akhiezer wrote:
Armin was maint lfs-sysd already. Why not 'promote' that to the 'official'
lfs-sysd branch, you/a.n.other head-up the lfs-non-sysd(aka *nix) branch,
and you (e.g.) head-up the lfs-combined branch. It seems that lfs-sysd
branch got 'clobbered' or had the carpet pulled out from under it.
Not at all. He just hasn't made many changes lately.
* I think too that sysd really just moves complexity around, re-casting
it, rather than solving for it; and that notions otherwise - e.g. re
startup/process dep-tree, removing the 'need' for knowing shell scripting,
etc - are substantially illusory.
I agree with this point. Some things are just inherently complex. As a
rule, things should be made as simple as possible...and no simpler.
* It's open-source but a semi- closed-system, with much potential for some
vendor-lockin: in those latter two respects I kindof bracket it with say
windows, mac, oracle, ibm, cisco, &c&c&c; working with sysd is in many
respects just like working with those, in that there's a 'particular' way
of doing things, within a variously-rigid vendor-defined framework. That's
just an observation, not a value judgement: they are what they are, it's
part of the landscape; and if linux-userland wants to head down that route
then, well, these things happen; likewise for linux-kernel. Somethings
will step into the places they've left behind.
Actually, most people don't care. They just do yum install or apt-get
install and move on. It's only users like us who delve somewhat into
the internals that care.
* Think it's reasonable to say that there's a lot of untrustworthiness
attached to the players behind sysd. They seem to have had enough of
what they see as the bazaar and they think that they're replacing it
with what they see as a cathedral. As for the 'politics', machinations
and manoeuvrings: in part it's 'just' types of stereotypically-negative
corporatised behaviour - e.g. some of the attitudes to *nix userland
have been like a hostile takeover (and they're 'noising-up' players in
the linux kernel that are not their people). Their arguments change to
suit whatever stage in their overall programme that they are at: but
overlaying that there's the attitude that if you want to fool enough
people, pick a big-enough (package of) lie(s) and repeat it often enough
until enough people believe it; and when one stage is done & consolidated,
move on to the next.
This is the political aspect. I can't say I disagree.
What we can't get away from is that there are a substantial number of
packages that require systemd. The number of those is growing. As much
as I'd like to avoid systemd, I don't see how we can.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
