Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
systemd and user choice mission statement (a very rough draf
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TheLexx
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 86
Location: Austin Tx

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:47 pm    Post subject: systemd and user choice mission statement (a very rough draf Reply with quote

The purpose of this post is to hammer out a clear position on the Gentoo community's position on systemd and user choice. This position paper may be of interest for people considering on switching to Gentoo. In particular people disappointed in there current distribution abandoning all init systems except systemd.

In my rough draft, I see three points that need to be expounded upon. Point 1: Gentoo is not anti-systemd, it is pro giving users options. Point 2: Explain what eudev is and why udev was forked. Point 3: Explain how Gentoo required more work than most binary distributions require.

I don't pretend to know the exact position of the Gentoo community. Therefore, I welcome corrections to the tone and direction of this mission statement. I also know that I have problems with dyslexia and I welcome constrictive criticism for grammar/spelling and word selection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheLexx
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 86
Location: Austin Tx

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Position paper title: Gentoo and systemd

-- Part1 --

For those people who were directed here because you are disappointed that your current distribution is forcing you to switch to systemd.

First and foremost the Gentoo Distribution is about user choice. Users of Gentoo can choose from a variety of init systems such as OpenRC/sysv/[insert others here] and systemd.

When it comes the GNU/Linux system Some developers choose follow a path other than the one followed by the majority. One of the theses behind Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is that a divergence of solutions makes the GNU/Linux system as a whole stronger. This divergence prevents a sort of lock-in. That is to say, because there is one-way we have been doing things, there is only one-way forward. A problem can arise if a path reaches a dead-end where development reaches a place where it would be impractical to continue the paradigm. The beauty of the no-one-single-way approach is that if one path reaches a dead-end, developers could switch to the path less taken.

Gentoo has developers that work on a variety of different options for Gentoo. Developers that work on OpenRC are committed to making OpenRC work the best it can on the Gentoo system. Likewise, developers of systemd work to make systemd work the best it can on a Gentoo. Therefor animosity towards any one system is not tolerated.


-- Part 2 --

There was some concern on whether or not udev was becoming dependent on systemd. Because of this, eudev was developed to not be dependent on any one init system. Even though, it is currently possible to use udev without systemd, there are signs that udev may require systemd in the future. As a precautionary measure eudev was created. Because, no one knows there will be a version of udev that can not run independent of systemd (other than possibly the developers themselves). Instead of waiting until this happened and having to scramble for solutions at the last minute, a group of Gentoo developers created a fork in the udev source called eudev. The eudev developers are committed to keeping eudev independent of all init systems.



-- Part 3 --

Gentoo has committed to giving users a choice in not just init systems, but a vast multitude of other options and subsystems. This level of choice would be difficult to maintain with a binary distribution. This is because, some of the options effect how a package is compiled. As an example, most desktop distributions have the pulse audio option compiled into every desktop app. In Gentoo, the user is given the option to use pulse audio or not. This makes binaries impractical, because a single option doubles the number of possible binaries. When you consider a second on/off option it would quadruple the number of possible binaries. As you can see, as options increase, the number of possible binaries grows exponentially. This is the main reason Gentoo is a source based distribution rather than a binary one. Having to compile is the price Gentoo users must pay to have such a high degree of choice.

If you choose to move to Gentoo, you will learn about the USEFLAG system. following the previous example with pules audio, the user decides whether or not to use it. The USEFLAG system makes this decision system wide. Gentoo knows which packages are effected by this decision, so that if you change your mind, Gentoo will figure out which packages will need to be re-compiled and which ones will not need to be recompiled.

As started before, Gentoo is more work than many distros. Those of that use Gentoo feel that the work involved in deciding which packages to install what options to select and having to compile is worth the extra effort.


LocalWords: systemd eudev OpenRC sysv init udev USEFLAG distro distros
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2471
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Having to compile is the price Gentoo users must pay to have such a high degree of choice.


Being allowed to compile a binary with just what is needed/wanted is just one of the perks of a source distribution.

;)
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2010)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1242
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i want a bin use flag to bin things with no compile options.
_________________
cat /etc/*-release
Funtoo Linux - baselayout 2.2.0
consider this warning no. 1
https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/666threesixes666&offset=&limit=500&target=666threesixes666
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheLexx wrote:
Gentoo has developers that work on a variety of different options for Gentoo. Developers that work on OpenRC are committed to making OpenRC work the best it can on the Gentoo system. Likewise, developers of systemd work to make systemd work the best it can on a Gentoo. Therefor animosity towards any one system is not tolerated.

TheLexx ... as language can often hide the intent of the speaker I often ask myself how consistent a statement is, does it fall into contradiction, etc, and so in the above I ask, what does this "non-toleration" entail? Similarly, in the following, I wonder at this heady mix of "very strict" and "gentle" ...

Lennart Poettering wrote:
With systemd we have a very strict policy: we want to gently push the distros to standardize on the same components for the base system.

If we are being asked to be "tolerant" of the other, then surely we must expect that this other has the same intent ... otherwise we may fall into some impossible contradiction.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sansavarous
n00b
n00b


Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Location: My computer.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Give me Gentoo or give me dea... uh wait can I change my mind?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheLexx wrote:
Position paper title: Gentoo and systemd


That is a summation of a distribution and an init system / service manager; on its own, it gives a lot of room for assuming what the content is about.

