Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Are we losing freedom of choice?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Other Things Gentoo
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2084
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depontius, yes it seems that freedesktop.org is trying to recreate windows on linux,
not just the looks but all the dumb we decide how you use your machine stuff from it.


Creaker, yes we have a choice...as of this moment.

For me, I have long removed all *kit packages along with dbus, etc.
I'm still using an older version of udev, with anything greater that 171 masked.
I've kept openrc at the 0.9.8 version (I didn't realize it until recently but I masked
it when they move /var/run packages to /run, and I didn't want to mess with it at
the time and forgot about it).

I run a modern kernel, gcc, and other things. I do not and will not use systemd.

If it should ever come to be that linux would not be usable without systemd
then I probably would switch to bsd or something else.
But I highly doubt that Linus would let that happen.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.9.1-zen, eudev
glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, xorg-server-1.15, lxde, nouveau, oss4


Last edited by Anon-E-moose on Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 31342
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony Hoare wrote:
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.


What does systemd do?
There is no need to reply.
_________________
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: 1122

PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One funny reply to the Debian decision thread at
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?86087-Debian-To-Switch-To-Systemd-Or-Upstart&p=366569#post366569
Quote:
As systemd user it would be nice to see Debian using systemd, but having a counterweight against systemd with them using upstart would also be nice.

At this moment what I feel. Many Openrc fans speaking out there ...
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2384

PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was going through my various morning news sources, and found this:

http://skarnet.org/software/s6/
"s6 is a small suite of programs for UNIX, designed to allow process supervision (a.k.a service supervision), in the line of daemontools and runit."

Basically it's a replacement for sysvinit - or upstart or systemd. I'm going to past an excerpt from near the bottom of the referenced page.
Quote:
Other init systems

Felix von Leitner's minit is an init system for Linux, with process supervision capabilities.
sysvinit is the traditional init system for Linux.
Upstart is a well-known init system for Linux, with complete service management, that comes with the Ubuntu distribution. It includes a coffee machine and the kitchen sink.
Because Upstart wasn't bloated or unreliable enough, someone came up with systemd, yet another Linux init system, so contrary to all principles of good engineering it's just scary.
The various BSD flavors have their own style of init.
MacOS X has its own init spaghetti monster called launchd.

All-in-one init systems generally feel complex and convoluted, and when most people find out about the process supervision approach to init systems, they usually find it much simpler. There is a good reason for this.


I've barely begun looking at it, but it seems quite sensible and interesting. Makes me wonder if OpenRC can be layered on top of it rather than sysvinit.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
schorsch_76
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 19 Jun 2012
Posts: 135

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

systemd made the next step to reduce choice. Thank god, CONFIG_VT is in th kernel and the systemd devs have no power over it.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-November/014808.html

http://www.golem.de/news/init-dienst-systemd-macht-kernel-vt-ueberfluessig-1311-103016.html#comments
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1345

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How does it reduce choice? Its focus is to make CONFIG_VT=n a more useful choice that doesn't have what they consider the CONFIG_VT=y bloat; but, that doesn't take away that you can set CONFIG_VT=y if you prefer that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2084
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

schorsch_76 wrote:
systemd made the next step to reduce choice. Thank god, CONFIG_VT is in th kernel and the systemd devs have no power over it.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-November/014808.html


Great, more morons in search of a problem for their solution. :roll:
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.9.1-zen, eudev
glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, xorg-server-1.15, lxde, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
schorsch_76
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 19 Jun 2012
Posts: 135

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
How does it reduce choice? Its focus is to make CONFIG_VT=n a more useful choice that doesn't have what they consider the CONFIG_VT=y bloat; but, that doesn't take away that you can set CONFIG_VT=y if you prefer that.


Thats simple. What do you think will the distries do, if systemd even handle the console, make agetty and co unnessesary?

Just one more stone they put into systemd to "overtake" userspace.

Exaggerated: "One Tool to Rule them all, One Tool to Find them, One Tool to bring them all an in the darkness and bind them."

Unix paradigm: one tool for one job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 1265

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I have no question systemd is a bad piece of software itself.

