YOU shut up!asturm wrote:If you feel bullied then raise an issue with moderators, otherwise shut up.Tony0945 wrote:I will not be bullied by asturm
there is no censorship... A thread was locked as you went full incoherent retard.axl wrote:I'm glad we clarified our differences once again through the use of censorship. Good Job!!!
Spoken like a real grown-up.Tony0945 wrote:YOU shut up!asturm wrote:If you feel bullied then raise an issue with moderators, otherwise shut up.Tony0945 wrote:I will not be bullied by asturm
Everyone knows a dev is always supported over a user. That's why you feel impervious.
You pollute this forum.
Now go cry over that! Like all bullies that are stood up to.
Thanks for making my case, I guess.
I will gladly answer that: None. There is no need to patch anything to have a systemd-free Gentoo. Sure, you may have to avoid certain packages. But that's just the game.axl wrote:Any of you open rc folks want to post how many custom files they have in /etc/portage to obtain that systemd free system?
I'll help out when I have time...Tony0945 wrote:In the locked thread Neddyseagoon sid:In that case my overlays are the fork. I'll make them public if there is more interest than the five other people that I've counted.Tony0945,
That's where we are today.
Gentoo is portage and the ::gentoo repository. Everything else is upstream.
This fork would be an overlay, much as other derivative distros are overlays rather than forks.
OTOH, if at least three of these five (and I greatly respect the work of all of them in the support topics) would assist me in ebuild update, I'll do it.
Code: Select all
eselect profile list | grep "\*"
[16] default/linux/amd64/17.0/desktop (stable) *
grep systemd /etc/portage/ -R
/etc/portage/make.profile/gnome/systemd/parent:../../../../../../../targets/systemd
/etc/portage/make.profile/plasma/systemd/parent:../../../../../../../targets/systemd
/etc/portage/make.conf:samba smbclient spell svg -systemd
readlink /proc/1/exe
/sbin/init
equery b /sbin/init
* Searching for /sbin/init ...
sys-apps/sysvinit-2.90 (/sbin/init)
equery b /sbin/udevd
* Searching for /sbin/udevd ...
sys-fs/eudev-3.2.5 (/sbin/udevd)
$ screenfetch
-/oyddmdhs+:. naib@fluid
-odNMMMMMMMMNNmhy+-` OS: Gentoo testing
-yNMMMMMMMMMMMNNNmmdhy+- Kernel: x86_64 Linux 4.16.10-gentoo
`omMMMMMMMMMMMMNmdmmmmddhhy/` Uptime: 1h 44m
omMMMMMMMMMMMNhhyyyohmdddhhhdo` Packages: 1222
.ydMMMMMMMMMMdhs++so/smdddhhhhdm+` Shell: bash 4.4.23
oyhdmNMMMMMMMNdyooydmddddhhhhyhNd. Resolution: 1920x1080
:oyhhdNNMMMMMMMNNNmmdddhhhhhyymMh WM: OpenBox
.:+sydNMMMMMNNNmmmdddhhhhhhmMmy WM Theme: Clearlooks-3.4
/mMMMMMMNNNmmmdddhhhhhmMNhs: GTK Theme: Adwaita [GTK2/3]
`oNMMMMMMMNNNmmmddddhhdmMNhs+` Icon Theme: Tango
`sNMMMMMMMMNNNmmmdddddmNMmhs/. Font: Sans 10
/NMMMMMMMMNNNNmmmdddmNMNdso:` CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core @ 12x 3.2GHz [44.0°C]
+MMMMMMMNNNNNmmmmdmNMNdso/- GPU: GeForce GTX 970
yMMNNNNNNNmmmmmNNMmhs+/-` RAM: 1947MiB / 16053MiB
/hMMNNNNNNNNMNdhs++/-`
`/ohdmmddhys+++/:.`
`-//////:--.
