Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 06:36:37 +0800 Robert Storey wrote: > Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real. > > Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long > ago when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved > Hurd project into the trash can. If he really called someone a > "troll" for asking his opinion of systemd, then my feeling about RMS > has gone down a couple of notches. > > Well, RMS doesn't do anymore development work as far as I know, so > maybe his opinion doesn't matter. Still, as a well-known time-honored > spokesperson for "free software" (I know he doesn't want us calling it > "open source") I would have expected better. Pity. > > cheers, > Robert Whoa, everyone's blowing this up way out of proportion. Stallman's first, second, third, through a hundred and nineteenth priorities are Free Software as defined by the four freedoms. So of course he doesn't have an opinion on systemd's construction or politics. So when questioned about systemd, he said it's free software, and we can make up our own minds. That's just a stone fact, and is far from calling us trolls. Then some typical systemd sycophant characterized the question characterized Stallman's answer as "brilliantly blocking a systemd troll". Not Stallman's fault. As far as Hurd, I'm not surprised. Stallman's not in love with the Linux kernel, and I doubt that he cares whether systemd is runnable in Hurd. And as far as this excluding Hurd from "the new Debian", he's probably as contemptuous of the Debian community as I am. Guys, this whole thing is no big deal. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:00:40 -0500 "T.J. Duchene" wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Didier Kryn [mailto:k...@in2p3.fr] > > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:04 AM > > To: dng@lists.dyne.org > > Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied? > > > > We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this > > looks like a sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this > > thread started with questioning the long term policy. > > [T.J. Duchene] Nothing wrong with that. I'm just and only saying > that if Devuan's goal is to release Devuan 1.0, then the best and > most reliable QA process would be not to support anything related to > systemd in the initial release. For the time being, system is out of > the question. It can always be reevaluated in Devuan 1.5 or 2.0 but > to bring "systemd support" up now is a distraction. The initial > policy should be followed, and this should be tabled until after > Devuan 1.0 is completed. It's all a question of follow-through. > Devuan 1.0 is a critical thing, and the project has to "make good" > and deliver; Devuan can't change policy without having to reconsider > every piece of work already completed. I feel that is > counterproductive. > > > > > However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate > > systemd and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the > > reasons to reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of > > rules for acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for > > users, developpers, and distros to easily share. I see these rules > > as an addendum to the definition of free software. > > > [T.J. Duchene] While I admit that seems to be the "flavor of the day" > from some, I don't hate anyone. I don't have time to be petty; I have > work to do. With respect to everyone, I simply do not care if they > disagree with me or not, and I say so. That does not mean that I am > unreasonable or won't admit when I am wrong. > > > > > This leaves no room for systemd-contaminated software, except > > if the systemd API can be replaced by a do-otherwise/do-nothing > > stub. > > [T.J. Duchene] Frankly, Didier, I think that that is inevitable that > Devuan 2.0 (and after) will have to include a systemd shim or stub. > Third party projects upstream are going to do whatever is in the best > interests of their users, and asking them to do otherwise - that is > unreasonable. The majority of their users have systemd, whether we > personally like it or not. Some form of API support will be needed. > > See you! > T.J. T.J. Do you understand what mailing list this is? Why in the *world* would we go to the substantial trouble of depoetterizing Debian if we wanted systemd to sneak back in via some form of API. And as far as the majority of users having systemd, no, the majority of users have Windows, and that doesn't tempt me to make the OS I work with everyday more Windows like. "Most users" don't cut no ice in LinuxLand. Hey, we're not telling you not to use systemd. There's Debian, Red Hat, Fedora, Arch, OpenSuSE, and dozens more. Why you want Devuan to have any accommodation for systemd is a mystery to me. And speaking just for me, myself, and I, I *do* hate systemd, that's my choice, I got kicked off Debian-User for that reason, I'm proud of that, and if this all makes me petty, I'm proud to be petty. Hey T.J., you're not in ArmstrongLand anymore: *lots* of us here hate everything systemd represents, and don't want the slightest vestige of it on our machines. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
> On March 21, 2015 at 6:36 PM Robert Storey wrote: > > Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real. > > Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long ago > when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved Hurd > project into the trash can. If he really called someone a "troll" for > asking his opinion of systemd, then my feeling about RMS has gone down a > couple of notches. RMS didn't call me a troll, he answered the question. Somebody else took it upon himself to refer to the question as trolling. I haven't decided yet whether to speak to that person tomorrow about it. Peter Olson > Well, RMS doesn't do anymore development work as far as I know, so maybe > his opinion doesn't matter. Still, as a well-known time-honored > spokesperson for "free software" (I know he doesn't want us calling it > "open source") I would have expected better. Pity. > > cheers, > Robert > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