But what is more telling is that it absorbed udev. Since this has become a standard library (why exactly I am not sure) it is clear that it is attempting to require an entire init system to be installed if you want it or not. True, systemd does not to be running for udev to work, at least not yet. I can't help but wonder how long that will last.

I would argue the intentions of the developers are at least as important as the software.

So is there choice now? Yes. May that go away? That depends.

How many people are coding non-systemd software? (this is a rhetorical question)
_________________
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: 1122

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
Well, I have no question systemd is a bad piece of software itself.

No question such an absolute claim says absolutely nothing when all of it before systemd is worse. (LSB tried to define a vertical integrated Linux but was broken every time when published)
Quote:
So is there choice now? Yes.

The only choice Debian sees as alternative is upstart, because openrc development is retarded. In a message earlier in this thread I considered sympathy for Debian deciding against systemd.
I just had a look at the newest Ubuntu release: All over the place partitioned pieces of systemd (logind, udev etc).
If Debian decides pro upstart they will get a Canonical filtered systemd in pieces!
Nothing more ...
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2084
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
Well, I have no question systemd is a bad piece of software itself.

But what is more telling is that it absorbed udev. Since this has become a standard library (why exactly I am not sure) it is clear that it is attempting to require an entire init system to be installed if you want it or not. True, systemd does not to be running for udev to work, at least not yet. I can't help but wonder how long that will last.

I would argue the intentions of the developers are at least as important as the software.

So is there choice now? Yes. May that go away? That depends.

How many people are coding non-systemd software? (this is a rhetorical question)


You have hit the nail on the head, one that the systemd sycophants don't want to address.
So they come in with their useless arguments that have been addressed before.
I still wonder whether they're being paid to be trolls or they're just not smart enough to do something else.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.9.1-zen, eudev
glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, xorg-server-1.15, lxde, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1122

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not knowing what are sycofants, I would like to ask:
The Doctor wrote:
How many people are coding non-systemd software? (this is a rhetorical question)

What in plain english means rhetorical here in this regard of the first sentence:
The Doctor wrote:
Well, I have no question systemd is a bad piece of software itself.

All developers blindly follow Poettering - but there is one little village of Gentoo users having the magic potion to see the truth?

The question of choice in the future I answered: There is none (in essence).
But there is a lot of half broken workaround systemd, which makes you feel good to talk about in this forum.
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2375
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
But there is a lot of half broken workaround systemd, which makes you feel good to talk about in this forum.


ulenrich wrote:
Not knowing what are sycofants...
...

Hmmm... Gnothi seauton ?

Sorry... no disrespect meant! And nothing meant on topic!. I just... could not resist!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gerard82
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 2179
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ulenrich,
Have you ever heard of Google translate?
I did it for you:
Sycophant --> Schmeichler
Rhetorical --> rhetorisch

The majority apparently don't want systemd (and for good reason!).
If you consider it the best ever written software fine.
But leave us alone.
Gerard.
_________________
To install Gentoo I use sysrescuecd.Based on Gentoo,has midori to browse Gentoo docs and mc to browse (and edit) files.
The same disk can be used for 32 and 64 bit installs.
You can follow the Handbook verbatim.
http://www.sysresccd.org/Download
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1122

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gerard82 wrote:
@ulenrich,
Have you ever heard of Google translate?
I did it for you:
Sycophant --> Schmeichler
Rhetorical --> rhetorisch
If I wanted to know my cli "Leo ..." not Google which I consider the source of ...
Quote:
The majority apparently don't want systemd (and for good reason!).

no (no)
Quote:
If you consider it the best ever written software fine.

no
Quote:
But leave us alone.

no

And who wants to vote against must have a Redhat product here my bug:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480232
pro choice and roughly 40 times more free space than this long thread tries to achieve:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-976456.html
Beside this my patch gains a (very) little performance, while in contrast creaker cannot gain anything but problems.

Sometimes this forum is about 80% writing against systemd. A lot of it intellectualy ambitioned. If half of that "Hirnschmalz" (german thinking-ernergy) gone to bugs with patches like mine, then I'd say: We will have choice.
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 1265

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Well, I have no question systemd is a bad piece of software itself.