Consider something more specific; looking at your first post, maybe something like "Gentoo User Community's position on systemd and user choice".

TheLexx wrote:
-- Part1 --


Splitting a text into parts like this, makes it silent about what the parts are; that immediately makes one wonder what "part 1" is about, I'll assume the titles from your first post.

TheLexx wrote:
Gentoo is not anti-systemd, it is pro giving users options.


Starting positive can bring a better impression; if possible, avid out negative words like "not" ("pro" also is indirectly negative; as it makes an offset, and it is subjective).

Consider "Gentoo is about giving users choice; whether that is OpenRC, systemd or ...".

TheLexx wrote:
For those people who were directed here because you are disappointed that your current distribution is forcing you to switch to systemd.


The first half of this sentence can be considered wordy and reveals little about the intention, "disappointed" is negative; something catchy and positive can be attractive.

Consider "Are you looking for a distribution where you have the choice to install a variety of init systems of your choice such as [... copy from below ...]?".

TheLexx wrote:
First and foremost the Gentoo Distribution is about user choice. Users of Gentoo can choose from a variety of init systems such as OpenRC/sysv/[insert others here] and systemd.


This has mostly been inserted in the first sentence; going further with the rest of this sentence, consider "The Gentoo distribution is about user choice and avoids forcing choices."

TheLexx wrote:
When it comes the GNU/Linux system Some developers choose follow a path other than the one followed by the majority. One of the theses behind Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is that a divergence of solutions makes the GNU/Linux system as a whole stronger. This divergence prevents a sort of lock-in. That is to say, because there is one-way we have been doing things, there is only one-way forward. A problem can arise if a path reaches a dead-end where development reaches a place where it would be impractical to continue the paradigm. The beauty of the no-one-single-way approach is that if one path reaches a dead-end, developers could switch to the path less taken.

Gentoo has developers that work on a variety of different options for Gentoo. Developers that work on OpenRC are committed to making OpenRC work the best it can on the Gentoo system. Likewise, developers of systemd work to make systemd work the best it can on a Gentoo. Therefor animosity towards any one system is not tolerated.


Reads good; similar like above, some words like "divergence", "lock-in", "dead-end", "impractical", "no-...", "less", "best" (offset, subjective), "not" and "tolerated" give this text a less positive mood.

TheLexx wrote:
-- Part 2 --


TheLexx wrote:
Explain what eudev is and why udev was forked


Consider "What is eudev and why was it formed?".

TheLexx wrote:
There was some concern on whether or not udev was becoming dependent on systemd. Because of this, eudev was developed to not be dependent on any one init system. Even though, it is currently possible to use udev without systemd, there are signs that udev may require systemd in the future. As a precautionary measure eudev was created. Because, no one knows there will be a version of udev that can not run independent of systemd (other than possibly the developers themselves). Instead of waiting until this happened and having to scramble for solutions at the last minute, a group of Gentoo developers created a fork in the udev source called eudev. The eudev developers are committed to keeping eudev independent of all init systems.


Reads good and looks correct, some words like the one mentioned above are here too; although to a lesser extend.

TheLexx wrote:
-- Part 3 --


TheLexx wrote:
Explain how Gentoo required more work than most binary distributions require.


Talking this right requires good skill; it's kind of something one wants to avoid selling Gentoo for, I think we should rather pursue keeping the additional work simple. Anon-E-moose hits the nail with his response... :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: systemd and user choice mission statement (a very rough Reply with quote

TheLexx wrote:
The purpose of this post is to hammer out a clear position on the Gentoo community's position on systemd and user choice.

1/ As a humble member of the community, I do strongly refuse to read my position (whatever it can be) hammered out! :P
2/ Rather than having a hard time sticking words that engage the whole community, why do not you just hammer out :

"Me, TheLexx, myself and I, with the help of a couple of other members of the Gentoo community, engage myself in actively providing efficient support for a xyzty solution to anyone running a gentoo based system" ?

Shorter in words and definitely : More efficient!
_________________


Last edited by aCOSwt on Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7514862.html#7514862
NeddySeagoon wrote:
Team,

Gentoo provides choice because of the way its developed, rather than Gentoo is developed to provide choice.
The distinction is important.
/me later on:
ulenrich wrote:
(This fact) is a strongness (of Gentoo) pro choice , because it is something not at will.
Thanx NeddySeagoon pointing that out.

_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2939
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks fine to me TheLexx. Either we're trying to attract them or we're not.

If we're not, and it's solely a statement about user choice, it shouldn't even have systemd in the title. Just be called "A summary of the Gentoo Philosophy."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1242
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gentoo is about choice? i think openrc should be removed from stage3 & users forced to choose init system @ the point of instillation.

see http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7519698.html#7519698 for a more in depth description of the idea.
_________________
cat /etc/*-release
Funtoo Linux - baselayout 2.2.0
consider this warning no. 1
https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/666threesixes666&offset=&limit=500&target=666threesixes666
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
Position paper title: Gentoo and systemd

[...] Consider something more specific; looking at your first post, maybe something like "Gentoo User Community's position on systemd and user choice".

... or, so that the exact context of this "user choice" is made more explicit: "Gentoo User Community's position on systemd and the standardisation of the base system".

TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
Gentoo is not anti-systemd, it is pro giving users options.

Starting positive can bring a better impression; if possible, avid out negative words like "not" ("pro" also is indirectly negative; as it makes an offset, and it is subjective).

