| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6097
Location: Dallas area
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| depontius wrote: | | Bringing it back to the topic... If we really believed competition was a waste of time and cooperation was the one true way, we'd all get behind systemd. Some of us "systemd nattering naybobs of negativity" happen to believe it's going down the wrong path, and taking everyone it possibly can with it. Personally, I believe within the next few years systemd will either become moribund under its own weight, complexity, and entangledness or be the attack point for a security nightmare, or both. |
Well, they'll start off with win 1.0...er, um, sysd_1.0, then work their way up the chain sysd_3.1, sysd_98, sysd_me, sysd_2k, sysd_xp, sysd_vista, sysd_7
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | Bringing it back to the topic... If we really believed competition was a waste of time and cooperation was the one true way, we'd all get behind systemd. |
depontius ... well, cooperation and agreement are not necessarily synonymous, also cooperation is not a game of totality (we cooperate in relations that don't necessarily include everyone ... not due to exclusion, but because cooperation mostly happens at a micro and not macro scale). If it was simply a case of "getting behind" then we are no longer "co" (relational) but defining this activity as a given. I don't attack people on the street because in doing so I'm libel to give others reasons to not cooperate with me in reciprocating our mutual well-being, however, if attacked I don't join in with that attack so as not to invalidate cooperation :)
It should be noted that in the social sciences cooperation (in a game theoretic sense) is also used to explain situations in which cooperation breaks down (ie, in times of scarcity, or where reciprocation is gamed to produce poor outcomes for one party) so its not entirely an ethical position but an explanatory model. Also, the model used in social science is not entirely the same as that used in biology or life sciences ... its not used to explain why people behave as they do but to provide a method to model outcomes.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK so the whole thread seems to be angling this way, and it's not exactly off topic as it does address the init system paradigm every now and then, so I'll keep posting here until the friendly moderator comes by to split us off.
| steveL wrote: |
Perhaps you could consider the duplication of effort which that "competition" results in, and the insanity of forced competition between people who actually want to collaborate, like nurses or teachers. Further, as I said, we've only ever achieved anything by collaboration, not through competition. If we weren't kept divided and conquered, we'd both do a lot better and waste a lot less.
|
Your examples are horrible here. I've never even heard of a real life situation where there are too many nurses. Health care professionals are hard to come by no matter where in the world you go. Teachers are almost as in demand. You're also talking like competition and collaboration are mutually exclusive, and they almost never are in real life.
| Quote: |
Competition has not addressed the "waste of resources on a massive scale": in fact it fosters it through massive duplication of effort, as parties try to obscure the background knowledge shared by all that led to their "innovation", and you end up with time, effort and resources spent on trying to bring the other down, instead of on actual progress for everyone. Economies of scale apparently only work in the "private"-sector, which just happens to be massively subsidised by the rest of us; the so-called "free market warriors" are the biggest welfare recipients of all.
|
It's human nature to duplicate effort. We learn by repetition and we continually try to improve a process. Efficiency only gets you so far. The most important point here is that if effort is NOT duplicated then the process or the product will never improve.
More importantly, the best dynamic for getting more advancement in an area is to have teams who talk amongst themselves but don't necessarily talk to other teams. If everyone is talking to everyone, then all the end results tend to look pretty much the same. If teams are somewhat isolated there can be more dramatically different products. That's a good thing, because inevitably some scenarios will favor one solution where some other scenarios favor a different solution.
| Quote: |
As for the space program, istr a quote from one of the first astronauts, asked what he was thinking, replying how reassured he felt that the components used in the craft had all been bought at the cheapest possible price.
|
Yeah, that wasn't competition, it was bureaucracy. ONE customer with a pretty much unlimited market defined a need for each component. Every manufacturer knows the customer has deep pockets, and every manufacturer likewise went out of their way to get every penny they could from it.
Now look at X-prize. The guys who won are thought to have spent 30 million dollars USD or less to make a reusable spacecraft and launch it twice in two weeks, and that budget included the launch vehicle for the rocket. The government vehicle which most closely duplicated their accomplishment was the X-15, which cost over 100 times that. Some of the designs in that competition spent around 100,000 USD for each rocket.
