Re: OT: complaints about systemd
On 10/11/2014 07:36 PM, Andrew McGlashan wrote: On 11/10/2014 12:19 AM, Michael wrote: ... So... they want to turn Debian into Android, great NOT! DDs do your job, it is up to you to stop this mess getting even more out of hand. It strikes me that since this subject came up, not one single person has spoken in favor of systemd, or at least of what it seems to want to become. It isn't wise to go down a road unless you know where it leads, but if you do know where it leads, and you don't want to go there, then don't start down that road. What do the Grey Eminences have to say to this? Who decided that systemd was the way to go? Why did they? What are the merits of an init system that wants to control everything one day? Do they know that there is a groundswell of opposition, and on very sober grounds? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5439f332.6070...@eastlink.ca
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
On 11/10/2014 12:19 AM, Michael wrote: > > Speaking about exchanging complexity... > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html > (busy start with chapter 'User') > > All that under the hood of 'systemd' just appears like a trojan horse. They > should've called it DLL (Distributors-Less Linux) in the first place. > > And yes, they're gonna replace Login and the Linux VT console too :) just > about anything. So... they want to turn Debian into Android, great NOT! DDs do your job, it is up to you to stop this mess getting even more out of hand. A. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5439e925.2020...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
Christopher, The way it went, it seems to me the LOST party found a way to take the developer/maintainer base with them. Instead of starting from scratch, as a clearly announced project, they want the whole thing just like that. Already now, after their tiny init trojan rapidly swallowed anything, the distributions would shy the workload to reverse that decision (which by the way would be a shame for the responsible heads) and go with the flow. Meaning, they will watch their own gradual erosion (dubbed transformation) because "it's too late" and can't be helped. systemd is a micro black hole. In the beginning, just cute :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141010191304.4acb7...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
On 10 October 2014 12:40, Michael wrote: > At this point, think about architectures. (Thanks heaven we're a little > more on topic now ;) > > Especially Debian tries to support many architectures, at least as good as > resources provide. > > Lennarts Operating System Troll (LOST) resulting in DLL (Distributor-Less > Linux) woul probably remove support for the minor archs. The 'linux app' > market places replacing Distributors won't take responsibility for such a > difficult time-consuming task, and the developers themselves certainly > won't do it either. I can't see any solution to this problem. The diversity > of archs may simply vanish, in last consequence. > > Well, Poettering probably sees this as as a pro. > > Along the existing distribution framework, a great deal of community will > vanish too. > > But distributions are a place where concerned people meet and talk, and > work collaboratively. It's also a good starting point for developer > newcomers. And IMHO those 'superfluous' meetings about questions of whom to > support, where to go, or ideals and ideas like freedom in general, are a > core part of the whole thing. If the implications of SystemD turn out to be this disastrous, then this will lead to a flowering of new forks that eschew SystemD, and, further, it will lead to the death of a bunch of Linux distributions. It's bad, organizationally, for Debian, but a whole lot of the other "flowers/forks" come and go with little real fanfare, so this isn't so fundamental a change as may strike some... -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
At this point, think about architectures. (Thanks heaven we're a little more on topic now ;) Especially Debian tries to support many architectures, at least as good as resources provide. Lennarts Operating System Troll (LOST) resulting in DLL (Distributor-Less Linux) woul probably remove support for the minor archs. The 'linux app' market places replacing Distributors won't take responsibility for such a difficult time-consuming task, and the developers themselves certainly won't do it either. I can't see any solution to this problem. The diversity of archs may simply vanish, in last consequence. Well, Poettering probably sees this as as a pro. Along the existing distribution framework, a great deal of community will vanish too. But distributions are a place where concerned people meet and talk, and work collaboratively. It's also a good starting point for developer newcomers. And IMHO those 'superfluous' meetings about questions of whom to support, where to go, or ideals and ideas like freedom in general, are a core part of the whole thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141010184026.2921d...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
On 10/10/2014 06:58 AM, Jason Young wrote: At this point, it's a different OS, and one that seems to be a whole lot of work for seemingly not much of a result. I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around just what they're trying to do with this. With all these multiple versions of distros and DEs and such, it seems to me this is just setting up for even more bugs, user headaches, and huge amounts of wasted hard drive space. I'd like to think that were this forwarded to various distro heads, they'd drop systemd like the plague and invest in something like OpenRC, but I'm not very optimistic about that anymore. Brave New World -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543800cf.7060...@eastlink.ca
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
