17.02.2014 00:19, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-...@yandex.ru> wrote:
[ snip ]
Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of
systemd? ;)
As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical.
Even religious.
Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why
the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion).
Oh I have read so many discussions already... :)
To me, systemd's technical superiority is far not obvious. Just another
init system would be, but as long as systemd is much more that one, I
can't say that. It should NOT be compared to OpenRC / upstart alone,
rather to a whole bunch of tools it replaces, and probably even those
it's ambitious to replace.
I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into any
existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just practical
uselessness?
If it's "practically useless", why so many distributions keep choosing
it? Why GNOME started using it?
Well, I said that technical superiority matters little for maintainers;
what matters is money. If I'd write some super-puper fancy init system
and kernel replacement, who would be interested? It's not the time of
Linus' rise, now you don't deal with USENET freaks, but with Intel,
RedHat and other billionaire corps. Do you have the guts and means to
keep up with competitors, even not about kernel/init subsystems, but a
user app like mailer/browser/messenger...
A kernel subsystem requires much more technical competence to maintain
and is far more critical for functioning, so much more important here is
not any 'technical superiority' but simply resources, human and
financial, spared if using RH-maintained systemd.
Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the Linux
kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of
kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has much
in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us it
provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc.
All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft
becomes moot.
Once you mentioned "technical superiority", let's compare other stuff
technically too. :)
A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the
questions:
1. Is the software standards-compliant?
2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation?
3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal?
4. Does the software achieve the goal?
5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"?
6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be like?
7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or group?
That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care
if Emacs is "standards-compliant" (whatever that means for a text
editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible
implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be
yes.
You don't care about Emacs and Inkscape but do you care the same nought
about e.g. /bin/cp, /bin/mv etc? Do you care that your browser talks
HTTP rather than SHiTP? Do you care that once after a couple of years
your systems get unmaintained and unmaintainable because the software on
them becomes a load of bashed up crap which only a world's head lennart
can deal with? Well, you'll say that red hat tralala, but we've seen the
rise and fall of many giants e.g. Sun with their once 'technically
superior' Solaris and SPARCs, well one can name many I just don't have
time, also we seen MySQL bought by Oracle, and all.
Nothing is eternal, and it's (Again!) quite not always technical matters
that matters.
AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are dubious
if just plain "no".
From your point of view.
I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to switch
to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and the benefit,
if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold.
That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and
unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd,
then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start
maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it.
At present, no. But the trend is clear.
That's how free software works.
Actually, free software (one you don't pay for) works like any other
software you pay for. You probably wanted to say "that's how the OSS
model works" but it's getting less and less true. The OSS model in many
cases retains only its open source. Take MySQL, take KDE, take GNOME.
Who cares about users? We do what we deem feasible regardless if you
like it or not. Don't like it? C'mon, fork, it's free. C'mon, it's
technically superior. C'mon, who are you? An admin? A programmer? A
Bachelor/PhD? Ha, man, we're BILLIONAIRES. That says it. We GRANT you
our software AS IS. And its source. And its bugtrackers. We make
business by the fact that we have millions of free testers 'round the
world. We can afford that. If you can afford forking and maintaining,
c'mon man.
But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. Time
is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, twice the
money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the users' opinion. To
be a realist, one has to admit that in near future 90% of new distro
versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx emerge and take over
Red Hat...
I don't think neither time nor money had to do with Debian's (nor
Arch's, nor OpenSuse's, nor Maegia's, nor Sabayon's) decision.
It's not in terms "think" or "don't think". It's a fact.
It's just technically superior. But's that's just my opinion, and what
I believe ;)
That's a good thing to believe in. It's hard to prove, hard to see,
impossible to test all cases.
Money is what you don't believe in. You either have it enough or not.
So, amen? :D
Amen. :D
Regards.
--
Regards,
Yuri K. Shatroff