I agree in principle that terms can be loaded and that a statement should aim to be a neutral as possible in its terminology, but "not" (in the above) is not inherently negative (to provide an example). What TheLexx seems to be doing is simply countering an impression.

What needs to be provided here is a deeper consideration of the very question of systemd, choice, and "neutrality".

TomWij wrote:
Consider "Gentoo is about giving users choice; whether that is OpenRC, systemd or ...".

This seems to be paper over the cracks ... choices have repercussions, and there are some choices which fall into contradiction (such as "voluntary servitude") and/or involve a limiting of our power to act. In acting we are providing the context in which future actions will unfold, the man jumping from a 50 storey building can, at passing each floor, repeat "so far, so good", but the action of jumping has preconditioned the outcome. The better we know what the outcomes of our choices are (that is, the better we know nature) the better we can preserve our ability to act (the extent of our freedom).

TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
First and foremost the Gentoo Distribution is about user choice. Users of Gentoo can choose from a variety of init systems such as OpenRC/sysv/[insert others here] and systemd.

This has mostly been inserted in the first sentence; going further with the rest of this sentence, consider "The Gentoo distribution is about user choice and avoids forcing choices."

... "[...] until you hit the pavement"

TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
[... snipping the long section here for brevity]

Reads good; similar like above, some words like "divergence", "lock-in", "dead-end", "impractical", "no-...", "less", "best" (offset, subjective), "not" and "tolerated" give this text a less positive mood.

I would resist giving this a "positive" spin ... systemd inherently involves the diminution of choice as central to its adoption is the "gentle push" to have distributions "[...] standardise on the same components for the base system" .... its "very strict policy". This can not be excluded from the discussion as its implications to gentoo are enormous, particularly as this standardisation is writ large with many distributions doing just that (the recent Debian vote, and Ubuntu's "adoption", being examples).

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


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
[...] Consider something more specific; looking at your first post, maybe something like "Gentoo User Community's position on systemd and user choice".

... or, so that the exact context of this "user choice" is made more explicit: "Gentoo User Community's position on systemd and the standardisation of the base system".


+1 Yes, it depends on certain factors which title to pick; an enumeration, but not limited to these:

1) Are the words used understandable by the user and do they target them? (Do we target new users, experienced users, both or even other users and/or developers?)
2) Is the length of the title acceptable? (Short? Long? Is there a limit we need to hold on to?)
3) Do we want to talk about the cause or the consequence? (Is the standardization of interest, the user choice or perhaps both?)
4) Do we want to talk broad or specific? (Talk about choice besides the base system? Or talk about choice restricted to the base system?)
5) ...

We could discuss these points, gather possible topics and start a poll to pick one that the community favors.

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
Gentoo is not anti-systemd, it is pro giving users options.

Starting positive can bring a better impression; if possible, avid out negative words like "not" ("pro" also is indirectly negative; as it makes an offset, and it is subjective).

I agree in principle that terms can be loaded and that a statement should aim to be a neutral as possible in its terminology, but "not" (in the above) is not inherently negative (to provide an example). What TheLexx seems to be doing is simply countering an impression.


In terms of syntax it is intended to invert the meaning; in semantics, it depends on whether the reader sees it as to counter or goes beyond that and sees it as "we're not like these anti-systemd folks" which could be a negative statement to those folks which is quite different from the intention to just invert the meaning. Something like "Gentoo allows you to choose between OpenRC, systemd, ...; it is pro giving users options" makes it much harder for the reader to read it as a semantically negative statement.

khayyam wrote:
What needs to be provided here is a deeper consideration of the very question of systemd, choice, and "neutrality".


+1

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
Consider "Gentoo is about giving users choice; whether that is OpenRC, systemd or ...".

This seems to be paper over the cracks ... choices have repercussions, and there are some choices which fall into contradiction (such as "voluntary servitude") and/or involve a limiting of our power to act. In acting we are providing the context in which future actions will unfold, the man jumping from a 50 storey building can, at passing each floor, repeat "so far, so good", but the action of jumping has preconditioned the outcome. The better we know what the outcomes of our choices are (that is, the better we know nature) the better we can preserve our ability to act (the extent of our freedom).


This depends on whether you perceive those repercussions along the choice made; some you do (as you know about them [like you would get a headache in the morning after being drunk for a night, you continue regardless; repeat it on another night]) and some you don't. Those that you don't are more interesting here; to get the user to know those, it is a matter of documenting them.

Based on this, one could consider "Gentoo is about giving users choice and documenting these choices and their implications; whether that is OpenRC, systemd or ...".

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
First and foremost the Gentoo Distribution is about user choice. Users of Gentoo can choose from a variety of init systems such as OpenRC/sysv/[insert others here] and systemd.

This has mostly been inserted in the first sentence; going further with the rest of this sentence, consider "The Gentoo distribution is about user choice and avoids forcing choices."

... "[...] until you hit the pavement"


... "[...] because more manpower is needed to build a perfect world where hitting the pavement becomes a choice instead of a consequence."

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
[... snipping the long section here for brevity]

Reads good; similar like above, some words like "divergence", "lock-in", "dead-end", "impractical", "no-...", "less", "best" (offset, subjective), "not" and "tolerated" give this text a less positive mood.

