Re: Avoiding system d
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:25:52AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: snip - I don't have the time for the trouble it would take to address this It is indeed much easier to throw mud than to bake bricks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140515070515.ga29...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: Avoiding system d
Hi, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez: [...] they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their stuff. http://www.landley.net/notes.html#23-04-2014 IMHO this is a gross mis-characterization. A whole lot more correct IMHO would be the idea that their developer time is best spent fixing the bugs / anachronisms / take-your-pick in other packages so that they work with systemd, instead of implementing soon-to- be-obsolete and nontrivial-to-maintain workarounds within systemd. It's also demonstrably false. Otherwise systemd would not be compatible with existing SysV init scripts (to the point that I can run them manually and, if they happen to load the LSB stuff, they transparently redirect themselves through systemd), systemd would not forward to rsyslog, … -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140513094413.gh13...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Avoiding system d
On Tue, 13 May 2014 11:44:13 +0200, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote: It's also demonstrably false. Otherwise systemd would not be compatible with existing SysV init scripts (to the point that I can run them manually and, if they happen to load the LSB stuff, they transparently redirect themselves through systemd), systemd would not forward to rsyslog, … Systemd upstream is doing the bare minimum to make systemd appear as if it would interface to legacy technology since they know that noone would migrate to their product if they didn't make the impression of being compatible. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1wkd03-0004xo...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Avoiding system d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/13/2014 05:44 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez: [...] they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their stuff. http://www.landley.net/notes.html#23-04-2014 IMHO this is a gross mis-characterization. snip - I don't have the time for the trouble it would take to address this It's also demonstrably false. Otherwise systemd would not be compatible with existing SysV init scripts (to the point that I can run them manually and, if they happen to load the LSB stuff, they transparently redirect themselves through systemd), systemd would not forward to rsyslog, … systemd being compatible with existing infrastructure is not a point in contradiction of they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their stuff, since that compatibility only comes into play if you are, in fact, using systemd. The practice of tying different things together in such a way that you can't use one of them without using the others, particularly when the one in question may be depended on or required by something not actually related to any of the others at all, might be closer to the point being raised. I understand that, and potentially why, it may make sense internally to have different components of the systemd project (is there a better name for this? systemd, journald, logind, possibly polkit / consolekit if I'm reading parts of the discussion correctly, the list apparently goes on) interdepend on one another, to package (some of) them together rather than separately, to have dbus services used outside of systemd be implemented (only) in (a way which depends on) systemd, et cetera. I do, however, still think that this sort of design is bad from a perspective of interacting with outside software, unless your goal is in fact for your software to become unavoidable (or avoidable only with considerable effort) - i.e., as quoted above, to take away the option of not using your software. Which isn't to say that the systemd developers and/or advocates necessarily think of things that way; it's entirely possible that any given one of them, or even all of them, may be operating entirely in good faith at all times. That doesn't change what it looks like from outside, though, which is what leads to views and comments like the one quoted above. - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTcitwAAoJEASpNY00KDJrEyYQAKB4spfqDA6IvP1J1+EWf9Qr Snd1R4gPvJPtKr9MM3MOZfhJpEmLO8vygJH3qL3rrO+BMB8O7ASsbrL2XZArPG4T 20vNs3cf2vje2MJkrkh8EDGEBroahK/BkEkJeNxyM9DK3UHdigERu3SbmthUY05I Z8hTB+BNMHzqKR/Ot7mlNs6Af69wy5JPyD9VeLgdFy9PP5dWg26lXN9jrRQW+9/9 vYdoHjmGYLU9/DgAZ7y6NRD/lX60/IEjzQ8IbIlnITRz+C1h628MGhAs6Wf6iPqk Mc3Bxxq5P4o/0+2HbpX7nImC4mvVkDyLKmY7mqM1xWnxCY6Wy/dtbHqlFcbyNf7y fXWwJZFOejc+uSvtAphFmE+LDNvbl9u1dTa7rX++qQtFneNFev7BzPRFQfiPBXNh NP99uqrlvp+dGMX67NH/veVbnwEOgYUwPVIziKg8sCcwOAzhKS9dWmn6El9IeECb XgUCT/boWO3zVVGVUfeXbR8JAQtWR3xsKevf96rY7mbcgw+Ooq6I3OiZtnkuVTY4 mD7Gwgu7JmQKbrnCZgdvowhgMPhRADB/DzhbsLKw0jQDWAoS6cdqNLCJOSY1JtAG pqzXHXYOSbutoAH22yhpVEE80gf9x0uIs88eh11jZBcdXluiVuKJI/ZpW6yEwIoo NIF7XiKNm2dulEJY+PoB =yuai -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53722b70.7010...@fastmail.fm
