing that gentoo pickup a path, erk, even the systemd one, but NOW (at least i will know i have to seek another distro then).

We have picked a path: OpenRC. And that is unlikely to change.

The path we have chosen includes flexibility and choice. That means that people (how ever misguided we may think they are) who want to use systemd and/or Gnome on Gentoo, can do so, as long as there are volunteers who maintain those packages.

But we have choices, and OpenRC and other init systems will remain supported on Gentoo. In terms of desktops we have choices too: KDE, Xfce, and Razor-qt have no plans to say goodbye to BSD and tie themselves to systemd (tho optional support will probably be implemented).
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1167

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is ludicrous to speak about "vendor lock". What you really mean is "sponsor lock" or better:
sponsor dependencies in the linux ecosystem.

But there is Debian with its strong and interested akademical sponsorship. These guys want to have the alternative Bsd kernel possibility in GNU world.

I don't think the simple renaming tool udev is that big of a task to fork. Even if systemd guys work on mangling udev into systemd runtime with kernel runtime, I would think this will be kind of simple to sort out. We do already have bigger patches altering the kernel: BFS and BFQ are huge in comparison.

But there is another direction of the "Coup d'Etat" of systemd: User applications and environment. You have to give up on Gnome soon! But there is Canonical sponsoring a kind of a Gnome without systemd.

But what else will be developed using the enhanced capabilities of systemd?
Calm down: Although Kde could profit from systemd, I doubt Kde developers will give up there Qt rooted idea of world domination: run everywhere!

The linux kernel without systemd will be possible, but user shells and applications ....
_________________
fun2gen2


Last edited by ulenrich on Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32315
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich,

Its good that you admit that systemd is aimed at 'lock in' at last.

I don't understand the difference between 'vendor lock in' and 'sponsor lock in'.
Any sort of 'lock in' goes against the ethos of Free Software.

What a change for Gnome too. Readers with long memories will recall that Gnome was a fork of KDE because KDE depended on Trolltechs Qtlibs, which wasn't free.
Now Gnome wants to lock its users in, just as any users of non free software. What an about face.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1167

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Its good that you admit that systemd is aimed at 'lock in' at last.

I don't understand the difference between 'vendor lock in' and 'sponsor lock in'.
Any sort of 'lock in' goes against the ethos of Free Software.
But that is the difference:
It is NOT a lock in, like not having the source code of Windows. It is a temporary dependency which can be broken every time some one wants it to challenge!
And there are interested parties like Debian ....
It is not at all a moral question. I don't see Gnome breaking any Ethos. It is kind of an "economical" evaluation: Is it worth to spend time and resources further into a framework.
_________________
fun2gen2


Last edited by ulenrich on Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
genstorm
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 2475
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yngwin wrote:
But we have choices, and OpenRC and other init systems will remain supported on Gentoo. In terms of desktops we have choices too: KDE, [...]

Some pitfalls lie ahead. KDE depends on the *kits of which consolekit is already deprecated. The question rather is what KDE, * upstream are planning to do and if maintenance without systemd can be continued for those projects. Maybe some day I'll finally need to migrate to razorqt...

ulenrich wrote:
It is not at all a moral question. I don't see Gnome breaking any Ethos.

udev maintenance was handed over to them and turned into the steaming pile of... a part of an init system it is now.
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32315
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich,

OK, lets talk about 'monopoly' instead of 'lock in'.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdhore
Developer
Developer


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:


What "I" don't know is how gentoo will handle it when end of road is reach : been a gnomeOS sheep, bloat to death or walking its own way with the linux philosophy like now. Looks like many gentoo devs think systemd path isn't the right one, so i'm quiet happy.


Here is how Gentoo will handle it when GnomeOS becomes a hard requirement of GNOME and stuff like that:

* If you want GNOME, you'll be forced to use PulseAudio and SystemD and all the GnomeOS components (as dependencies when you emerge gnome).

* If you decide you want to get off GNOME (or stay with your current DE/WM of choice that isn't GNOME), you will have the CHOICE of Pulseaudio or not, udev or not, systemd or openrc (with openrc by default) or whatnot.

Gentoo is all about choice, it always has been, it always will be.

I don't know why people are making such a big deal of this when you can CLEARLY see what's happening with regards to PulseAudio on GNOME 3.0 and newer. If you want GNOME3, it pulls in PulseAudio and you must use it. If you really do not want PulseAudio, feel free to use GNOME2 or KDE or XFCE or anything else and you *CAN* install it if you want to on those other DE's, but you are not FORCED to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M
Guru
Guru


Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 427

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

genstorm wrote:
KDE depends on the *kits of which consolekit is already deprecated.

KDE have support for *kits, but you still have the choice. I use it without *kits and with uam. Only thing I miss is something that razorqt have now, where you can configure commands like shutdownCommand, suspendCommand etc. and then you can just use sudo.

KDE doesn't force you to use pulseaudio, nor systemd, you can choose whatever WM you want from systemsettings, and they are working on splitting kdelibs and standalone kwin. That is progress and going in the right direction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
genstorm
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 2475
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

M wrote:
genstorm wrote:
KDE depends on the *kits of which consolekit is already deprecated.

KDE have support for *kits, but you still have the choice. I use it without *kits and with uam. Only thing I miss is something that razorqt have now, where you can configure commands like shutdownCommand, suspendCommand etc. and then you can just use sudo.

There's a hard depend on consolekit by kdm, pambase and bluez. Sure you can disable upower, udisks in order to be able to remove polkit. Then you maybe want to have a modern qt messenger, kopete is unmaintained so out of question, so you emerge kde-telepathy-meta - which pulls in gstreamer. Leaving all this out makes KDE less and less of a DE, even though I love kwin and plasma-desktop now that, finally, most long-standing bugs have been fixed.

uam - does it work with Device Manager?

M wrote:
KDE doesn't force you to use pulseaudio, nor systemd, you can choose whatever WM you want from systemsettings, and they are working on splitting kdelibs and standalone kwin. That is progress and going in the right direction.

That's all well and superb. However, we can't be too sure about future dependencies with regard to the current ones' deprecation. To give you a hint: udisks-2 still has udev (>=180, which is broken) support alongside systemd. Now, udev standalone is dead according to upstream. What will happen next does not require a vivid phantasy...
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
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