Now take a look at what SpaceShipOne really did: The controls are all cable-driven. There is no power anything. Unlike any government rocket in any country, SpaceShipOne can hit the atmosphere in pretty much any orientation and still be controllable. Backwards, sideways, upside down. As long as the velocity and angle of entry are tolerable, the ship can achieve safe reentry.
If you look up the other competitors, there were quite a few pretty interesting ideas there. Those ideas generally didn't get dropped, they just didn't get as much attention.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: | The conceptual problem is the confusion of the "market" with "the world", combined with a real paucity of true education, as opposed to conditioning. The goals are quite different to the confused ideas though, and very clear thinking lies behind them. It's just not discussed, as to do so would be to reveal the "realpolitik" which is just another word to hide the truth behind. Cognitive dissonance means people would rather resort to the lazy thinking of prejudice and received "wisdom", than accept that we live in a pervasive kleptocracy.
|
Let's at least try to stay on topic. |
Oh please, that is the topic you brought up. That's exactly how competition is used, and for what: to keep us fighting each other while the wealthy collaborate to rip us off. I noticed you skipped past those links: you should definitely read the latter, before you claim to understand how things work. We live in a kleptocracy. Period.
|
I didn't skip past the links. They're not even close to the topic, and they're smoke and mirrors anyway. Competition only exists when several parties want the same exact resources, and whoever doesn't get those resources goes without. In other words, the demand exceeds the supply.
Your 'tax competition' is nothing like that at all. It's several different economies, so it's several different pies, rather than everyone after pieces of the same pie. The nations are not competing with each other. There is undoubtedly competition within each nation, but with respect to what your article is about competition doesn't even enter the picture.
The second link, I guess I don't see anything there that hasn't been obvious all along. Manipulation of currency is a separate topic. It happens today, it happened two thousand years ago, and it probably happened when cave men argued over the last bit of meat on the carcass. It has no bearing on this discussion as far as I can see. So again, smoke and mirrors.
| Quote: |
I know that's hard to accept, but it is the truth.
|
The manipulation of currency is not hard to accept at all. Your 'tax competition' is pure snake oil, and has nothing at all to do with anything.
| Quote: |
Yes, competition for resource is very much part of our nature, so indeed part of our psychology. It hasn't exactly led us to very good results though, has it? We're kept in competition with each other, and our baser natures are stimulated so we don't even think clearly. But meanwhile war is inevitable, and so is poverty, and since life isn't fair, we don't have the choice to be either. Or something.
In fact everything we've ever achieved, we've achieved via collaboration. Perhaps collaboration forced by the struggle for survival, but collaboration nonetheless. It's only when we work together that we make any sort of progress.
And much of the competition was totally unnecessary, forced upon us to satisfy the ego of what are at best sociopaths.
What really gets me is that the competition which does work, ie friendly rivalry, is subsumed into this insane variant where we have to do each other down. |
Did you have a point? I missed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:41 am Post subject: And now for something completely different... |
|
|
This gem, http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1677152
I'm reminded of why sometimes it's best to be (over)ruled by a benevolent dictator than committee.
Nice to see he has been paying attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aCOSwt
Bodhisattva
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | OK so the whole thread seems to be angling this way, and it's not exactly off topic as it does address the init system paradigm every now and then, so I'll keep posting here until the friendly moderator comes by to split us off. |
I have been responsible for precisely evaluating the man power needed for isolating, in this tg(Π/2) pages thread, posts that are exactly on topic / approximately on topic / rather on topic / relatively off topic / quite off topic / definitely off topic, not to mention miscellaneous other categories tagged with far less positive qualifiers...
I came to the conclusion that such a task would be approximately equivalent to cleaning the augean stables. (no disrespect to Augeas meant)
Unfortunately... I was told that Heracles himself had rejected a job offer from the Gentoo-Linux-Forums-Project Leader.