Re: Avoiding system d
Hi, since the discussion goes back and forth on this blog-post, I thought I throw in the actual answer of lennart poettering to it: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/aSYnf3wNf8h And this is pretty much all of my contribution to it, it just annoyed me, that no one seemed to mention that there is an official answer to this. Best, Axel Wagner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ha4td5g1.fsf@rincewind.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Re: Avoiding system d
Hi Carlos and Marc, At Mon, 12 May 2014 04:21:10 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: On 11/05/14 09:18, Marc Haber wrote: Something along the lines of systemd is technically needed and a good idea, but the people behind it do not come along nice. Completely agree. While I also agree with that having read some responses of systemd developers developers that could have been nicer, I think it is ironic to call out the systemd developers for not being nice and then post statements like this: The systemd developers are responding to upstart and launchd and android init as things they must _defeat_, an establish a new standard by crushing all the competing implementations. This means developers who want gradual staged transitions, and thus ask questions like what if I don't want to switch yet, or how do I get the old behavior out of the new thing, are enemies of systemd. Those questions are anathema to the systemd plan for world domination, if you're not using their stuff already you're the enemy, a relic of history to be buried. We can't opt out and see how it goes, we must fight to stay where we are. The systemd developers are basically taking the Microsoft approach to development: they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their stuff. http://www.landley.net/notes.html#23-04-2014 Or this: At Sun, 11 May 2014 15:55:48 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Sun, 11 May 2014 14:50:55 +0200, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: There is no way to avoid the userspace.exe blob Debian is soon made of. To be fair, the major Linuxes will soon be made of that. Red Hat wants it that way. Maybe you should think about how your fellow Debian developers who have no association with Red Hat but just think systemd is technically better and who are working hard to get systemd working right in Debian feel when reading such statements. And while we as Debian can't do much about upstream maintainers not being nice, we can at least try to set a good example by being nice ourself... Kind regards, Jeroen Dekkers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oaz39qaj.wl%jer...@dekkers.ch
Re: Avoiding system d
On Sat, 10 May 2014 19:47:10 +0100, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote: On Sat 10 May 2014 at 12:05:25 -0400, John wrote: A couple of quotes from your mail: I find myself appalled at the rude and domineering attitudes of almost all systemd's defenders. You're not looking for flames? You're kidding, aren't you? Your technical question is wrapped up in flame-baiting. Sorry if that comes around at flame-baiting, but John describes the way the systemd world socially interacts with its outside quite accurately. It is the same for me: social interaction with systemd (and this includes reading bug reports and mailing lists without participating actively) takes fun out of using Linux for me just for the social sake. Something along the lines of systemd is technically needed and a good idea, but the people behind it do not come along nice. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1wjo1i-0001sj...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Avoiding system d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/11/2014 03:18 AM, Marc Haber wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2014 19:47:10 +0100, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote: On Sat 10 May 2014 at 12:05:25 -0400, John wrote: A couple of quotes from your mail: I find myself appalled at the rude and domineering attitudes of almost all systemd's defenders. You're not looking for flames? You're kidding, aren't you? Your technical question is wrapped up in flame-baiting. Sorry if that comes around at flame-baiting, but John describes the way the systemd world socially interacts with its outside quite accurately. It is the same for me: social interaction with systemd (and this includes reading bug reports and mailing lists without participating actively) takes fun out of using Linux for me just for the social sake. Something along the lines of systemd is technically needed and a good idea, but the people behind it do not come along nice. Well said. This expresses a large and important part of my own viewpoint on this. Even if you change nothing about the software itself, think about how you present yourselves, people! Saying something different, or even only saying the same thing differently, can make a very large difference in how people perceive and react to you - and to what you're advocating. I don't post often, but when I do, I often go well out of my way and take considerable trouble to try to get this right. (Though I also often fail in the attempt.) - -- The Wanderer (me too!) Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTb2x/AAoJEASpNY00KDJrUfcP+QGf0AADuUNR4UKBNKsfAFqa JXxhVcs8OpXiorAaV8ZUHGm4ozaU5xEDf9hi0TYMMsrX8KZJ2PHk/OTWig8vXSNd XTvLdJIppIRBbZ7ZbAMLFPsd9bOMo/XDohxqFCyct7EitJeyD/j+LoXDsqMWbY98 9ErTg9BCxqObPC0kvV0/2Lai3voiW+dBcAkdTDWnhUUnx+3HRpcOJnKz/SxflqMb k/m5zKzg9n5sOODdTxNzNYcswqvBDIsw8X+MQ73aQV15TvMn8lf2PSGR9kjYdZwS kAJMfaEpxBUQ2vtBRU2+3FmYF28EshWHNAmg06cIMD4ztPozOUbnYnhnT+mEytwP d2W40AWiCQDUzLXFubHtoo8voKvBKtptsiXeqx8CAspPwVRWTH8ZcXv88G5YiyEy RLta4e4+ud7+VV3NpEOdAAh149785DVqtVLvORtavbzCcXBF1JQZLboiU2jIUGVg EWMWh3XyGd/1h4/GOgykaolidWNFrdMuRNEn6U0QLFi4SIDox7uS7U1FawUnAqix QfJyvYB4Z5ii/AHl0SHdpaxmdyyymZXN6RTKm5V4gVB7zdey8dErCXrdw//5EUjl SSORt6z078kmASAFRutipaFWM4xxN3tJh6Hy1YnLW6hV/QSmP0JVCDs4T0Y4DKA0 f+LNU5QwaA0cYrhCP5gM =Hn7q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536f6c80.9010...@fastmail.fm
Re: Avoiding system d
On 11/05/14 09:18, Marc Haber wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2014 19:47:10 +0100, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote: On Sat 10 May 2014 at 12:05:25 -0400, John wrote: A couple of quotes from your mail: I find myself appalled at the rude and domineering attitudes of almost all systemd's defenders. You're not looking for flames? You're kidding, aren't you? Your technical question is wrapped up in flame-baiting. Sorry if that comes around at flame-baiting, but John describes the way the systemd world socially interacts with its outside quite accurately. It is the same for me: social interaction with systemd (and this includes reading bug reports and mailing lists without participating actively) takes fun out of using Linux for me just for the social sake. Something along the lines of systemd is technically needed and a good idea, but the people behind it do not come along nice. Completely agree. I think the following article resumes very well the attitude of those developers pushing for systemd: The systemd developers are responding to upstart and launchd and android init as things they must _defeat_, an establish a new standard by crushing all the competing implementations. This means developers who want gradual staged transitions, and thus ask questions like what if I don't want to switch yet, or how do I get the old behavior out of the new thing, are enemies of systemd. Those questions are anathema to the systemd plan for world domination, if you're not using their stuff already you're the enemy, a relic of history to be buried. We can't opt out and see how it goes, we must fight to stay where we are. The systemd developers are basically taking the Microsoft approach to development: they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their stuff. http://www.landley.net/notes.html#23-04-2014 About the original question of John: I think that apt/preferences is not the best way to avoid something to be installed. I tried it on the past, and when apt don't has another way of solving the dependencies it will install the unwanted package anyway. The most efficient way I found to avoid a package to be installed, is to create a meta-package that conflicts with the one(s) you want to avoid, and put that package on hold. Thorsten has uploaded a package that conflicts with the systemd ones [1], you can install it, and put it on hold. That should avoid any systemd bits on your system until you unhold or remove the package systemd-must-die. To put it on hold (after installing it): echo systemd-must-die hold | sudo dpkg --set-selections And check that it is on hold with: dpkg --get-selections | grep hold Regards! [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general/193110 http://users.unixforge.de/~tglaser/debs/dists/etch/wtf/Pkgs/mirabilos-support/systemd-must-die_8_all.deb signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Avoiding system d
On Sat 10 May 2014 at 12:05:25 -0400, John wrote: Thanks for practical help. I'm not looking for more flames. A couple of quotes from your mail: I find myself appalled at the rude and domineering attitudes of almost all systemd's defenders. I don't trust them. You're not looking for flames? You're kidding, aren't you? Your technical question is wrapped up in flame-baiting. And you also post to -devel and -user. Getting the audience and attention looks like a prime aim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/10052014193615.5f8bd6799...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