I have KDE on two laptops running Gentoo, and both use ConsoleKit, not elogind. Unless something is about to change regarding KDE requirements in Gentoo, KDE does not need elogind.Anon-E-moose wrote:I don't run elogind as I run neither kde, gnome or any other DE that needs it.
I was under the impression that kde was using systemd/elogind as a login mechanism, thanks for that correction.Fitzcarraldo wrote:I have KDE on two laptops running Gentoo, and both use ConsoleKit, not elogind. Unless something is about to change regarding KDE requirements in Gentoo, KDE does not need elogind.Anon-E-moose wrote:I don't run elogind as I run neither kde, gnome or any other DE that needs it.
there was talks of it a few years back but that hasn't occured.Anon-E-moose wrote:I was under the impression that kde was using systemd/elogind as a login mechanism, thanks for that correction.Fitzcarraldo wrote:I have KDE on two laptops running Gentoo, and both use ConsoleKit, not elogind. Unless something is about to change regarding KDE requirements in Gentoo, KDE does not need elogind.Anon-E-moose wrote:I don't run elogind as I run neither kde, gnome or any other DE that needs it.
Mind you, elogind is required if using KDE with Wayland in a non-systemd Gentoo installation. And guess who develops Wayland... Yep, it's another freedesktop.org project.Anon-E-moose wrote:I was under the impression that kde was using systemd/elogind as a login mechanism, thanks for that correction.Fitzcarraldo wrote:I have KDE on two laptops running Gentoo, and both use ConsoleKit, not elogind. Unless something is about to change regarding KDE requirements in Gentoo, KDE does not need elogind.Anon-E-moose wrote:I don't run elogind as I run neither kde, gnome or any other DE that needs it.
Bloody hell, is that still not finished? They've been bleating on about it for nearly a decade, seems like.Fitzcarraldo wrote:Mind you, elogind is required if using KDE with Wayland in a non-systemd Gentoo installation. And guess who develops Wayland... Yep, it's another freedesktop.org project.
You're not kidding. I have no more interest in that than systemd. The first thing that really put me off about Wayland was when I heard that it wouldn't support the equivalent of X11Forwarding (and I mean X11Forwarding and not some Windows RDP imitation). I use that all the time so that's a non-starter for me right there. To add insult to injury, the Wayland fanboys started making network speed arguments against the concept, as though we're all on 10BASE-T networks again. Here's an issue I ran into that leads me to believe that some projects are flat out forgetting that X can and does even do that:steveL wrote:Bloody hell, is that still not finished? They've been bleating on about it for nearly a decade, seems like.Fitzcarraldo wrote:Mind you, elogind is required if using KDE with Wayland in a non-systemd Gentoo installation. And guess who develops Wayland... Yep, it's another freedesktop.org project.
Give me X anyday.
Ant P. wrote:things like the current OpenRC/baselayout most of us prefer to avoid.
There you go again, questioning the basis of what has been said, while evading the substantive.asturm wrote:You mean "us" being a vocal minority in Gentoo Chat?
Yes, it's all just an unfortunate misunderstanding. "I'm sorry Ms Starmer, I didn't mean to shoot your husband and children.. IDK what came over me. If only you and the wider community had worked with me, it might never have happened."Naib wrote:This type of vangard over Systemd is a waste of effort and if their developers only worked with the wider community
And yet here you are, advocating that we spend yet more wasted years on appeasing asshats who do not give a damn about us, and only see us as "a resource to be exploited" while denigrating everything that keeps us strong, and into "a resource" even worth "exploiting" in the first place.asturm wrote:Yeah. Never will we get back those hours spent to make up for that
And [post=8243064]your insipid reply[/post] that refuses even to acknowledge what was said.steveL wrote:The problem is that you refuse even to acknowledge the problems that mean your clique is so susceptible to being made into marks.
Pulseaudio; systemd; Predictable Network Interface Names; Wayland. That's quite a track record.depontius wrote:As some have mentioned, it's freedesktop.org project. When that name first started showing up it seemed like a good idea. As they've accumulated a track record, that idea has gone downhill.