Too bad!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aCOSwt wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | OK so the whole thread seems to be angling this way, and it's not exactly off topic as it does address the init system paradigm every now and then, so I'll keep posting here until the friendly moderator comes by to split us off. |
I have been responsible for precisely evaluating the man power needed for isolating, in this tg(Π/2) pages thread, posts that are exactly on topic / approximately on topic / rather on topic / relatively off topic / quite off topic / definitely off topic, not to mention miscellaneous other categories tagged with far less positive qualifiers... |
hehe ... too bad the forum moderators don't allow those inclined toward parting from the straight and narrow to create threads and redirect others there ... oh, I can do that? :) In my/our defense I invoke the words of some un-named poetas (sic) "I strayed to the path direct" ... or some similarly worded excuse ... perhaps "oh lord, guide my hand toward thy topic" followed invariably by "mia culpa, mia culpa, mia culpa" :)
| aCOSwt wrote: | | I came to the conclusion that such a task would be approximately equivalent to cleaning the Augean stables. (no disrespect to Augeas meant) |
... which has the (possibly) unintended consequence of comparing said discussion to horse sh*t :)
| aCOSwt wrote: | | Unfortunately... I was told that Heracles himself had rejected a job offer from the Gentoo-Linux-Forums-Project Leader. Too bad! |
... but if Tiresias prophecy is correct he is yet to vanquish "numerous monsters", so there may still be hope.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just quick answers.
| 1clue wrote: | | steveL wrote: |
Perhaps you could consider the duplication of effort which that "competition" results in, and the insanity of forced competition between people who actually want to collaborate, like nurses or teachers. Further, as I said, we've only ever achieved anything by collaboration, not through competition. If we weren't kept divided and conquered, we'd both do a lot better and waste a lot less.
|
Your examples are horrible here. I've never even heard of a real life situation where there are too many nurses. Health care professionals are hard to come by no matter where in the world you go. Teachers are almost as in demand. You're also talking like competition and collaboration are mutually exclusive, and they almost never are in real life. |
You've segued one from one into the other, so ofc your strawman burns. Duplication of effort is systemic: that's what happens when you have everyone competing and not sharing information and knowledge, since that would only be "helping the competition."
The second point in that sentence is about foisting "competitive practices" into healthcare, schooling and all the other vocations that are best handled at state-level, because they require a duty of care leading to ethical standards which have to be authorised under the aegis of the state, and/or they are essential to everyone's well-being.
Economies of scale only seem to exist if you're in the private-sector, which leeches off the public-sector in every way imaginable.
The problem with your arguments are they start from a position of explaining the wonderful revelation that is "competition" as if we didn't know about it ourselves: it's part of our biology; and they stay with that conformist line. It's not a belief, or an ideology: it's a fraud, and it's simply and solely about divide-and-conquer.
| Quote: | I didn't skip past the links. They're not even close to the topic, and they're smoke and mirrors anyway. Competition only exists when several parties want the same exact resources, and whoever doesn't get those resources goes without. In other words, the demand exceeds the supply.
Your 'tax competition' is nothing like that at all. It's several different economies, so it's several different pies, rather than everyone after pieces of the same pie. The nations are not competing with each other. There is undoubtedly competition within each nation, but with respect to what your article is about competition doesn't even enter the picture. |
Oh please. That's not what politicians and corporations tell us all the time.
| Quote: | | The second link, I guess I don't see anything there that hasn't been obvious all along. Manipulation of currency is a separate topic. |
No it's not: it's the basis of our financial system, and shows exactly how the kleptocrats collaborate with each other to extract wealth out of everyone else, in a never-ending process.
All the while telling the rest of us we "have to compete," and encouraging us into lazy thinking with soundbite showbiz.
| Quote: | | Did you have a point? I missed it. |
It was right in front of you: "much of the competition was totally unnecessary, forced upon us to satisfy the ego of what are at best sociopaths. What really gets me is that the competition which does work, ie friendly rivalry, is subsumed into this insane variant where we have to do each other down."
But since you're just being rude, forget about it. Life's far too short to bother with that type of "discussion" where you talk past me and completely ignore the text in front of you, as evinced in the first paragraph, the last and several others I can't be bothered with. Thanks for displaying exactly what I mean though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | Just quick answers.
| 1clue wrote: | | steveL wrote: |
Perhaps you could consider the duplication of effort which that "competition" results in, and the insanity of forced competition between people who actually want to collaborate, like nurses or teachers. Further, as I said, we've only ever achieved anything by collaboration, not through competition. If we weren't kept divided and conquered, we'd both do a lot better and waste a lot less.
|
Your examples are horrible here. I've never even heard of a real life situation where there are too many nurses. Health care professionals are hard to come by no matter where in the world you go. Teachers are almost as in demand. You're also talking like competition and collaboration are mutually exclusive, and they almost never are in real life. |
You've segued one from one into the other, so ofc your strawman burns. Duplication of effort is systemic: that's what happens when you have everyone competing and not sharing information and knowledge, since that would only be "helping the competition."
|
You're accusing me of strawman tactics? Whoa!