I would resist giving this a "positive" spin ... systemd inherently involves the diminution of choice as central to its adoption is the "gentle push" to have distributions "[...] standardise on the same components for the base system" .... its "very strict policy". This can not be excluded from the discussion as its implications to gentoo are enormous, particularly as this standardisation is writ large with many distributions doing just that (the recent Debian vote, and Ubuntu's "adoption", being examples).


+1 The best Gentoo could do to address this is to make choices where possible using the resources that are available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
[...] Consider something more specific; looking at your first post, maybe something like "Gentoo User Community's position on systemd and user choice".

... or, so that the exact context of this "user choice" is made more explicit: "Gentoo User Community's position on systemd and the standardisation of the base system".

+1 Yes, it depends on certain factors which title to pick; an enumeration, but not limited to these:

well, I'm attempting to be descriptive and underline exactly what systemd means: standardisation. Some choices do not leave further choice open ... like our man jumping from the roof, whatever the mantra, he's going to hit the pavement. With the "choice of [...]" so far presented, systemd is a choice that will coexist with other choices, but that doesn't account for systemd's goal, its publicly stated policy. So far the discussion has focused on "user choice", which is fair enough, but it doesn't cover this fact, infact it somewhat hides it.

To wit, the choice of systemd involves repercussions that are not relevant in the choice of openrc (systemd will similarly effect those who don't choose it) so they are not relationally comparable choices as one has negatives that the party not choosing will none the less have as an outcome. To provide an analogy: my choice to pollute the water upstream from you is not comparable to your choice to drink it or not. We can agree to tolerate each others choices, but this does not extend to those choices I make that effect you in ways that you haven't consented to. If we say all choices (my choice to pollute the water, and your choice to drink it or not) are equal then we overlook how one party is externalising the negatives, in short, refusing to take into account the repercussions of their actions ... respect, tolerance, etc, are not involved (except perhaps as a smoke screen).

[snip the comments on "not" being negative ... or not]
TomWij wrote:
In terms of syntax it is intended to invert the meaning [snip to end of paragraph]

I don't know why I decided to respond to that particular point, it was altogether irrelevant to the discussion and the point I was trying to make ... suffice, I won't argue about it ... so, lets leave it at that.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
Consider "Gentoo is about giving users choice; whether that is OpenRC, systemd or ...".

This seems to be paper over the cracks ... choices have repercussions, and there are some choices which fall into contradiction (such as "voluntary servitude") and/or involve a limiting of our power to act. In acting we are providing the context in which future actions will unfold, the man jumping from a 50 storey building can, at passing each floor, repeat "so far, so good", but the action of jumping has preconditioned the outcome. The better we know what the outcomes of our choices are (that is, the better we know nature) the better we can preserve our ability to act (the extent of our freedom).

This depends on whether you perceive those repercussions along the choice made; some you do (as you know about them [like you would get a headache in the morning after being drunk for a night, you continue regardless; repeat it on another night]) and some you don't. Those that you don't are more interesting here; to get the user to know those, it is a matter of documenting them.

No, if I jump from a 50 storey building the repercussions (hitting the pavement) are there whether I know about them or not. I might conceive nature to provide a parachute mid fall, or that my "so far, so good" mantra provides evidence that no such hitting the pavement will occur, but the act of jumping has preconditioned the outcome. To says "well, that depends" is avoiding the fact that we are not dealing with a nominalistic construct, but nature.

TomWij wrote:
Based on this, one could consider "Gentoo is about giving users choice and documenting these choices and their implications; whether that is OpenRC, systemd or ...".

... except these are not relationally comparable choices ... my choice to pollute the water upstream from you is not the same as your choice to drink it or not.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
"The Gentoo distribution is about user choice and avoids forcing choices."

... "[...] until you hit the pavement"

... "[...] because more manpower is needed to build a perfect world where hitting the pavement becomes a choice instead of a consequence."

No, the act of jumping has preconditioned the outcome, once this act is taken there is no more "choice" as to the outcome. If you want an "act of choice" clause then you will need to abandon there being a "real" nature that can be understood.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
TheLexx wrote:
[... snipping the long section here for brevity]

Reads good; similar like above, some words like "divergence", "lock-in", "dead-end", "impractical", "no-...", "less", "best" (offset, subjective), "not" and "tolerated" give this text a less positive mood.

I would resist giving this a "positive" spin ... systemd inherently involves the diminution of choice as central to its adoption is the "gentle push" to have distributions "[...] standardise on the same components for the base system" .... its "very strict policy". This can not be excluded from the discussion as its implications to gentoo are enormous, particularly as this standardisation is writ large with many distributions doing just that (the recent Debian vote, and Ubuntu's "adoption", being examples).

+1 The best Gentoo could do to address this is to make choices where possible using the resources that are available.

IMO, the best that gentoo could do (and I mean gentoo in the widest possible sense) is to recognise the facts and be absolutely upfront in expressing those facts. It should recognise that by systemd entering the tree gentoo was effectively forked (by the act, not necessarily by design). It needs to recognise this so that it can deal with the repercussions. We can no longer speak about gentoo as one entity (at least, one entity ... made of various bodies ... working toward a common goal) it has two conflicting drives pulling it in two separate directions. If this isn't addressed (or made more visible/actual) then the conflict between those drives will only increase until one or other gains dominance and reduces the other to a footnote in history.