Always reminds me of the xkcd cartoon Standards.depontius wrote:Then about a year or so back I started seeing Wayland stuff about interactions between screensavers, screen unlockers, screenshot grabbers, and the like. I seem to remember them adding some sort of ugly kludge in order to get that stuff to all work. Throw away the old mistakes, make new ones.
Apparently not:Naib wrote:They better include X11Forwarding, I use that daily... XmobaTerm into work Linux box as a simulation machine is too useful. Really don't want an entire desktop being rendered....
technically you could have a system that actually has systemd installed, but not used. so what i mean by systemd-free system is a system that doesn't use systemd as init at boot.Yamakuzure wrote:Thank you very much, Neddy, for the Locking of the original thread and the move of certain posts here.
I do not know how others felt, but I certainly needed that "cool-down time"
I will gladly answer that: None. There is no need to patch anything to have a systemd-free Gentoo. Sure, you may have to avoid certain packages. But that's just the game.axl wrote:Any of you open rc folks want to post how many custom files they have in /etc/portage to obtain that systemd free system?
Edit: After having lunch a question arose: What do you people actually mean when you talk about a "systemd-free" system?
I bet that this question is important. For me, "systemd-free" simply means, that sys-apps/systemd is not installed. But I do not care if some packages install unit files to support a possible systemd installation. And I am running both eudev and elogind. Thus rip-offs of systemd-udev and systemd-logind.
So if someone else uses the expression "systemd-free" to describe a system where not a single bit that is associated with the systemd project can be found, the grand misunderstanding waits right around the corner. I'd call that a "systemd-support-free" system.
We really should get clear what means what.
That's nonsense. I've got keyboards, graphics tablets, gamepads, bluetooth devices, external disks, internal disks, network drives, authenticated networks, and they all work fine. At worst the bluetooth stuff only needs a system dbus-daemon running for pairing.axl wrote:but desktops... it's becoming harder and harder to run a desktop without systemd because peripherals and how they are handled.
Like I said, atm, you can still compile gentoo with +systemd and still not use it.Ant P. wrote:That's nonsense. I've got keyboards, graphics tablets, gamepads, bluetooth devices, external disks, internal disks, network drives, authenticated networks, and they all work fine. At worst the bluetooth stuff only needs a system dbus-daemon running for pairing.axl wrote:but desktops... it's becoming harder and harder to run a desktop without systemd because peripherals and how they are handled.
Why install something you aren't going to need or use? It's just another vector for attacks.axl wrote:so.. you could technically install gentoo with systemd useflag and still not use systemd. technically.
in my opinion, servers don't technically need systemd. they could work without it.
My desktop works just fine without systemd. I don't run GNOME. Specifically, I don't like what they design of GNOME 3 since it hobbles my workflow, so I don't use GNOME 3, but rather Mate (GNOME 2 - even then, I only switched from GNOME 1 + E16 to GNOME 2 several years after the initial release of GNOME 2, once they added the functionality I need back into GNOME).but desktops... it's becoming harder and harder to run a desktop without systemd because peripherals and how they are handled. because of how (at least in gnome) things are moving towards (at some point) mobile devices. 20 years ago linux didn't have "users". it only had sysadmins masquarading as users. u had a linux, u had to administer it yourself. and 20 years ago was a totally different thing. but now...
What makes you think that we want to emulate systemd in the first place? We've spent years detailing different aspects of systemd that we not only find technically unsound, but outright harmful and dangerous. Don't think that our opposition to systemd is based out of simple comfort/familiarity with openrc or sysvinit - those of us you're arguing with probably know system engineering better than you do. Most of us have decades of experience with UNIX, POSIX, shell scripting, C, etc.i freaking hated systemd when it first came out. i didn't know what it was. why it pulled those weird dependencies. what happened to my kernel and my system and my dev. i was so confused and i hated it. but powered on and tried to understand it... and it's not that bad actually, once u get to know it. at this point i'm confident i have enough skills to manipulate and change anything and everything about my init system, may it be openrc or systemd. and i prefer systemd, knowing both of them pretty well.
if you are one of the folks that knows how to manually do in openrc shells to emulate systemd... that's great for you. awesum.