I'm saying that duplication of effort is inherent to humanity. Competition and collaboration both have it. People can compete and collaborate at the same time, without animosity or without hiding information. You're using these things as polar opposites, and they're not even mutually exclusive. You insist that competition is inherently evil, and I'm saying it isn't always inherently evil, nor is collaboration always inherently good.
FWIW this competition vs collaboration discussion is off topic. We're supposed to be talking about systemd. And in that light, 'not sharing information and knowledge' is a farce, because it's all open-source. You see everything if you care to look.
| Quote: |
The second point in that sentence is about foisting "competitive practices" into healthcare, schooling and all the other vocations that are best handled at state-level, because they require a duty of care leading to ethical standards which have to be authorised under the aegis of the state, and/or they are essential to everyone's well-being.
Economies of scale only seem to exist if you're in the private-sector, which leeches off the public-sector in every way imaginable.
The problem with your arguments are they start from a position of explaining the wonderful revelation that is "competition" as if we didn't know about it ourselves: it's part of our biology; and they stay with that conformist line. It's not a belief, or an ideology: it's a fraud, and it's simply and solely about divide-and-conquer.
|
Where do you get this stuff? What has it to do with systemd? It's not fraud, it's nature. Plants compete, and plants collaborate. You don't even need a brain to do it. Get over it. You're reading highly inflammatory web pages and believing every word. You shouldn't do that.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | I didn't skip past the links. They're not even close to the topic, and they're smoke and mirrors anyway. Competition only exists when several parties want the same exact resources, and whoever doesn't get those resources goes without. In other words, the demand exceeds the supply.
Your 'tax competition' is nothing like that at all. It's several different economies, so it's several different pies, rather than everyone after pieces of the same pie. The nations are not competing with each other. There is undoubtedly competition within each nation, but with respect to what your article is about competition doesn't even enter the picture. |
Oh please. That's not what politicians and corporations tell us all the time.
|
You believe the politicians? I'm using dictionary definitions of the words we're passing around, not what politicians say. Politicians IMO are unable to speak a truth.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The second link, I guess I don't see anything there that hasn't been obvious all along. Manipulation of currency is a separate topic. |
No it's not: it's the basis of our financial system, and shows exactly how the kleptocrats collaborate with each other to extract wealth out of everyone else, in a never-ending process.
|
Again: What has this got to do with systemd? How does manipulation of currency relate to systemd or any other init system?
I'd love to talk to that on another thread, but since we're on what I consider to be the most rational systemd thread, I'm not going there.
| Quote: |
All the while telling the rest of us we "have to compete," and encouraging us into lazy thinking with soundbite showbiz.
|
What soundbite showbiz? You DO have to compete, but not in the sense you're talking about. So again, what has this to do with systemd?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Did you have a point? I missed it. |
It was right in front of you: "much of the competition was totally unnecessary, forced upon us to satisfy the ego of what are at best sociopaths. What really gets me is that the competition which does work, ie friendly rivalry, is subsumed into this insane variant where we have to do each other down."
But since you're just being rude, forget about it. Life's far too short to bother with that type of "discussion" where you talk past me and completely ignore the text in front of you, as evinced in the first paragraph, the last and several others I can't be bothered with. Thanks for displaying exactly what I mean though. |
I seriously do not understand what has you all bent out of shape. I'm trying to stay on topic. As long as this discussion is on a systemd thread I'm going to keep bringing it back to systemd or init systems in general.
You're right in that trolling has been associated with sociopathic behavior, but I don't really think anything I've said here constitutes trolling. Frankly I think what makes this thread better than the other systemd-related threads is the mostly rational discussion.
Even so, friendly rivalry is not the only type of competition which can be beneficial. Competition with respect to init systems is obviously not friendly rivalry, and it is most definitely competition.