No question such an absolute claim says absolutely nothing when all of it before systemd is worse. (LSB tried to define a vertical integrated Linux but was broken every time when published)


I consider any software that somehow manages to go from working fine to absolutely non-booting is "bad." It didn't even fail safe. It just thrashed around for about 5 minutes complaining that some users had disappeared or something.

ulenrich wrote:
Quote:
So is there choice now? Yes.

The only choice Debian sees as alternative is upstart, because openrc development is retarded. In a message earlier in this thread I considered sympathy for Debian deciding against systemd.
I just had a look at the newest Ubuntu release: All over the place partitioned pieces of systemd (logind, udev etc).
If Debian decides pro upstart they will get a Canonical filtered systemd in pieces!
Nothing more ...


And since when did Debian set the standard of what the entire open source community must do?

Any way, that is kind of the point. Systemd isn't being adopted because it is good. It is being adopted because it has absorbed many components that are 'critical' for most desktops. Most backers seem to be doing exactly what you are and preaching that we must convert to systemd or else. Most places call that strong arming. The direction of Linux should absolutely not be decided by brownshirts. If you don't like the reference, stop acting like one.

Let me ask you (again), exactly what feature of a modern desktop can't be achieved without systemd?
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1345

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

schorsch_76 wrote:
TomWij wrote:
How does it reduce choice? Its focus is to make CONFIG_VT=n a more useful choice that doesn't have what they consider the CONFIG_VT=y bloat; but, that doesn't take away that you can set CONFIG_VT=y if you prefer that.


Thats simple. What do you think will the distries do, if systemd even handle the console, make agetty and co unnessesary?


Thank you for clarifying from which viewpoint that choice reduction would happen. Iff other distros do this, then in the long term it could cause agetty and co to be used less; iff that happens, that could make the tools act worse on our distro or become less supported by the Linux community as a whole. Time will tell; but until then, I think that this choice isn't taken away on Gentoo any time soon.

schorsch_76 wrote:
Just one more stone they put into systemd to "overtake" userspace.

Exaggerated: "One Tool to Rule them all, One Tool to Find them, One Tool to bring them all an in the darkness and bind them."

Unix paradigm: one tool for one job.


Technically it's a single tool that comes along systemd; so, it depends on how you look at it. And more than just how you look at it, but also what you expect from it.

Let me split up that sentence from the Unix philosophy and show how things can be interpreted both ways:

Unix philosophy wrote:
Write programs that do one thing and do it well.


Does just the console tool in systemd do one thing? Yes, it looks like it; or maybe it doesn't because it's a console, it must do much more than just one thing. Does systemd do one thing? Maybe; it depends on what you see as systemd. Just the daemon, or everything that comes along? Does it do its thing well? Well, when looking at it "being a console" we can think it not really does that well as it is stripped down but if we look at "being a minimal fallback console" it does its job much better.

This is what makes it a choice, just as well as what keeps the other choices around; it's how you answer questions like this, how you see things and what your expectations are. I don't think it'll take away other choices...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1345

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
It is being adopted because it has absorbed many components that are 'critical' for most desktops.


Do you have examples of this happening? Gentoo comes with OpenRC by default and most desktops still run it. Which components are 'critical'? How do they affect those desktops?

For me only udev jumps to mind, but there are alternatives for that or it can be extracted from systemd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 1265

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
It is being adopted because it has absorbed many components that are 'critical' for most desktops.


Do you have examples of this happening?


Udev is the primary example. However, the gnome dependencies on logind are another example. Of course, that only affects gnome users except if the distro in question needs to use a one size fits all approach. Don't forget, standalone udev support is all but deprecated and upstream is particularly hostile about changing that.

Udev replacements work well enough, except that many applications like chromium and spotify now require udev as a run time dependency.

The reason I put critical in quotes was because these examples are not really critical for individual users. However, for a large distribution that needs to support a large number of users with a single default they are rather important.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2384

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:

Does just the console tool in systemd do one thing? Yes, it looks like it; or maybe it doesn't because it's a console, it must do much more than just one thing. Does systemd do one thing? Maybe; it depends on what you see as systemd. Just the daemon, or everything that comes along? Does it do its thing well? Well, when looking at it "being a console" we can think it not really does that well as it is stripped down but if we look at "being a minimal fallback console" it does its job much better.