> On March 21, 2015 at 12:25 PM Miles Fidelman > wrote: > Perhaps it's time to add something along the lines of "the freedom to > install software without it taking over your machine" (obviously this > needs work, or we'd it would eliminate things like the kernel, file > system, etc.). > > Miles Fidelman Freedom 0 probably already covers this. The freedom to run a program, as you wish, includes the freedom not to run the program, if that is what you wish. Peter Olson ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
> The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least > common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress. This is simply not true. A key hallmark of good application design is to keep the business logic as decoupled as possible from the layers beneath it, thereby enabling both freedom of choice for the user and independence from the application's needs for the stack's developers. Often, this is achieved by means of a "driver" that translates requests from the business logic to the underlying layers and back. For example, ZFS offers many similar features to btrfs, including subvolumes. Moreover, lvm lets you create subvolumes too, and you could emulate a subvolume on a vanilla filesystem by keeping each "subvolume" in a separate flat file. A well-designed application that lets you activate/deactivate different classes of subvolumes for different application suites (as Lennart proposed) would define a driver model for interfacing with a sufficiently capable filesystem, and would ship with driver implementations for interfacing with btrfs subvolumes, ZFS subvolumes, lvm volumes, and "emulated" subvolumes. The application suite management aspect of the program does not need to be coupled to the underlying filesystem implementation; keeping them separate makes it easy to add support for new filesystems and volume managers beyond what the original developers thought of. Coupling the application's business logic to lower layers in the stack prevents these wonderful properties from manifesting. -Jude On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:42 PM, wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber - > reisenwe...@web.de > wrote: > > Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs > for /, > > The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least > common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress. > > > my link rather was referring to statements like >>The classic Linux > > distribution scheme is frequently not what end users want, either. Many > users > > are used to app markets like Android, Windows or iOS/Mac have.<< > > As I said: I am not to excited about those apps either. I think > sandboxing can be a security feature, but not while everything needs > X11. Great software -- but only when you are safe to assume that > everybody is nice to each other. We really need to get rid of that > insecure crap! > > > I'm not playing around with concurrent distros either, I'm absolutely > happy > > with a single one that works and can get tailored to my needs by _me_ > > So am I, but I still like to be able to have different versions of my > distro of choice. I do sometimes break things during an upgrade or > during the tailoring:-) Maybe you are a better tailor than me, but I > really enjoy the safety net. And yes, my systems are heavily tailored. > How else would I be able to implement such a proposal? > > But you need to keep your eyes open for new ideas. And sometimes you > find them in the most unexpected places:-) > > Best Regards, > Karl > > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
> On March 21, 2015 at 11:34 AM Jaromil wrote: > > re all, > > perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended and > please > consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect and > the > right to have different opinions than "the majority". > > At Libreplanet (the GNU/FSF conference) today someone (who?? thanks for that!) > asked RMS about what he thinks of systemd. Few of us can afford to be there > however from a twit by FSF member John Sullivan I apprehend the Q&A: That was me. I had previously searched the Web (and specifically the fsf.org/gnu.org sites) for anything he might have said about it and came up blank. I also asked one of the FSF campaigns people a week or so back about it and they didn't know of any statement he had made. RMS has a lot of opinions about things other than free software, so it occurs to me that he might have thought of some ethical concerns along the lines of what we have talked about here, but I was not about the get into any sort of argument with him about it. _That_ would be trolling. I stepped away from the microphone as soon as he answered. > @johns_FSF > "RMS, do you have an opinion about systemd?" "No. I know it's free > software, so you can make your own opinion about it." #lp2015 The exact quote is "Do you have an opinion about the prevalence of systemd in most distributions?" Peter Olson > follows up Stefano Zacchiroli (former Debian leader and present board > member of OSI): > > @zacchiro > achievement unlocked: #systemd troll brilliantly averted by rms during > #libreplanet keynote > > a statement by a renown public speaker that clearly leads the public > perception > of someone making a question to RMS about systemd as being automatically a > troll, just for the fact such a question is being asked. > > I've replied myself, via the @DevuanOrg twit account: > > is asking a question about #systemd now considered trolling? wow. #minculpop > > also later asking John: > > did someone explained how #Hurd is affected? > https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/systemd.html … ...and uclibc > etc. > FWIW (no trolling intended) > > and I'm serious: I'd like to hear the *opinion* (which we are all free to > have) > of the GNU leaders on these matters, considering the aforementioned > implications, which I'm not sure RMS has acknowledged. > > I understand perfectly RMS answer above which is rather sane: he is separating > the power of his role in that particular moment (setting the "ethical bar" on > free software for people listening) with the fact we can all have opinions. > This is something a good leader should do, rather than bully somoene for > making > an uncomfortable question > > What I want to make here is an exortation to everyone reading: if we really > think something needs to be done about systemd, please do your best in putting > forward your opinion, avoiding to impose it or to aggressively wave it in > front > of everyone. If bullied please stand firmly by the right you have to have a > different opinion and to debate it in the public. I think we need to state > this > because what Stefano and others are doing in this occasion is bullying people > with different opinions, labeling them as trolls (and therefore enemies of the > community) and ultimately denying there can even be a debate about systemd, > spreading fear in anyone willing to debate it. > > I think this is totally unacceptable for a free society, that's why I label it > as MinCulPop attitude, which ultimately was the fascist authority which > established what can be debated, something Italians remember very well: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Popular_Culture > > ciao > > > -- > Jaromil, Dyne.org Free Software Foundry (est. 2000) > We are free to share code and we code to share freedom > Web: https://j.dyne.org Contact: https://j.dyne.org/c.vcf > GPG: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10 > Confidential communications: https://keybase.io/jaromil > > > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
On Sun 22 March 2015 01:42:33 devuan...@spamgourmet.net wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber - > reisenwe...@web.de > > wrote: > > Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for > > /, > The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least > common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress. From *"root fs: any you like, even MSDOS (with some limitations)" * to an undiscussed unsolicited *"root fs: btrfs mandatory"* is *not* the kind of "progress" I want to see happen, ever. It trades in quite a set of nice properties for a few new properties percieved "superior" by a small set of developers who think they're the ones to decide (or "the universe spins around them" as some guy said) and were allowed to ignore the notion of significant parts of their users and developer peers. Odds are those properties they're sacrificing are actually urgently needed by quite a number of installations, and probably the new featureset could as well get achived *without* *sacrificing* backward compatibility. For your usecase: btrfs is around already, snapper is too, who needs those massive changes in packaging of a distro and file hierarchy? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber - reisenwe...@web.de wrote: > Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for /, The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress. > my link rather was referring to statements like >>The classic Linux > distribution scheme is frequently not what end users want, either. Many users > are used to app markets like Android, Windows or iOS/Mac have.<< As I said: I am not to excited about those apps either. I think sandboxing can be a security feature, but not while everything needs X11. Great software -- but only when you are safe to assume that everybody is nice to each other. We really need to get rid of that insecure crap! > I'm not playing around with concurrent distros either, I'm absolutely happy > with a single one that works and can get tailored to my needs by _me_ So am I, but I still like to be able to have different versions of my distro of choice. I do sometimes break things during an upgrade or during the tailoring:-) Maybe you are a better tailor than me, but I really enjoy the safety net. And yes, my systems are heavily tailored. How else would I be able to implement such a proposal? But you need to keep your eyes open for new ideas. And sometimes you find them in the most unexpected places:-) Best Regards, Karl ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
On Sun 22 March 2015 01:15:18 devuan...@spamgourmet.net wrote: > Hi Jörg, > > I am going to get beaten for this, but that proposal is actually > brilliant! Well, brilliant if you are not bothered by btrfs that is:-) > But that is what I got backups for. Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for /, my link rather was referring to statements like >>The classic Linux distribution scheme is frequently not what end users want, either. Many users are used to app markets like Android, Windows or iOS/Mac have.<< I'm not playing around with concurrent distros either, I'm absolutely happy with a single one that works and can get tailored to my needs by _me_ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
