Le 21/03/2015 17:52, Go Linux a écrit :
On Sat, 3/21/15, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2015, 11:25 AM
Didier Kryn wrote:
We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this
looks like a sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this
thread started with questioning the long term policy.
For sure, if one wants systemd, this one should install Debian, or
RH. Also, to all of us, anybody trying to provide systemd for Devuan
would be suspect of being malevolent
However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate systemd
and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the reasons to
reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of rules for
acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for users,
developpers, and distros to easily share. I see these rules as an
addendum to the definition of free software.
These rules would obviously put systemd out of the free-software
category, let's call it anti-freedom, which is worse than non-free.
This does not mean there needs to be an anti-freedom repository, after
all :-)
This leaves no room for systemd-contaminated software, except if
the systemd API can be replaced by a do-otherwise/do-nothing stub.
That raises an interesting point - might be time to think about refining
the definition of "free software" (per
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
A program is free software if the program's users have the four
essential freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is
a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance
to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
Perhaps it's time to add something along the lines of "the freedom to
install software without it taking over your machine" (obviously this
needs work, or we'd it would eliminate things like the kernel, file
system, etc.).
Miles Fidelman
--------------------------------------------
Miles . . . you might want to revisit hellekin's draft constitution:
https://git.devuan.org/devuan/devuan-project/wikis/HellekinConstitutionDraft
This is near the top:
"Devuan fosters a diversity of approaches to avoid technical lock-ins to specific
implementations"
There are other interesting ideas in there also that answer to your concerns.
golinux
True. This description of the project contains already a lot of the
ideas we are shaking on the list.
There are still concerns about the fact that some of the software
we use are big hairballs and enforce technical lock-ins. Eg. the Linux
kernel and the X-Window system. There's also the issue of non-free
binary blobs, like proprietary firmwares and drivers. We must accept
some of these for the sake of having a working OS.
BUT, everywhere there is choice, the solution(s) in the spirit of
KISS and UNIX shall be preferred and the others rejected. Only when we
haven't the choice will we install the non-KISS/non-UNIX.
For the moment, the only replacement for X-Window, Wayland is
certainly also a big hairball; this may simply mean that it can't be
otherwise. Same for the Linux kernel.
But for system startup/shutdown and service supervision, there's a
host of solutions. This also means systemd violates KISS and UNIX not by
necessity but either by inconsideration or by intention.
Do you think it could be a valid criteria, "Software violating GPL,
KISS or DOTADIW is accepted only if there is no possible replacement" ?
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
