On 08/18/2013 03:53 AM, Alessio Ababilov wrote: > > > > 2013/8/18 Daniel Campbell <li...@sporkbox.us <mailto:li...@sporkbox.us>> > > On 08/17/2013 02:26 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder > <andreas_e...@gmx.net <mailto:andreas_e...@gmx.net>> wrote: > >> On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote: > >> > >>>> But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system > >>>> that doesn't legitimately require it is silly. I don't even > >>>> have /usr mounted separately, but there are many, many > >>>> different system configurations out there and Gentoo is famous > >>>> for supporting a wide variety. That variety is stomped on if > >>>> something like a /usr merge is forced. It also makes building > >>>> your default environment more complicated due to generating an > >>>> initramfs. > >>> > >>> Absolutely agreed. > >> > >> Might be a good time to switch to freebsd :-( > > > > I agree. This is the only escape plan against the new wind of > > dictation into monolithic approach that comes from systemd sponsors > > direction. > > > > Let's see how it turns out... if Linux userspace will become like the > > Windows user space, then freebsd suddenly looks very promising > > alternative. > > > > Regards, > > Alon > > > > I've considered this as well. It's simply beyond me why so many people > are willing to drink the kool-aid from a *single upstream* and let them > shape the entire GNU/Linux landscape. It's one thing to support an > *option*, but quite another to *force* users to use this option. Systemd > itself doesn't look to be forced yet, but if the requirements for it are > forced onto users, forcing systemd afterwards would be child's play. I > saw this in action when I used Arch. It started with bash functions in > their init scripts calling some systemd tools. Then the /usr merge. > Eventually systemd itself was pushed. I'm beginning to lose confidence > that Gentoo will avoid the same fate as Arch. Even Debian is falling to > the systemd crowd. If this keeps up, it's only a matter of time before > systemd infects every Linux-based distribution and BSD will be the only > major free OS to avoid it. Red Hat may end up digging its claws into the > kernel itself. What will protect the Linux landscape, if not distros > like Gentoo that supposedly support user choice? Will all users who give > a damn be forced to run LFS or Slackware if they wish to use Linux as > their kernel? Maintain their own portage|pacman|deb repos and keep > systems free of systemd? Where does the madness end? > > systemd is devouring other daemons. udev was the first victim, and now > consolekit is dead and replaced with systemd-logind. Who knows what will > be the next? > > Gentoo guys maintain now eudev. Ubuntu (which avoids systemd and uses > its own upstart) splits systemd into several parts and happily uses > them. The second way seems to be easier for me. > > BTW, what are you arguments against systemd (except for /usr merge)? > > Best regards, > Alessio Ababilov
Systemd has a monolithic design, is headed by an egotist with no respect for other developers, and cannibalizes other projects. The projects it can't cannibalize will be strongarmed into irrelevance. Couple this with Red Hat employees working on both systemd and GNOME, with a very clear agenda to vertically integrate them, and you have a recipe for a closed and/or heavily limited operating system. This is becoming clear with the way GTK+ 3.x is handled, too. I don't approve of an init system (or any other software) becoming everything-and-the-kitchen-sink. UNIX philosophy is being forgotten by these developers, and they openly condemn it while benefiting from it at the same time. While the job of init could be argued as complex or multifaceted, an init system can still "do one thing, and do it well": Bring the system to an initial state. At the core, it means populate sysfs (or an equivalent), start the specified daemons, load the relevant modules, and standby until an event signals it to shutdown or restart. No splash screens needed, no need to swallow a device management system, no need to replace logging mechanisms, and so on. Coupling systemd with udev was a political move, not a technical one. It was a deliberate effort to force their software on the FOSS world, with the false pretense of "standardization", which is a buzzword among developers that's effective at garnering support. The sad part is people bought it. They will regret this move.