Hi Jörg, I am going to get beaten for this, but that proposal is actually brilliant! Well, brilliant if you are not bothered by btrfs that is:-) But that is what I got backups for. While I do not care about all the sandboxing that got mixed into this, the rest got me really thinking about my setups. Splitting them into state (root:-subvolumes), distribution (usr:-subvolumes) and user data (home:-subvolumes) is a pretty damn powerful idea. I implemented that in the meantime for all my systems and it makes it so much simpler to play with different distros and settings. You should seriously consider to adopt that for devuan: It is a breeze to have several distro versions installed at the same time and switch between those at boot-time now. You do not even need a systemd-system for that! Just one that made sure all the distro-crap is in /usr and that is really easy to do with any distro and a couple of symlinks:-) Now all I need to do is make the PCs in the pool auto-reset to the last known good state on reboot by using a ram-based filesystem instead of the proposed root:-subvolume. That does not work too well with systemd or without at this time:-/ Best Regards, Karl PS: Don't come running with "/ is a minimal system with everything necessary to recover the rest". Been there done that for ages, but nowadays my initrd is that minimal system already. It has everything to fsck and mount stuff with all the relevant filesystems. There is no need to have another one loaded by the initrd. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Joerg Reisenweber - reisenwe...@web.de wrote: > On Sun 22 March 2015 00:40:45 Joerg Reisenweber wrote: >> kills the Linux FOSS ecosystem now, > > This time read ecosystem as "economic system". The "ecologic system" aka > "community" is probably still fine. > RH just establishes the new better economic system: > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
On Sun 22 March 2015 00:40:45 Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > kills the Linux FOSS ecosystem now, This time read ecosystem as "economic system". The "ecologic system" aka "community" is probably still fine. RH just establishes the new better economic system: http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
>> [...all...] Sounds familiar? It's because developing and earning money >> on support only will always lead to such pathologies. [...] Full ACK Internet and downloading complete distros (for free) kills the Linux FOSS ecosystem now, like downloading mp3 music did kill the music ecosystem. Suse (and probably RH) had a fine working business model as long as they sold their CDs/DVDs incl booklet. Eventually that failed and OpenSuse got implemented (or Fedora). On a sidenote: SLE 12 is also systemd now - of course. /j signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
RMS stance is understandable, because he is also responsible for the current situation. He failed to predict it, and his dream is now turning into another Animal Farm, where some developers are becoming more equal than others (it's an open question if there was a better strategy possible when GPL was created). The biggest problem is that GPL needs symmetry to work. I give you my code, because I can take yours in return. But this symmetry breaks at some point, when there's more code than one person can really handle (or even read), and what eventually happens when corporations come into play. GPL can't really deal with it, because it wasn't designed for such possibility. We can safely assume that for corporations freedom is useless, and that they care only about money, so how currently they can earn them on GPL'ed software? By selling support, but this introduces conflict of interests and unavoidable pathology. Let me use a car analogy to explain why. Imagine you're giving away the cars and parts for them for free, hoping that you will earn money on servicing them. Is it in your interest to make them as trouble free, and as easy to setup and fix as possible, so that almost everyone could do that? No, because you won't earn any money then. Instead, by complicating the design to the maximum level (like the need to remove the whole engine just to change the lightbulb), and making it a fast moving target, you will make sure that only your mechanics will be able to fix it, and that it will need such fixing often. Now all that has left is to convince the most popular gas stations to have a fuel for your engineD only, and voila, mission accomplished (as a bonus you can also make some false promises like a quicker start, and full DIY compatibility, but that's only for true devilopers ;)). Sounds familiar? It's because developing and earning money on support only will always lead to such pathologies. And we are really responsible for this, in our best interest is to make sure that developers will earn money on writing free software, not on supporting it, otherwise it will be like fighting with the Hydra. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
Hopefully, it's just a rumor, though it sounds real. Indeed, I've been wondering why RMS hasn't commented on systemd long ago when it became obvious that it would effectively dump his beloved Hurd project into the trash can. If he really called someone a "troll" for asking his opinion of systemd, then my feeling about RMS has gone down a couple of notches. Well, RMS doesn't do anymore development work as far as I know, so maybe his opinion doesn't matter. Still, as a well-known time-honored spokesperson for "free software" (I know he doesn't want us calling it "open source") I would have expected better. Pity. cheers, Robert ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:31:31PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > That is, prioritizing rather than excluding. So we can still, for > example, keep the linux kernel. :) The kernel is replaceable. Don't forget about kfreebsd (ok, hurd's state is a bad joke). Of course, the pro-systemd party has managed to get kfreebsd out of the official release status, but the code is there and you can use it. For a less drastic change, there are convenient tools to replace the distributed kernel with your own builds, with whatever patches you want. And making changes to the kernel is not rocket surgery. On the other hand, try changing systemd... -- // If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