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


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
well, I'm attempting to be descriptive and underline exactly what systemd means: standardisation. Some choices do not leave further choice open ... like our man jumping from the roof, whatever the mantra, he's going to hit the pavement. With the "choice of [...]" so far presented, systemd is a choice that will coexist with other choices, but that doesn't account for systemd's goal, its publicly stated policy. So far the discussion has focused on "user choice", which is fair enough, but it doesn't cover this fact, infact it somewhat hides it.


For various reasons, that could indeed be mentioned along; though note that this is our community's position, where we mention how we stand in front of it.

khayyam wrote:
To wit, the choice of systemd involves repercussions that are not relevant in the choice of openrc (systemd will similarly effect those who don't choose it) so they are not relationally comparable choices as one has negatives that the party not choosing will none the less have as an outcome. To provide an analogy: my choice to pollute the water upstream from you is not comparable to your choice to drink it or not. We can agree to tolerate each others choices, but this does not extend to those choices I make that effect you in ways that you haven't consented to. If we say all choices (my choice to pollute the water, and your choice to drink it or not) are equal then we overlook how one party is externalising the negatives, in short, refusing to take into account the repercussions of their actions ... respect, tolerance, etc, are not involved (except perhaps as a smoke screen).


We can also deal with such choice; that is, if I distill and/or cure the water downstream then the pollution upstream loses its effect. Or if the pollution can't be dealt with; then, it's possible to attempt to reproduce the water to be as close as the original without the pollution given we have the resources to do so. A change to these repercussions causes a change in relevancy as well as in its relations.

khayyam wrote:
No, if I jump from a 50 storey building the repercussions (hitting the pavement) are there whether I know about them or not. I might conceive nature to provide a parachute mid fall, or that my "so far, so good" mantra provides evidence that no such hitting the pavement will occur, but the act of jumping has preconditioned the outcome. To says "well, that depends" is avoiding the fact that we are not dealing with a nominalistic construct, but nature.


The introduced probability of knowing whether or not something in there leaves room for the repercussions to only take effect based on those probabilities; therefore, along the way to hitting the pavement there might be a door lock, window lock, window barriers, roof top safety balustrade, safety nets alongside the building, a genius, magic or highly technological solution, a truck with a material that can break the fall or simply --pretend'ing like you've jumped to reconsider whether you can make the jump so in a way that comes out better than the repercussion that you are afraid or unaware of.

khayyam wrote:
... except these are not relationally comparable choices ... my choice to pollute the water upstream from you is not the same as your choice to drink it or not.


See my earlier response, the water can be dealt with or replaced.

khayyam wrote:
No, the act of jumping has preconditioned the outcome, once this act is taken there is no more "choice" as to the outcome. If you want an "act of choice" clause then you will need to abandon there being a "real" nature that can be understood.


See my earlier response; on top of that, there are more choices to be made (regarding life, faith, relatives, worth, ...) than just jumping in order to get to do the jump itself.

khayyam wrote:
IMO, the best that gentoo could do (and I mean gentoo in the widest possible sense) is to recognise the facts and be absolutely upfront in expressing those facts. It should recognise that by systemd entering the tree gentoo was effectively forked (by the act, not necessarily by design). It needs to recognise this so that it can deal with the repercussions. We can no longer speak about gentoo as one entity (at least, one entity ... made of various bodies ... working toward a common goal) it has two conflicting drives pulling it in two separate directions. If this isn't addressed (or made more visible/actual) then the conflict between those drives will only increase until one or other gains dominance and reduces the other to a footnote in history.


Gentoo having multiple (conflicting) drives in separate directions sounds to me like what makes Gentoo work; as in, it turns it into a meta distribution trying to satisfy these multiple drives such that derivations (whether that is an install of Gentoo itself or a derivative distribution) can pick the drive that interests them the most. One or the other drive taking dominance wouldn't take place in this fundamental idea and/or philosophy of Gentoo; and therefore, unless a lot of upstreams push along this drive (at which point it becomes inhuman to resist it), I think the user choice to a large extent is here to stay. Though, this bright future is just one way to look at it; in any case, I hope we continue to follow this fundamental idea and/or philosophy that Gentoo as a meta distribution brings forward as well as to take measures to prevent it from becoming a footnote in history. This prevention would result from providing more choice than upstream makes possible; and alongside that, adaptability, compatibility and more...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
To wit, the choice of systemd involves repercussions that are not relevant in the choice of openrc (systemd will similarly effect those who don't choose it) so they are not relationally comparable choices as one has negatives that the party not choosing will none the less have as an outcome. To provide an analogy: my choice to pollute the water upstream from you is not comparable to your choice to drink it or not. We can agree to tolerate each others choices, but this does not extend to those choices I make that effect you in ways that you haven't consented to. If we say all choices (my choice to pollute the water, and your choice to drink it or not) are equal then we overlook how one party is externalising the negatives, in short, refusing to take into account the repercussions of their actions ... respect, tolerance, etc, are not involved (except perhaps as a smoke screen).

We can also deal with such choice; that is, if I distill and/or cure the water downstream then the pollution upstream loses its effect. Or if the pollution can't be dealt with; then, it's possible to attempt to reproduce the water to be as close as the original without the pollution given we have the resources to do so. A change to these repercussions causes a change in relevancy as well as in its relations.

