On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:48:11AM -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote: > > To answer Alan's question - the main fault lies on the GNOME project and > the forcing for systemd down user's systems throats. > > Additionally, as certina things were added to Linux to "enhance" > capabilities, the GNOME developers (apparently) *deliberately* placed > the programs in /usr/bin, instead of in the generally accepted place of > /bin. > > Alan is correct - there is a deliberate cause of this debacle. Certain > folks (Lennart being one of many) *are* cramming their vision of Linux > on the whole community. > > I have read severl folks defending their ignoring of the old protocol of > placing boot-required programs in /bin (and hence on root) as being > holdovers from "ancient history" and claiming that disk space is so > cheap these days that it "isn't necessary" to keep this distinction. > > As a result of the GNOMEish forcing, some distros have even gone so far > as to *do away* with /bin - and have placed everything in /usr/bin with > compatibility symlinks as a holdover/workaround. > > I lay this at the feet of GNOME, and thus, at the feet of RedHat. > > Linux used to be about *choice* aand leaving up to the users/admins > about how they wanted to configure their systems. But certain forces in > the Linux marketplace are hell-bent on imitating Microsoft's "one way to > do it" thinking that they are outdoing the "evil empire's" evilness. > > I fully understand systemd and see that it is a solution seeking a > problem to solve. And its developers, being nearly identical with the > set of GNOME developers, are forcing this *thing* on the Linux universe. > > Certainly, the SystemV init system needed to have a way of > *automagically/automatically* handling a wider set of dependencies. When > we wrote if for System IV at Bell Labs in 1981 or so, we didn't have the > time to solve the problem of having the computer handle the dependencies > and moved the handling out to the human mind to solve by setting the > numerical sequence numbers. (I was one of the writers for System IV > init while a contractor.) > > OpenRC provided a highly compatible and organic extension of the system, > and Gentoo has been happy for severl years with it. But now, the same > folks who are thrusting GNOME/systemd down the throats of systems > everywhere, have invaded or gained converts enought in the Gentoo > structure to try and force their way on Gentoo. > > Gentoo may be flexible enough to allow someone to write an overlay that > moves the necessary things back to /bin (and install symlinks from > /usr/bin to /bin) so that an initrd/initramfs is not required. But I > suspect that Gentoo and many distributions are too far gone down the > path of deception to recover. > > Neil and other may disagree with this assessment, but I saw it coming > and this is not the first time it has been pointed out - and not just by me. > > Who knows though? I may just have to abandon prepared distributions > completely and do a Linux From Scratch solution, or fork some distro and > tey to undo the worst of the damage. > > -- > G.Wolfe Woodbury > redwo...@gmail.com
And that, folks, is the best and most accurate summary I've read to date. Thank you, sir, for stepping up to the plate. A friend of mine has his own Linux distro (has for a long time), and explained this to me some time ago. He's not effected by this. Bruce -- Happy Penguin Computers >') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