This is what makes it a choice, just as well as what keeps the other choices around; it's how you answer questions like this, how you see things and what your expectations are. I don't think it'll take away other choices...


The "systemd really is modular" argument. I'll raise the question... Are there well-defined and documented interfaces between the various pieces of systemd?
If I don't like the systemd logger, is it a relatively straightforward matter to RTFM and write a new one?
How about logind or any of the other parts?

If the answer is "no", then it really isn't modular, and the various pieces don't "do one thing and do it well."
If the answer is "yes", then the systemd people could do a MUCH better job of packaging and documentation.

And don't say it's logical to just have the systemd package - no. X11 isn't one package, KDE base requirements aren't one package, and there are other such examples, even though the multiple packages usually have to be upgraded in lock-step.

No, systemd and its fanbois give every indication that they want to take over Linux, completely wrapping and hiding the kernel, and becoming the de-facto Linux API. They split between saying, "that's really not so, you're being paranoid," and "resistance is futile."

In this case, appearance matters, and the appearance is bad. Answering my issues mentioned after the "yes" answer above would do TONS to improve acceptance.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1345

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
TomWij wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
It is being adopted because it has absorbed many components that are 'critical' for most desktops.


Do you have examples of this happening?


However, the gnome dependencies on logind are another example.


logind is not an absorbed component, logind was previously not outside of systemd. If it were, we wouldn't have this semi-hard dependency. It is GNOME that decided to rely on that feature and that feature alone; hence, limiting their scope as they go for a systemd-only feature for which no alternatives have existed and not exist yet.

The Doctor wrote:
Of course, that only affects gnome users except if the distro in question needs to use a one size fits all approach. Don't forget, standalone udev support is all but deprecated and upstream is particularly hostile about changing that.

Udev replacements work well enough, except that many applications like chromium and spotify now require udev as a run time dependency.


chromium has a virtual/udev dependency; so, replacements can be used. As for spotify, there appears to be a dependency on it missing (filed a bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=492928).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1345

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius wrote:
TomWij wrote:

Does just the console tool in systemd do one thing? Yes, it looks like it; or maybe it doesn't because it's a console, it must do much more than just one thing. Does systemd do one thing? Maybe; it depends on what you see as systemd. Just the daemon, or everything that comes along? Does it do its thing well? Well, when looking at it "being a console" we can think it not really does that well as it is stripped down but if we look at "being a minimal fallback console" it does its job much better.

This is what makes it a choice, just as well as what keeps the other choices around; it's how you answer questions like this, how you see things and what your expectations are. I don't think it'll take away other choices...


The "systemd really is modular" argument. I'll raise the question... Are there well-defined and documented interfaces between the various pieces of systemd?
If I don't like the systemd logger, is it a relatively straightforward matter to RTFM and write a new one?
How about logind or any of the other parts?

If the answer is "no", then it really isn't modular, and the various pieces don't "do one thing and do it well."
If the answer is "yes", then the systemd people could do a MUCH better job of packaging and documentation.


Set Storage=none in /etc/systemd/journald.conf as per the man pages, alternatively you can prevent its service from starting.

depontius wrote:
And don't say it's logical to just have the systemd package - no. X11 isn't one package, KDE base requirements aren't one package, and there are other such examples, even though the multiple packages usually have to be upgraded in lock-step.


It depends on how you define logical. The kernel source and kernel binaries are a single package containing tons of different stuff. openoffice and libreoffice (apart from languages) are as well which install multiple applications which you cannot choose which one to install unless you write support for it. And there are two ways to split that last example, either with ./configure or otherwise by splitting it up in multiple packages. Where it seems more sane to keep it one and the same package than to split up and make upstream maintenance more complex than it needs to be. As for splitting the kernel, don't get me started; well, yeah, you could go and remove modules from the binaries but then you would drop support and you could go heavily patching the source code to remove parts based on USE flags* set but that would be hard and unnecessary work... :)

* It was for example requested that other architecture folders than the one you use when emerging the kernel were removed if you set a particular USE flag; in general, that wouldn't really cause any difference, but it does make the emerge quite a bit faster for embedded systems.