... downstream is still baring the effect/cost of upstream's externalising of negatives, so, no. Remember, the question is the *relation*, not how one party deals with the problem.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
No, if I jump from a 50 storey building the repercussions (hitting the pavement) are there whether I know about them or not. I might conceive nature to provide a parachute mid fall, or that my "so far, so good" mantra provides evidence that no such hitting the pavement will occur, but the act of jumping has preconditioned the outcome. To says "well, that depends" is avoiding the fact that we are not dealing with a nominalistic construct, but nature.

The introduced probability of knowing whether or not something in there leaves room for the repercussions to only take effect based on those probabilities; therefore, along the way to hitting the pavement there might be a door lock, window lock, window barriers, roof top safety balustrade, safety nets alongside the building, a genius, magic or highly technological solution, a truck with a material that can break the fall or simply --pretend'ing like you've jumped to reconsider whether you can make the jump so in a way that comes out better than the repercussion that you are afraid or unaware of.

Again, no, all of these (except perhaps magic) are environmental conditions, the jumper (once commiting the act) has no choice in these things. There very well could be a huge gust of wind that blows him to safety but this is merely circumstance and has nothing to do with the fact that once he's committed the act everything else is out of his hands (and preconditioned by nature, which of course includes the environment). So, "probability" doesn't enter into it ... because his will can not effect probability, nor the outcome. None of the above is relevant, we just have three conditions: a man's act (jumping), a building, and the pavement, if we introduce his "pretending", an act of "magic", or any other possible condition, then its an entirely different illustration ... and the illustration is all about the "action of jumping" (which is chosen) and "the outcome" (which the jumper has surrendered control of).

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
... except these are not relationally comparable choices ... my choice to pollute the water upstream from you is not the same as your choice to drink it or not.

See my earlier response, the water can be dealt with or replaced.

... dealing with, or replacing, the water, does not change the relation (of choices) it simply states "downstream can do something about it" (not the relation, however ... which is what the above is essentially about).

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
No, the act of jumping has preconditioned the outcome, once this act is taken there is no more "choice" as to the outcome. If you want an "act of choice" clause then you will need to abandon there being a "real" nature that can be understood.

See my earlier response; on top of that, there are more choices to be made (regarding life, faith, relatives, worth, ...) than just jumping in order to get to do the jump itself.

Not for this illustration, the man can make whatever fictive "choices" he likes on the way down but he has no choice as to the "outcome".

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] We can no longer speak about gentoo as one entity (at least, one entity ... made of various bodies ... working toward a common goal) it has two conflicting drives pulling it in two separate directions. If this isn't addressed (or made more visible/actual) then the conflict between those drives will only increase until one or other gains dominance and reduces the other to a footnote in history.

Gentoo having multiple (conflicting) drives in separate directions sounds to me like what makes Gentoo work; as in, it turns it into a meta distribution trying to satisfy these multiple drives such that derivations (whether that is an install of Gentoo itself or a derivative distribution) can pick the drive that interests them the most. One or the other drive taking dominance wouldn't take place in this fundamental idea and/or philosophy of Gentoo; and therefore, unless a lot of upstream's push along this drive (at which point it becomes inhuman to resist it), I think the user choice to a large extent is here to stay. Though, this bright future is just one way to look at it; in any case, I hope we continue to follow this fundamental idea and/or philosophy that Gentoo as a meta distribution brings forward as well as to take measures to prevent it from becoming a footnote in history. This prevention would result from providing more choice than upstream makes possible; and alongside that, adaptability, compatibility and more...

I'll give you "providing more choice than upstream makes possible [...] adaptability, compatibility and more" (at least this is true for the moment) but again to return to my central theme "in acting we are providing the context in which future actions will unfold" and I see these drives not as a dynamic (as you do) but actually *in principle* conflicted. So, while some of what you say has some truth to it, its far too positive in reflecting the state of things (which people do when talking about a loved one, or cherished subject) ... often you have to get past that to get at the nature of things. Anyhow, its late for me so I'll leave it at that.

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


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
Remember, the question is the *relation*, not how one party deals with the problem.


The existence of the relation depends on how the party deals with that relation and thus its consequential problem.

khayyam wrote:
[...], then its an entirely different illustration ... and the illustration is all about the "action of jumping" (which is chosen) and "the outcome" (which the jumper has surrendered control of).


Given that the jumper has surrendered control of the outcome, it was his choice; this illustration misses other repercussions and other choices to depend on, which is why they were added in my version of that illustration.

khayyam wrote:
... dealing with, or replacing, the water, does not change the relation (of choices) it simply states "downstream can do something about it" (not the relation, however ... which is what the above is essentially about).


True, it all depends on whether you intend to talk about downstream or upstream in the position; upstream these relations are always present (upstream pollutes the water, the polluted water flows downstream), downstream these relations can be avoided (dealing with, or replacing, the water).

khayyam wrote:
Not for this illustration, the man can make whatever fictive "choices" he likes on the way down but he has no choice as to the "outcome".


He do can do something about it, like the above water example.

khayyam wrote:
I'll give you "providing more choice than upstream makes possible [...] adaptability, compatibility and more" (at least this is true for the moment) but again to return to my central theme "in acting we are providing the context in which future actions will unfold" and I see these drives not as a dynamic (as you do) but actually *in principle* conflicted. So, while some of what you say has some truth to it, its far too positive in reflecting the state of things (which people do when talking about a loved one, or cherished subject) ... often you have to get past that to get at the nature of things. Anyhow, its late for me so I'll leave it at that.