Correction - everyone moved to Microsoft, particularly on the desktop. Linux still has roughly the same market share of the desktop as it did pre-systemd. Regardless, popularity isn't indicative of quality. Likewise, homogeneity is a WEAKNESS when it comes to security. If all of the routers from a specific brand share the same weakness (say, a factory backdoor password), all of those routers can be trivially hacked. If systemd has a security flaw that allows privilege escalation by manipulating PID1, every systemd based distro is possibly exposed. Diversity is a GOOD thing when it comes to security, as it limiting the attack surface (arguably systemd's biggest weakness is the lack of coherent design combined with owning PID1, poorly implementing lots of functionality that belongs in other packages (look at the DNS bugs in it), and constantly rewriting or adding more large chunks of code, so nobody can really be sure what any version is doing - it's alpha quality at best). See also the Pwnie award systemd "won".but my original point still stands. I don't think gentoo/gentoo devs should be required to give that. everyone moved to systemd. because hey... now linux has users. who would have known?! and gentoo should keep with the times. that's all i'm saying.
This just in. Gentoo gives you the freedom to do what you want with your system (at least when tyrannical devs aren't trying to force their choices on you), including the freedom to make mistakes and, most importantly, the freedom to learn. That said, I didn't have to do anything to make Gentoo an openrc system - everything works and all I did was block systemd to make sure a dev didn't try to force their opinions on me. I choose not to use GNOME 3 - there are literally dozens of other window managers in portage that someone might want instead of GNOME 3.the useflag "openrc" doesn't guaranty you an openrc distro. using the official portage tree you have to know some stuff to make an openrc distro out of gentoo. gentoo doesn't do it for you. especially if you want gnome3. so to say gentoo is an openrc distro is a lie.
Most packages don't hard depend on systemd. Instead, they have a soft preference which favors systemd because of the way that certain devs try to nudge you to do it their way. Some packages have tried to force users into systemd just because the maintainer wants to force systemd on people - a simple addition for a USE flag makes it go away. Sometimes, there's a bump which forces systemd but gets revised because the force was "an oversight" - it's happened enough that I don't believe it is simple coincidence, but I'm sure plenty of people have unwittingly switched to systemd, or at least stopped fighting it and let it take over, since they consistently "break" it in the favor of systemd.the night i first entered in this conversation, I was on a youtube run watching gentoo videos. SO MANY that support that idea. gentoo is the last openrc distro. it's not. it's simply not. even leaving gnome3 aside, there are tons of apps that pull systemd as a dependency and that is because it is. that program uses either this that or the other. I dont expect gentoo devs to make forks out of every single one of those programs just to avoid systemd.
Want one? Tell systemd to fix NFS. To them, it's WONTFIX NOTABUG. I don't have any problems with my NFS mounts though.and ultimately why? i can't think of ONE daemon that benefited from openrc shell type file but had to suffer under systemd.
Go through and read all the systemd threads here. We've spent hundreds of hours laying out the faults and it's gets tiring to have to restate them every time some new systemd crusader comes to repeat the same "hurr, you guys just don't understand it, you're too stuck in the past and don't want to learn anything new." We know C and we know what a mess the systemd code is. We know UNIX and we stick to the principle of "do one thing and do it well." We've discussed how the kernel has had great, modern IPC support for a decade that the systemd devs either chose to ignore, couldn't bother to investigate, didn't understand, or intentionally chose to reinvent poorly because NIH syndrome. Basically, educate yourself before you say you don't understand what our problem with systemd is.I really don't know / understand what y'all problem is with systemd. i really don't. i'm not trying to be thick or sarcastic. I just don't get it. It's C code that you can read for yourself. Where is the mistrust coming from? Why do people want to get stuck in the 80's with IPC? I honestly don't get it.