What I would like to stress is that systemd is practically incompatible and a great annoyance for both Hurd and kfreeBSD. OpenRC IMHO always seemed a better replacement for the traditional init. My 2 cents. On Oct 10, 2014 5:15 PM, "Jason Young" wrote: > Normally I'm content to lurk and read things that happen on this mailing > list, but what Michael here has linked has me where I just have to respond. > > If this is what the systemd people wanted in the first place, then > everything that has come before seems to be a deception. In the guise of > solving init problems, they mean to start a process that would end Linux as > we know it. > > At this point, it's a different OS, and one that seems to be a whole lot > of work for seemingly not much of a result. I'm honestly having a hard time > wrapping my head around just what they're trying to do with this. With all > these multiple versions of distros and DEs and such, it seems to me this is > just setting up for even more bugs, user headaches, and huge amounts of > wasted hard drive space. > > I'd like to think that were this forwarded to various distro heads, they'd > drop systemd like the plague and invest in something like OpenRC, but I'm > not very optimistic about that anymore. > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Michael wrote: > >> >> Speaking about exchanging complexity... >> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html >> (busy start with chapter 'User') >> >> All that under the hood of 'systemd' just appears like a trojan horse. >> They should've called it DLL (Distributors-Less Linux) in the first place. >> >> And yes, they're gonna replace Login and the Linux VT console too :) just >> about anything. >> >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >> listmas...@lists.debian.org >> Archive: >> https://lists.debian.org/20141010151905.2c679...@mirrors.kernel.org >> >> >
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
Normally I'm content to lurk and read things that happen on this mailing list, but what Michael here has linked has me where I just have to respond. If this is what the systemd people wanted in the first place, then everything that has come before seems to be a deception. In the guise of solving init problems, they mean to start a process that would end Linux as we know it. At this point, it's a different OS, and one that seems to be a whole lot of work for seemingly not much of a result. I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around just what they're trying to do with this. With all these multiple versions of distros and DEs and such, it seems to me this is just setting up for even more bugs, user headaches, and huge amounts of wasted hard drive space. I'd like to think that were this forwarded to various distro heads, they'd drop systemd like the plague and invest in something like OpenRC, but I'm not very optimistic about that anymore. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Michael wrote: > > Speaking about exchanging complexity... > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html > (busy start with chapter 'User') > > All that under the hood of 'systemd' just appears like a trojan horse. > They should've called it DLL (Distributors-Less Linux) in the first place. > > And yes, they're gonna replace Login and the Linux VT console too :) just > about anything. > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > https://lists.debian.org/20141010151905.2c679...@mirrors.kernel.org > >
OT: complaints about systemd
Speaking about exchanging complexity... http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html (busy start with chapter 'User') All that under the hood of 'systemd' just appears like a trojan horse. They should've called it DLL (Distributors-Less Linux) in the first place. And yes, they're gonna replace Login and the Linux VT console too :) just about anything. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141010151905.2c679...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: OT: complaints about systemd
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 02:53:56AM +0200, Michael wrote: > where did you find that ? I searched for the message I got at shutdown. This was on amd64. Hardly an unusual architecture. :) > Not here ? > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&product=systemd > > If you talk ARM then #74280 could apply. Besides pulseaudio IIRR is from the > same folks. It's also - since years - among the first things i rip off > standard installations. > > Or maybe ? > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33421 > which demonstrates a nice shot in their own knee, plus Big L (c) favorite > approach to solve systemd bugs: By adding systemd support to xyz package. > Well, on second thought they went for the standard ugly workaround (around > design flaws). > My bad mood again, i need my pills |-) > > ugh i really think it's time to change the subject (done.) And overly complicated system that wasn't designed with proper debuging in mind. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141010023536.gc4...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
OT: complaints about systemd
Lennart, > shutting down samba by the looks of it. Seems to be bug #762002. where did you find that ? Not here ? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&product=systemd If you talk ARM then #74280 could apply. Besides pulseaudio IIRR is from the same folks. It's also - since years - among the first things i rip off standard installations. Or maybe ? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33421 which demonstrates a nice shot in their own knee, plus Big L (c) favorite approach to solve systemd bugs: By adding systemd support to xyz package. Well, on second thought they went for the standard ugly workaround (around design flaws). My bad mood again, i need my pills |-) ugh i really think it's time to change the subject (done.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141010025356.6b755...@mirrors.kernel.org