Similar like how I see things as too dynamic, you see things as too *in principle* conflicted; if we take GNOME 3.8's systemd dependency for example, whether the conflict is happening *in principle* could be argued about. LP could have stated they want this; however, Olav for example has stated:

Olav wrote:
Apparently our (=GNOME) assumption that logind was independent from systemd changed since systemd v205 due to the cgroups kernel change. This is really unfortunate, but GNOME 3.8 does not require logind. I discussed the non-dependency of logind+systemd on #gentoo-desktop and why they thought different. Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any processes it started. This is what systemd does, but OpenRC didn’t support that.

[...]

Making use of systemd in short term just provides some benefits and allows us to eventually support application sandboxing. However, long term hopefully gnome-session can die and such code in systemd.


Source: http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/

The very last words of this quote demonstrate a more dynamic nature; it's several indirect happenings that have made a conflict in this case, but it *in principle* done by upstreams (other than systemd) or downstream (at Gentoo) I don't see happening at large yet myself. Several users have shown GNOME 3.8 to work for a large extent with the openrc-force USE flag unmasked and enabled; apart from some small things like "sleep", "hibernation" and things like that that seem to be always prone to their environment (these two words regularly comes back in bugs).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2939
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

systemd: polluting the ecosystem for everyone.

Sums it up really. But don't worry: it's your responsibility to "unpoison the water", not theirs to respect the ecosystem in the first place.

Nu-speek: just what the Doctor ordered.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Remember, the question is the *relation*, not how one party deals with the problem.

The existence of the relation depends on how the party deals with that relation and thus its consequential problem.

You're all over the place ... we are comparing choices "my choice to pollute the water, your choice drink it or not". If we relate these saying "all choices are the same" then we overlook the disparity involved in these choices. My choice effects you, your choice has no effect on me what-so-ever. That was what I was drawing out in my analogy, *any* discussion of how one party deals with the effects of the others choice is besides the point.

Its really a struggle to have a discussion when I have to keep drawing your attention to *what* I'm pointing at. You seem to continually look at the finger ... or, worse, look elsewhere.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...], then its an entirely different illustration ... and the illustration is all about the "action of jumping" (which is chosen) and "the outcome" (which the jumper has surrendered control of).

Given that the jumper has surrendered control of the outcome, it was his choice; this illustration misses other repercussions and other choices to depend on, which is why they were added in my version of that illustration.

It doesn't "miss" anything, it was a simple illustration similar to those you might find in any basic text on freewill and determinism, but you insist on bringing in extraneous stuff and so its meaning is completely missed by you ... no matter how I try to bring you back on track. Now, in this illustration what choice did the jumper make? ... he jumped ... what further choices does he have subsequent to that choice/jump? ... none. If you want "other repercussions", parrots carrying parachutes guided by the jumpers psychic powers, etc, etc, then you are no longer talking about the illustration I provided. Remember: "in acting we are providing the context in which future actions will unfold" and that some actions (namely, jumping from a building) close off any further choice.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
... dealing with, or replacing, the water, does not change the relation (of choices) it simply states "downstream can do something about it" (not the relation, however ... which is what the above is essentially about).

True, it all depends on whether you intend to talk about downstream or upstream in the position; upstream these relations are always present (upstream pollutes the water, the polluted water flows downstream), downstream these relations can be avoided (dealing with, or replacing, the water).

It doesn't "depend on" anything because my analogy was not about the effects, but the very question of comparing the choices (whether they could be classed as of the same nature ... my choice to do something, your choice to do something) ... I showed that these were not comparable because one choice had effects that the other didn't (so there was a disparity in the nature/relation of these choices).

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Not for this illustration, the man can make whatever fictive "choices" he likes on the way down but he has no choice as to the "outcome".

He do can do something about it, like the above water example.

Yeah, he could choose to levitate, flap his wings, or pull out a parachute from his batman belt ... but none of these exist in the illustration, or more to the point in nature.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] but again to return to my central theme "in acting we are providing the context in which future actions will unfold" and I see these drives not as a dynamic (as you do) but actually *in principle* conflicted.[...]

Similar like how I see things as too dynamic, you see things as too *in principle* conflicted; [...]

To illustrate what I mean by "conflicted": the next time you are out driving a car, or riding a bicycle, when you come to an intersection turn both ways. In some actions there is an element of give and take, but in others not. If your car had two steering wheels and another driver was at the second wheel and you both are trying to turn in opposite directions then the car is conflicted. In terms of gentoo, yes, the "dynamic" of forces moving in various directions (with all the tensions this might create) exists, but I was speaking of a situation where those forces are, like the above car, attempting to turn in the opposite directions. All of this would need to be shown, so I don't state it as a given, but it was a late night post and I was answering your "meta distribution" point in the shortest and laziest way possible.

TomWij wrote:
[...] if we take GNOME 3.8's systemd dependency for example, whether the conflict is happening *in principle* could be argued about. LP could have stated they want this; however, Olav for example has stated:

I don't see where your going with this ... gnome's "blessing" of systemd could be read in various ways, but there is no reason to necessarily take those provided as the sum. Anyhow, whatever the reasons applied to this "blessing" I would argue that there are others which haven't been factored in (like, fragmentation) and these are probably more important in any general consideration of "what happened, and why". I would class this question as somewhat unrelated to the question of the "standard base system", and the more general question of "choice" so far laid out, so I'm not really sure I want to take that tangent.