It's not because examples exist that those examples are logical, it usually depends on the situation and what you think would be logical (you, us and upstream can have different thoughts on that for different reasons); as for KDE base requirements, you can check out kde-base/kdelibs which is a single package that brings a ton of libraries. Why does kde-base/kdelibs bring along kdewebkit if I want to just use kde-base/kcachegrind? Yet, KDE is still bundling kdewebkit in one big kde-base/kdelibs package; because KDE doesn't; can't or want to split its package(s) up. The same can be said about a lot of upstreams out there...

depontius wrote:
No, systemd and its fanbois give every indication that they want to take over Linux, completely wrapping and hiding the kernel, and becoming the de-facto Linux API. They split between saying, "that's really not so, you're being paranoid," and "resistance is futile."


Of course, systemd is the system daemon so it kind of has this behavior; yet there is no indication that choice is taken away, the amount of choice is still quite the same compared to when systemd was born.

GNOME decided to depend on systemd themselves by using logind, that would be the same as saying that they depend on libfoo which brings in some shiny functionality; it's GNOME's choice to depend on libfoo and its functionality that limits your choice, not the existence of libfoo itself. udev has alternatives. initramfs is because of other reasons (LVM, ...) as well than just sytemd. I barely see any choices being taken away...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2084
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius wrote:
The "systemd really is modular" argument.


Yes, the whole modular argument has been thoroughly debunked.
Still that doesn't stop the trolls from bringing it up repeatedly.

Having pieces of a monolithic software in separate files or directories does not make it modular.
Almost EVERY piece of software does that, glibc, gcc, firefox, etc.

As you pointed out depontius, if one can't pull out a piece of the whole and replace it or choose not to run it, then it is not modular.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.9.1-zen, eudev
glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, xorg-server-1.15, lxde, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1345

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
depontius wrote:
The "systemd really is modular" argument.


Yes, the whole modular argument has been thoroughly debunked.


What do you both define modular as? Where has the related argument been debunked?

Anon-E-moose wrote:
Still that doesn't stop the systemd sycophant trolls from bringing it out repeatedly.


Where was there a previous occurrence? Can you please keep such word choices out of a thread where choice is discussed on purpose and not brought under other intentions? Unless you perceive the author as a sycophant troll.

Anon-E-moose wrote:
Having pieces of a monolithic software in separate files or directories does not make it modular.
Almost EVERY piece of software does that, glibc, gcc, firefox, etc.


It neither does make it not modular, it depends on what those files or directories are.

Anon-E-moose wrote:
As you pointed out depontius, if one can't pull out a piece of the whole and replace it or choose not to run it, then it is not modular.


And that example has been debunked.

You'll find out that a lot of software has modular and non-modular parts; the kernel does (built-in VS modules), systemd does (systemd process itself VS logind, journald), OpenRC does (openrc process itself VS busybox integration) and even the libreoffice example (all programs come along VS lots of USE flags to control details)...

So, to say it is modular, one has to decide on the ratio between the amount of modular and non-modular parts; as well as what is considered as modular. But that won't contribute anything to this topic, because we are discussing choice here; so, I have instead tested it in practice: My systemd was running without journald and logind for the length of this post, replacements and/or alternatives work; they do not appear to limit choice. So, given this practical example; we can skip looking at what is meant by modular and focus on coming up with examples that limit choice.


Last edited by TomWij on Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
schorsch_76
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 19 Jun 2012
Posts: 135

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poettering himself did debunk it. May i quote him:

Lennart Poettering wrote:

So yeah, these things are already part of systemd, and I believe that both are highly relevant on what people want from a Linux-based operating system. If you go for Upstart then you opt out of this. I have serious doubts that Canonical will play catch-up with this so quickly. The last time they tried that they took logind out of the systemd tree and ported it to Upstart. logind of course is one of the components of systemd where we explicitly documented that it is not a component you can rip out of systemd.


[1] https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/8RmiAQsW9qf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Other Things Gentoo All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
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