On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Friday 20 January 2012 23:03, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Karol Lewandowski
> > > <k.lewando...@samsung.com> wrote:
> > > > Support userspace applications like udev and systemd logging directly
> > > > to kernel's log buffer.
> > >
> > > I hate systemd.
> >
> > Control your feelings. Hate is low. This is not the proper place/time.
> >
> > > I don't understand why I need to support its idiotic design decisions.
> >
> > Feelings aside, because it's here and catched enough attention and it
> > isn't about you.
>
> Sorry, I am not ready to accept whatever is forced down my throat.
Now, that's a better argument ;)
> The problem is that systemd was sold as a better replacement
> of init (and it indeed has some valuable ideas in that area),
> but it infiltrates other areas of userspace whcih have absolutely
> nothing to do with init and service monitoring job.
And that one even better.
> Here are helper programs systemd installs on Fedora machine:
>
> $ ls -l /lib/systemd/systemd*
[...]
> and it does use many of them! Tell me, what can possibly systemd-localed
> have with "better init and servce monitoring tool"?
> Or "systemd-reply-password"? Or "systemd-fsck"? Etc...
Replacements for existing init-scripts on desktops?
I can't see any reason why busybox should "support" any of that, either.
If systemd needs more than replacing /sbin/init, they're free to fork
busybox and/or maintain an invasive patch that hooks those "nice" features
into busybox.
> It seems that the fact that systemd was accepted into a few Linux
> distributions is used by systemd people as a backdoor to supplant many
> other packages, without consent or even knowledge of the people
> affected.
Indeed, that seems to be the stategy. World domination ;)
> And it is not an accident. These people do it on purpose. They build
> a "platform".
>
> I have no problem with anyone building something. I have a problem
> when someone forces this "something" on me.
Pitty you feel that way. A NAK (and ignoring further requests) should be
sufficient. Any "lobbying" going on in the background?
> So, how about me playing by these rules? I don't like ifup, so
> I'll remove it from busybox. And, btw, I don't like init,
> I think runsvdir is better. Get ready to say goodbye to init too.
> And, btw, getty will be gone too: use stty + login. I have many more
> of this in store.
>
> Would you like this?
Don't forget, it was not _me_ that asked for that sort of thing.
It was the OP, Karol Lewandowski <k.lewando...@samsung.com>. Found
[1] another interesting proposal authored by the same man, that kindof
supports the "world domination" theory ;)
Solution seems rather simple - configure bash with
--wihout-bash-malloc to use system/glibc-provided malloc.
But, seriously... Just forget the whole episode, if you can.
You're doing good work with busybox. Thanks.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/613803
Cheers,
--
Cristian
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