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


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Remember, the question is the *relation*, not how one party deals with the problem.

The existence of the relation depends on how the party deals with that relation and thus its consequential problem.

You're all over the place ... we are comparing choices "my choice to pollute the water, your choice drink it or not". If we relate these saying "all choices are the same" then we overlook the disparity involved in these choices. My choice effects you, your choice has no effect on me what-so-ever. That was what I was drawing out in my analogy, *any* discussion of how one party deals with the effects of the others choice is besides the point. [...]


We are discussing the title of the position paper, if you follow all the quotes back; that title should reflect the paper, therefore I think the discussion of how Gentoo deals with the effects of the other choice is the actual point as can be read about in the position paper. If you intend to change the paper's content as well, then please state so explicitly; as that is what I think you mean to do, besides just changing the title.

khayyam wrote:
It doesn't "miss" anything, it was a simple illustration similar to those you might find in any basic text on freewill and determinism, but you insist on bringing in extraneous stuff and so its meaning is completely missed by you [...]


That is because the simple illustration appears to miss some of the complexity from the choices brought forward per the content of the position paper.

khayyam wrote:
It doesn't "depend on" anything because my analogy was not about the effects, but the very question of comparing the choices (whether they could be classed as of the same nature ... my choice to do something, your choice to do something) ... I showed that these were not comparable because one choice had effects that the other didn't (so there was a disparity in the nature/relation of these choices).


That is indeed the case with choices; if you drink tea, it (hopefully) will taste different than coffee. However, how that tea will taste, depends on the taste you choose, the sugar you add to it, ...; up to the extent that you could end up with tea based on leaves of the coffee plant, tea based on dried berries (or "cherries") of the coffee plant or even the Chinese yuangyang (coffee with tea) or the Ethiopian spreeze (tea with coffee). In terms of cars; my bike is adjusted to go so fast (but crashes into the walls), my car is adjusted to go so slow (it became a quite costly version of a bike).

khayyam wrote:
Yeah, he could choose to levitate, flap his wings, or pull out a parachute from his batman belt ... but none of these exist in the illustration, or more to the point in nature.


In the content of the position paper, we're trying to make these exist; whether these possibilities in the position paper are part of nature of not, can be a discussion on its own.

khayyam wrote:
To illustrate what I mean by "conflicted": the next time you are out driving a car, or riding a bicycle, when you come to an intersection turn both ways. In some actions there is an element of give and take, but in others not. If your car had two steering wheels and another driver was at the second wheel and you both are trying to turn in opposite directions then the car is conflicted. In terms of gentoo, yes, the "dynamic" of forces moving in various directions (with all the tensions this might create) exists, but I was speaking of a situation where those forces are, like the above car, attempting to turn in the opposite directions. All of this would need to be shown, so I don't state it as a given, but it was a late night post and I was answering your "meta distribution" point in the shortest and laziest way possible.


Yes, I think I understand. Though; in terms of Gentoo, the car could split itself with each part driving its own way (eg. separate stage3 files).

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
[...] if we take GNOME 3.8's systemd dependency for example, whether the conflict is happening *in principle* could be argued about. LP could have stated they want this; however, Olav for example has stated:

I don't see where your going with this ... gnome's "blessing" of systemd could be read in various ways, but there is no reason to necessarily take those provided as the sum. Anyhow, whatever the reasons applied to this "blessing" I would argue that there are others which haven't been factored in (like, fragmentation) and these are probably more important in any general consideration of "what happened, and why". I would class this question as somewhat unrelated to the question of the "standard base system", and the more general question of "choice" so far laid out, so I'm not really sure I want to take that tangent.


Yep; as I said, it's an example (one of many) that could be argued about. Still, before we drift too far away; I hope we can get our discussion to happen in terms of the position paper, in a mailing list we would be 8 levels deep already.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2939
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Here we go round the mulberry bush, mulberry bush, mulberry bush.."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2471
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam and anyone else responding to the troll the only way to win with a troll is not to respond to them.

They aren't interested in logic, or seeing the others view, they're only interested in getting responses,
and as long as you feed the troll (with reponses) they will continue to stay around.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2010)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
khayyam and anyone else responding to the troll the only way to win with a troll is not to respond to them.


Regardless of whether they troll or not; information, whether perceived logic or not, can be perceived as (mis)information and not responding to such (mis)information doesn't make it clear that the (mis)information could be (mis)information. That way, the reader can consider both viewpoints; and decide for oneself which information to follow. In this thread, for example, TheLexx now has multiple viewpoints to consider updating his position paper with.

Anon-E-moose wrote:
They aren't interested in logic, or seeing the others view, they're only interested in getting responses, and as long as you feed the troll (with reponses) they will continue to stay around.


Regardless of whether they troll or not; this approach greatly benefits TheLexx, as he now has both viewpoints to consider on or putting them in a vote to get a consensus from the community.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:
"Here we go round the mulberry bush, mulberry bush, mulberry bush.."

steve ... I agree entirely ... what a waste of effort.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2939
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
steve ... I agree entirely ... what a waste of effort.

Yup; though the agenda is pretty clear. Get the content watered-down, and politic for a "poll to get consensus" if the people you're playing are dumb enough to fall for it. It's all gravy, once you've spammed the thread with the party-line.
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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