Likewise, the presence of only one viable option does not imply collaboration. For a lot of years, Microsoft was considered the only viable business desktop operating system. They got that way not by collaboration, but by taking over their competition and putting it on the shelf. The systemd crowd's tactics have the same flavor as Microsoft's. Because of that, I submit that nothing about systemd implies collaboration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miket
Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 488
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to the topic. The discussion in LKML has this very disturbing little tidbit by kernel developer David Daney:
| Quote: | | As a bonus, we would be ready for when systemd is integrated into the kernel as a module itself. |
Source: http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1404.0/01468.html
I hope that that future is quite a long way off. This is a summary of today's blowup.- systemd, in keeping with its habit of claiming everything for its own, parses the kernel command line (exposed as /proc/cmdline) and interprets the debug parameter to mean that it should be able to dump debugging information so fast to the log that it prevents the system from booting.
- Boris Petkov opened bug 76935 at freedesktop.org complaining of this behavior: people had long been in the practice of specifing "debug" on the kernel command line to make the kernel log debugging messages but systemd now makes that infeasible. He asked nicely and made his case clearly and cleanly.
- Kay Sievers blew him off and marked the bug as NOTABUG and went on to brook no objection.
- Unable to get help at the proper place, Petkov submitted a patch to the LKML to strip out the debug parameter from /proc/cmdline if the parameter is given on the kernel command line (http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1404.0/01327.html)
- Linus saw that patch and went ballistic. He looked right at the source of the mischief. Most of the other kernel developers commenting on it agreed with him.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6097
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really see that happening. Sounds like some morons "wish list".
| Quote: | I hope that that future is quite a long way off. This is a summary of today's blowup.- systemd, in keeping with its habit of claiming everything for its own, parses the kernel command line (exposed as /proc/cmdline) and interprets the debug parameter to mean that it should be able to dump debugging information so fast to the log that it prevents the system from booting.
- Boris Petkov opened bug 76935 at freedesktop.org complaining of this behavior: people had long been in the practice of specifing "debug" on the kernel command line to make the kernel log debugging messages but systemd now makes that infeasible. He asked nicely and made his case clearly and cleanly.
- Kay Sievers blew him off and marked the bug as NOTABUG and went on to brook no objection.
- Unable to get help at the proper place, Petkov submitted a patch to the LKML to strip out the debug parameter from /proc/cmdline if the parameter is given on the kernel command line (http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1404.0/01327.html)
- Linus saw that patch and went ballistic. He looked right at the source of the mischief. Most of the other kernel developers commenting on it agreed with him.
|
Sounds about right.
Best comment from that thread (that I've read so far)
| Quote: | Andrew Morton says "Is there anything here that we really need to fix? What goes wrong if
we leave kmsg as-is and systemd gets fixed?" |
Since the problems originates from systemd, let the sysd developers fix their screwup.
And if they don't then the users need to get used to seeing lots of BSODs.
And a interesting one from Ingo Molnar
| Quote: | When I suggested that systemd should reuse the tracing and perf ring
buffer infrastructure instead of cluttering the syslog it was
handwaved away...
But at least there's an upside for me: I don't have to deal with the
systemd maintainers' excessively passive-aggressive behavior  |
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland
Last edited by Anon-E-moose on Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54214
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its my opinion that Its only a matter of time until Red Hat forks the kernel.
Then they can be like Humply Dumpty
| Lewis Carroll wrote: | | When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. |
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6097
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Its my opinion that Its only a matter of time until Red Hat forks the kernel. |
They sort of do that with many of the RH patches for the kernel now.
A RH compiled kernel, isn't exactly like the one you get and compile from kernel.org.
Having said that, I've mentioned that I expect them to head that route.
Then truly they'll have RH linux and they can leave the rest of the linux world alone.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | Its my opinion that Its only a matter of time until Red Hat forks the kernel.
Then they can be like Humply Dumpty
| Lewis Carroll wrote: | | When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. |
|
funny that, I was postulating RH was after controlling userspace in another thread via what they are doing because they couldn't control the kernel.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54214
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Naib,
Well, Red Hat will be following in Googles footsteps. Think about ChromeOS and to a lesser extent Android.
We are going to see Red Hat based distros, like SUSE, Debian and *buntu that can no longer escape the Red Hat tarpit and everyone else who could see where Red Hat was going.