> -Original Message- > From: Didier Kryn [mailto:k...@in2p3.fr] > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:04 AM > To: dng@lists.dyne.org > Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied? > > We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this looks like > a > sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this thread started with > questioning the long term policy. [T.J. Duchene] Nothing wrong with that. I'm just and only saying that if Devuan's goal is to release Devuan 1.0, then the best and most reliable QA process would be not to support anything related to systemd in the initial release. For the time being, system is out of the question. It can always be reevaluated in Devuan 1.5 or 2.0 but to bring "systemd support" up now is a distraction. The initial policy should be followed, and this should be tabled until after Devuan 1.0 is completed. It's all a question of follow-through. Devuan 1.0 is a critical thing, and the project has to "make good" and deliver; Devuan can't change policy without having to reconsider every piece of work already completed. I feel that is counterproductive. > However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate systemd and > Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the reasons to reject > software like systemd, in the form of a set of rules for acceptability, in a > sensible and attractive form, for users, developpers, and distros to easily > share. I see these rules as an addendum to the definition of free software. > [T.J. Duchene] While I admit that seems to be the "flavor of the day" from some, I don't hate anyone. I don't have time to be petty; I have work to do. With respect to everyone, I simply do not care if they disagree with me or not, and I say so. That does not mean that I am unreasonable or won't admit when I am wrong. > > This leaves no room for systemd-contaminated software, except if the > systemd API can be replaced by a do-otherwise/do-nothing stub. [T.J. Duchene] Frankly, Didier, I think that that is inevitable that Devuan 2.0 (and after) will have to include a systemd shim or stub. Third party projects upstream are going to do whatever is in the best interests of their users, and asking them to do otherwise - that is unreasonable. The majority of their users have systemd, whether we personally like it or not. Some form of API support will be needed. See you! T.J. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:56:01PM -0400, Jude Nelson wrote: > I think what we're after is a way to accept/reject software based on a > well-defined set of acceptance criteria. It sounds like we're trying to > say that the mission statement of Devuan is something like "Devuan > prioritizes the inclusion of Free Software that follows the Unix software > design philosophy," where "Unix software design philosophy" minimally means: > 0. A program is a file that contains executable data (e.g. a binary, a > script, or a library). > 1. Each program has a single well-defined responsibility. > 2. If two programs have orthogonal responsibilities, then they are > logically independent of one another's implementation (i.e. programs with > orthogonal responsibilities are not coupled to each other's > implementations). > 3. Functionality encompassing multiple responsibilities is obtained by > composing two or more programs (such as through piping, I/O redirection, > dynamic linking, and so on). > > By expressing our social desire to preserve the freedom of choice as a set > of technical software design points, we'll have an unambiguous way of > prioritizing programs for inclusion. For example, we can say "systemd does > not meet criterion #2, whereas the programs it replaces do; thus we will > not prioritize its inclusion over them." That is, prioritizing rather than excluding. So we can still, for example, keep the linux kernel. :) -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
I think what we're after is a way to accept/reject software based on a well-defined set of acceptance criteria. It sounds like we're trying to say that the mission statement of Devuan is something like "Devuan prioritizes the inclusion of Free Software that follows the Unix software design philosophy," where "Unix software design philosophy" minimally means: 0. A program is a file that contains executable data (e.g. a binary, a script, or a library). 1. Each program has a single well-defined responsibility. 2. If two programs have orthogonal responsibilities, then they are logically independent of one another's implementation (i.e. programs with orthogonal responsibilities are not coupled to each other's implementations). 3. Functionality encompassing multiple responsibilities is obtained by composing two or more programs (such as through piping, I/O redirection, dynamic linking, and so on). By expressing our social desire to preserve the freedom of choice as a set of technical software design points, we'll have an unambiguous way of prioritizing programs for inclusion. For example, we can say "systemd does not meet criterion #2, whereas the programs it replaces do; thus we will not prioritize its inclusion over them." -Jude On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:04:00 +0100 > Didier Kryn wrote: > > > However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate > > systemd and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the > > reasons to reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of > > rules for acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for > > users, developpers, and distros to easily share. > > How's this for a start: > > 1. Devuan holds sacred the user's right to choose his software. > > 2. Devuan holds sacred interchangeable parts in software. > > 3. Devuan prioritizes the user's ability to DIY on his system. > > 4. Devuan rejects software that seriously restricts 1-3. > > > SteveT > > Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ > Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance > > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:04:00 +0100 Didier Kryn wrote: > However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate > systemd and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the > reasons to reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of > rules for acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for > users, developpers, and distros to easily share. How's this for a start: 1. Devuan holds sacred the user's right to choose his software. 2. Devuan holds sacred interchangeable parts in software. 3. Devuan prioritizes the user's ability to DIY on his system. 4. Devuan rejects software that seriously restricts 1-3. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
On 21.03.2015 18:51, Linuxito wrote: > Great reading. I knew RMS would answer something like that to that > question, if it's licensed under GPL, it's free software, period. ( Actually it's LGPL [1] but ... ) I expect that he is thinking about it and will be thinking about it a while longer before he comes up with a formal position on this particular piece of nastiness. On the issues of "tivoization" and proprietary javascript he was able to come up with something. Here the situation is not much different, but the method being (ab)used is obfuscation. The code base is so overwhelmingly massive, convoluted, uncommented, and undocumented that it is very effectively obfuscated and closed. For all the other bad things that systemd does, it violates the spirit of the GPL on two levels: freedom 0 and freedom 1. - the hard dependencies prevent programs from being run as one wishes - the obfuscated code prevents studying and changing, for nearly all Regards, /Lars [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
On Sat, 3/21/15, Miles Fidelman wrote: Subject: Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied? To: dng@lists.dyne.org Date: Saturday, March 21, 2015, 11:25 AM Didier Kryn wrote: > We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this > looks like a sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this > thread started with questioning the long term policy. > > For sure, if one wants systemd, this one should install Debian, or > RH. Also, to all of us, anybody trying to provide systemd for Devuan > would be suspect of being malevolent > > However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate systemd > and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the reasons to > reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of rules for > acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for users, > developpers, and distros to easily share. I see these rules as an > addendum to the definition of free software. > > These rules would obviously put systemd out of the free-software > category, let's call it anti-freedom, which is worse than non-free. > This does not mean there needs to be an anti-freedom repository, after > all :-) > > This leaves no room for systemd-contaminated software, except if > the systemd API can be replaced by a do-otherwise/do-nothing stub. That raises an interesting point - might be time to think about refining the definition of "free software" (per http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Perhaps it's time to add something along the lines of "the freedom to install software without it taking over your machine" (obviously this needs work, or we'd it would eliminate things like the kernel, file system, etc.). Miles Fidelman Miles . . . you might want to revisit hellekin's draft constitution: https://git.devuan.org/devuan/devuan-project/wikis/HellekinConstitutionDraft This is near the top: "Devuan fosters a diversity of approaches to avoid technical lock-ins to specific implementations" There are other interesting ideas in there also that answer to your concerns. golinux ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
Great reading. I knew RMS would answer something like that to that question, if it's licensed under GPL, it's free software, period. On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Nextime wrote: > On March 21, 2015 3:34:28 PM WET, Jaromil wrote: > > > >re all, > > > >perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended > >and please > >consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect > >and the > >right to have different opinions than "the majority". > > > >At Libreplanet (the GNU/FSF conference) today someone (who?? thanks for > >that!) > >asked RMS about what he thinks of systemd. Few of us can afford to be > >there > >however from a twit by FSF member John Sullivan I apprehend the Q&A: > > > >@johns_FSF > >"RMS, do you have an opinion about systemd?" "No. I know it's free > >software, so you can make your own opinion about it." #lp2015 > > > >follows up Stefano Zacchiroli (former Debian leader and present board > >member of OSI): > > > >@zacchiro > >achievement unlocked: #systemd troll brilliantly averted by rms during > >#libreplanet keynote > > > >a statement by a renown public speaker that clearly leads the public > >perception > >of someone making a question to RMS about systemd as being > >automatically a > >troll, just for the fact such a question is being asked. > > > >I've replied myself, via the @DevuanOrg twit account: > > > >is asking a question about #systemd now considered trolling? wow. > >#minculpop > > > >also later asking John: > > > >did someone explained how #Hurd is affected? > >https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/systemd.html … ...and > >uclibc etc. > >FWIW (no trolling intended) > > > >and I'm serious: I'd like to hear the *opinion* (which we are all free > >to have) > >of the GNU leaders on these matters, considering the aforementioned > >implications, which