Survival outside the Red Hat tarpit won't be easy but I for one intend to try.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6097
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Survival outside the Red Hat tarpit won't be easy but I for one intend to try. |
Indeed.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | Naib,
Well, Red Hat will be following in Googles footsteps. Think about ChromeOS and to a lesser extent Android.
We are going to see Red Hat based distros, like SUSE, Debian and *buntu that can no longer escape the Red Hat tarpit and everyone else who could see where Red Hat was going.
Survival outside the Red Hat tarpit won't be easy but I for one intend to try. |
Which leads to a question:
I like Gentoo for custom stuff, but I've been using *buntu (mostly server) for Q&D virtual machines and even hardware because you can install it in about 5 minutes. That said, I've been frustrated with Debian-based stuff for quite awhile now, and while Redhat was my first distro I'm less enamored with that lately. What to use for a Q&D non-gui server distro? What do people here do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
666threesixes666
Veteran
Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1248
Location: 42.68n 85.41w
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | What do people here do? |
gentoo!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 666threesixes666 wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | What do people here do? |
gentoo! |
Seriously. 5 or 10 minute install of a working system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Doctor
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2678
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | What to use for a Q&D non-gui server distro? What do people here do? |
Stage 4 tarball?
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK that's a possibility I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The freedesktop bug is revealing. Again, the blatant land-grabbing: GnomeOS is now called "Base OS" and users should understand it is just as important as the kernel, which should know to mind its own business.
It's nuspeek propaganda, pure and simple; trying to frame the discussion, so that we all acknowledge the supremacy and centrality of their turd of a userspace app, and ignore the kind of behaviour they'd never get away with in kernel-land, because "user-space is allowed to do crazy things." Call me old-fashioned, but I rather prefer userland tools that are well-designed, and don't do crazy things in the first place.
Userland breaks, that's fine: but if you want to write core system utilities, first realise what people really want from them: boring reliability.
It's not an arena for you to make your mark in, and wow us all with amazing feats of baroque over-design. Totally the wrong space to do that kind of thing.
Still, at least there's some hope that the kdbus changes aren't getting a free-pass into kernel-space, just because Lennart and Kay said so, or we'd really be in trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aCOSwt
Bodhisattva
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | Well, Red Hat will be following in Googles footsteps. Think about ChromeOS and to a lesser extent Android.
We are going to see Red Hat based distros, like SUSE, Debian and *buntu that can no longer escape the Red Hat tarpit and everyone else who could see where Red Hat was going. |
hmmm...   the final d in systemd does not stand for daemon.
It stands for quingenti (500 in latin)
So...
We had UNIX then came... ATT systemV © we will have had LINUX then will come RH systemD ©
History stammers! Back to the trees !
Come on Berkeley! You always ruled!
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Survival outside the Red Hat tarpit won't be easy but I for one intend to try. |
Don't worry, I am not sure quingentoo is a valid declension. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6097
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I intend to keep on using sysvinit/openrc.
I don't care if ALL the binary distros want to pay fealty to RH. Not my problem.
As far as kdbus, I think it'll eventually be put into the kernel, it's just a message passing mechanism, as it stands right now.
I doubt that linus will let them morph it into anything else though given his views of Kay and the sysd devs in general.
I do think that linus will look long and hard at any further submissions from RH employees
to make sure they aren't trying to do something stupid via hooks into the kernel or some such silliness.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dominique_71
Veteran
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1877
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Survival outside the Red Hat tarpit won't be easy but I for one intend to try. |
Not sure, a lot of peoples and even big corporations are interested by the Linux kernel. One the the biggest strength of the linux kernel is it will just run on almost anything, from the last PC to old Amiga computers, on mobile phones and almost any kind of embedded devices. That imply the GNU/Linux desktop is just a tiny part of what is powered by the Linux kernel, and it is huge financial interest outside of RH that need that compatibility.
RH is obviously not interested by that compatibility, and if they fork the kernel, we can be sure the first thing they will do is to remove most, if not all, of the non x86 and non amd64 stuffs from their fork.
It may split the community, but it can be a good thing on the long run, because today it is already spitted, and some contributors to GNU/Linux are already switching to other OS like FreeBSD or even OSX, and will instead be more receptive to stay with GNU/Linux.
_________________
"Confirm You are a robot." - the singularity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Other Things Gentoo