I'm not sure RMS has acknowledged. > > > >I understand perfectly RMS answer above which is rather sane: he is > >separating > >the power of his role in that particular moment (setting the "ethical > >bar" on > >free software for people listening) with the fact we can all have > >opinions. > >This is something a good leader should do, rather than bully somoene > >for making > >an uncomfortable question > > > >What I want to make here is an exortation to everyone reading: if we > >really > >think something needs to be done about systemd, please do your best in > >putting > >forward your opinion, avoiding to impose it or to aggressively wave it > >in front > >of everyone. If bullied please stand firmly by the right you have to > >have a > >different opinion and to debate it in the public. I think we need to > >state this > >because what Stefano and others are doing in this occasion is bullying > >people > >with different opinions, labeling them as trolls (and therefore enemies > >of the > >community) and ultimately denying there can even be a debate about > >systemd, > >spreading fear in anyone willing to debate it. > > > >I think this is totally unacceptable for a free society, that's why I > >label it > >as MinCulPop attitude, which ultimately was the fascist authority which > >established what can be debated, something Italians remember very well: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Popular_Culture > > > >ciao > > > > > >-- > >Jaromil, Dyne.org Free Software Foundry (est. 2000) > >We are free to share code and we code to share freedom > >Web: https://j.dyne.org Contact: https://j.dyne.org/c.vcf > >GPG: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10 > >Confidential communications: https://keybase.io/jaromil > > > > > >___ > >Dng mailing list > >Dng@lists.dyne.org > >https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > > Standing ovation jaro! > -- > nextime > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
Didier Kryn wrote: We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this looks like a sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this thread started with questioning the long term policy. For sure, if one wants systemd, this one should install Debian, or RH. Also, to all of us, anybody trying to provide systemd for Devuan would be suspect of being malevolent However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate systemd and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the reasons to reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of rules for acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for users, developpers, and distros to easily share. I see these rules as an addendum to the definition of free software. These rules would obviously put systemd out of the free-software category, let's call it anti-freedom, which is worse than non-free. This does not mean there needs to be an anti-freedom repository, after all :-) This leaves no room for systemd-contaminated software, except if the systemd API can be replaced by a do-otherwise/do-nothing stub. That raises an interesting point - might be time to think about refining the definition of "free software" (per http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Perhaps it's time to add something along the lines of "the freedom to install software without it taking over your machine" (obviously this needs work, or we'd it would eliminate things like the kernel, file system, etc.). Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
We all agree that Devuan was born to be systemd-free and this looks like a sustainable goal to begin with. But I understood this thread started with questioning the long term policy. For sure, if one wants systemd, this one should install Debian, or RH. Also, to all of us, anybody trying to provide systemd for Devuan would be suspect of being malevolent However, the long term policy of Devuan can't be "We hate systemd and Lennart Poetering". Instead Devuan should advertize the reasons to reject software like systemd, in the form of a set of rules for acceptability, in a sensible and attractive form, for users, developpers, and distros to easily share. I see these rules as an addendum to the definition of free software. These rules would obviously put systemd out of the free-software category, let's call it anti-freedom, which is worse than non-free. This does not mean there needs to be an anti-freedom repository, after all :-) This leaves no room for systemd-contaminated software, except if the systemd API can be replaced by a do-otherwise/do-nothing stub. Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
On March 21, 2015 3:34:28 PM WET, Jaromil wrote: > >re all, > >perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended >and please >consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect >and the >right to have different opinions than "the majority". > >At Libreplanet (the GNU/FSF conference) today someone (who?? thanks for >that!) >asked RMS about what he thinks of systemd. Few of us can afford to be >there >however from a twit by FSF member John Sullivan I apprehend the Q&A: > >@johns_FSF >"RMS, do you have an opinion about systemd?" "No. I know it's free >software, so you can make your own opinion about it." #lp2015 > >follows up Stefano Zacchiroli (former Debian leader and present board >member of OSI): > >@zacchiro >achievement unlocked: #systemd troll brilliantly averted by rms during >#libreplanet keynote > >a statement by a renown public speaker that clearly leads the public >perception >of someone making a question to RMS about systemd as being >automatically a >troll, just for the fact such a question is being asked. > >I've replied myself, via the @DevuanOrg twit account: > >is asking a question about #systemd now considered trolling? wow. >#minculpop > >also later asking John: > >did someone explained how #Hurd is affected? >https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/systemd.html … ...and >uclibc etc. >FWIW (no trolling intended) > >and I'm serious: I'd like to hear the *opinion* (which we are all free >to have) >of the GNU leaders on these matters, considering the aforementioned >implications, which I'm not sure RMS has acknowledged. > >I understand perfectly RMS answer above which is rather sane: he is >separating >the power of his role in that particular moment (setting the "ethical >bar" on >free software for people listening) with the fact we can all have >opinions. >This is something a good leader should do, rather than bully somoene >for making >an uncomfortable question > >What I want to make here is an exortation to everyone reading: if we >really >think something needs to be done about systemd, please do your best in >putting >forward your opinion, avoiding to impose it or to aggressively wave it >in front >of everyone. If bullied please stand firmly by the right you have to >have a >different opinion and to debate it in the public. I think we need to >state this >because what Stefano and others are doing in this occasion is bullying >people >with different opinions, labeling them as trolls (and therefore enemies >of the >community) and ultimately denying there can even be a debate about >systemd, >spreading fear in anyone willing to debate it. > >I think this is totally unacceptable for a free society, that's why I >label it >as MinCulPop attitude, which ultimately was the fascist authority which >established what can be debated, something Italians remember very well: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Popular_Culture > >ciao > > >-- >Jaromil, Dyne.org Free Software Foundry (est. 2000) >We are free to share code and we code to share freedom >Web: https://j.dyne.org Contact: https://j.dyne.org/c.vcf >GPG: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10 >Confidential communications: https://keybase.io/jaromil > > >___ >Dng mailing list >Dng@lists.dyne.org >https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng Standing ovation jaro! -- nextime ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[Dng] rumors on RMS about systemd at libreplanet
re all, perhaps interesting to perceive the atmosphere, no trolling intended and please consider we shall not fight, rather seek undersanding and claim respect and the right to have different opinions than "the majority". At Libreplanet (the GNU/FSF conference) today someone (who?? thanks for that!) asked RMS about what he thinks of systemd. Few of us can afford to be there however from a twit by FSF member John Sullivan I apprehend the Q&A: @johns_FSF "RMS, do you have an opinion about systemd?" "No. I know it's free software, so you can make your own opinion about it." #lp2015 follows up Stefano Zacchiroli (former Debian leader and present board member of OSI): @zacchiro achievement unlocked: #systemd troll brilliantly averted by rms during #libreplanet keynote a statement by a renown public speaker that clearly leads the public perception of someone making a question to RMS about systemd as being automatically a troll, just for the fact such a question is being asked. I've replied myself, via the @DevuanOrg twit account: is asking a question about #systemd now considered trolling? wow. #minculpop also later asking John: did someone explained how #Hurd is affected? https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/systemd.html … ...and uclibc etc. FWIW (no trolling intended) and I'm serious: I'd like to hear the *opinion* (which we are all free to have) of the GNU leaders on these matters, considering the aforementioned implications, which I'm not sure RMS has acknowledged. I understand perfectly RMS answer above which is rather sane: he is separating the power of his role in that particular moment (setting the "ethical bar" on free software for people listening) with the fact we can all have opinions. This is something a good leader should do, rather than bully somoene for making an uncomfortable question What I want to make here is an exortation to everyone reading: if we really think something needs to be done about systemd, please do your best in putting forward your opinion, avoiding to impose it or to aggressively wave it in front of everyone. If bullied please stand firmly by the right you have to have a different opinion and to debate it in the public. I think we need to state this because what Stefano and others are doing in this occasion is bullying people with different opinions, labeling them as trolls (and therefore enemies of the community) and ultimately denying there can even be a debate about systemd, spreading fear in anyone willing to debate it. I think this is totally unacceptable for a free society, that's why I label it as MinCulPop attitude, which ultimately was the fascist authority which established what can be debated, something Italians remember very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Popular_Culture ciao -- Jaromil, Dyne.org Free Software Foundry (est. 2000) We are free to share code and we code to share freedom Web: https://j.dyne.org Contact: https://j.dyne.org/c.vcf GPG: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10 Confidential communications: https://keybase.io/jaromil ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will trade-off be applied?
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:33:20AM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > On Fri 20 March 2015 22:09:20 Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > for details on how all this works on apt level with the devuan overlay over > > debian, you rather ask nextime. > > Rather first look here: > https://git.devuan.org/devuan-infrastructure/amprolla/blob/master/README.md Clever stuff! Looks useful. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
