Re: [DNG] [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On 20.02.2015 16:25, Gravis wrote: > D-Bus is more for RPC than IPC which is an issue as there is no standard > in POSIX for RPC. Yes, thats the basic point: it is remote *procedure* call. My primary objection against dbus is in fact objects against RPC. --mtx ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Didier Kryn wrote: > I must confess I discovered ZeroMQ recently; it looks like the > thing the programmer always needed since the advent of networking. > I was blaming myself for not having used it in a > multi-host+multi-language project started 7 years ago, but, well, > it didn't exist yet :-). let me warn you, having used zmq extensively for various jobs, that unfortunately it does not deliver everything it says. At least for me it was so until a couple years ago, for instance with its pub/sub protocol and more. In my +15yr programmers experience it has never been a smooth ride and I ended up saving time reimplementing my own procedures on top of basic UDP and TCP functions - or reverting to older versions which worked more reliably before adoption of zmq, this was the case with syncstarter.org for instance. its a pity because it looks very good and aims at good directions, I hope it keeps improving. so well, your mileage may vary, but my experience and that of a couple good programmers we have at dyne.org has been always quite negative. And even if it would work, I don't think zmq would be a good solution to adopt as networking library for an ORB broker. ciao ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Le 20/02/2015 16:25, Gravis a écrit : D-Bus has existed for about a decade if not more. As far as I can tell, ZeroMQ has existed for a few years. Also, D-Bus is written in the fashion that matches how the GTK API which is a C API. libdbus has lots of language wrappers. D-Bus is more for RPC than IPC which is an issue as there is no standard in POSIX for RPC. Thanks Gravis for putting exact data in the discussion It makes more sense. Nevertheless, I think RPC is overkill for DE's interaction with hardware events. I guess it is mostly dedicated to provide Gnome's or KDE's integrated apps a better interaction with their respective window-manager than foreign apps. I must confess I discovered ZeroMQ recently; it looks like the thing the programmer always needed since the advent of networking. I was blaming myself for not having used it in a multi-host+multi-language project started 7 years ago, but, well, it didn't exist yet :-). Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 01:58:59PM +, Nuno Magalhães wrote: > > I don't see what's the fuss about server-oriented vs desktop-oriented. > As long as it's not monolithic anyone can/should be able to install a Even monoliths can be tolerated if they do not exclude other ways of running the system. Desktops should not be mutually exclusive with servers. > bare-bones CLI-only Devuan then just apt-get Xfce, startx and there > you have it: a desktop. I prefer the *box family but what the heck i > can go back to xfce. > > Modular and choice-oriented. Win win. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > As a home user of Debian running Xfce and also with a strong hobbyist > interest and advocate for Linux systems, I do not wish to be excluded by > Devuan and, at least for 1.0, that does not appear to be in the plan. +1 I don't see what's the fuss about server-oriented vs desktop-oriented. As long as it's not monolithic anyone can/should be able to install a bare-bones CLI-only Devuan then just apt-get Xfce, startx and there you have it: a desktop. I prefer the *box family but what the heck i can go back to xfce. Modular and choice-oriented. Win win. -- "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 14:32 -0500, Gravis wrote: > > RPC had already been solved in a general way by SunRPC (ONCRPC) before > either GNOME or KDE existed > > interesting I'd never read about those until now. however, there was no > GPL (compatible?) version for Linux (still isn't?) and the internet didn't > have it's information as organized back then. sure you can find > information easy with wikipedia... but wikipedia started in 2005. this was > also the era when xml was the solution to every problem which somewhat > explains why the messages are encoded in xml. who knows, maybe the did > know about ONCRPC but didn't like it and decided to make their own. Do man rpcbind then jump to the bottom and note the date and origin. And what the heck, the GNOMEs also had CORBA for an RPC method until they decided to abandon it. Just another case of NIH and those who hate UNIX being doomed to reinvent it... poorly. 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] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
> RPC had already been solved in a general way by SunRPC (ONCRPC) before either GNOME or KDE existed interesting I'd never read about those until now. however, there was no GPL (compatible?) version for Linux (still isn't?) and the internet didn't have it's information as organized back then. sure you can find information easy with wikipedia... but wikipedia started in 2005. this was also the era when xml was the solution to every problem which somewhat explains why the messages are encoded in xml. who knows, maybe the did know about ONCRPC but didn't like it and decided to make their own. --Gravis On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Jude Nelson wrote: > Nevertheless, RPC had already been solved in a general way by SunRPC > (ONCRPC) before either GNOME or KDE existed. Heck, the earliest versions > predate Linux. > > Given the combined functionality offered by PolicyKit/Polkit and dbus, I'm > beginning to think that FreeDesktop has succeeded in re-inventing the > virtual filesystem (albeit poorly). > > -Jude > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Gravis wrote: > >> > But I wonder why people have developped dbus instead of using a >> ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic middleware? Yes it >> exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. >> >> D-Bus has existed for about a decade if not more. As far as I can tell, >> ZeroMQ >> has existed for a few years. Also, D-Bus is written in the fashion that >> matches how the GTK API which is a C API. libdbus has lots of language >> wrappers. >> >> D-Bus is more for RPC than IPC which is an issue as there is no standard >> in POSIX for RPC. >> >> --Gravis >> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: >> >>> >>> Le 20/02/2015 13:48, Martijn Dekkers a écrit : >>> >>>I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and above. However, there's one thing here, there are more people running servers than people running linux on their desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. >>> >>> I strongly believe that if we manage to pull together a kick-ass, >>> up-to-date, and rock-solid server build that does not require systemd, we >>> will see serious uptake from many, many users. >>> >>> >>> Guys, I don't think there is contradiction between server and >>> desktop. There is a difference in the user base and installed applications, >>> not in the OS. dbus and udev/eudev/mdev/vdev/ are just useful services >>> which make life easier if they are not poeterized, but could remain >>> optional. I think most desktop users expect these services, but they >>> understand it is not the top priority of the devs. >>> >>> By do-it-all desktops, I was targetting Gnome and KDE, not Xfce. It >>> is too bad that xfce4 is now contaminated, But in my installed Wheezy >>> servers and desktop, it is not. I've no complaint against it. Is there >>> anything new in the Jessie version, appart from infection? >>> >>> Concerning dbus, there is a need for publisher/subscriber >>> communication on the desktop. But I wonder why people have developped dbus >>> instead of using a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic >>> middleware? Yes it exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. >>> >>> Didier >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Svante Signell: >Hurd does also run xfce4 without problems, and don't have anything >*systemd* installed :) If i wish to install xfce4 on my mostly stable Gentoo, there is one package in the dependencies where systemd is mentioned. hafi@i5_64 ~ $ emerge -p -uDN xfce4-meta [...] xfce-base/xfce4-session-4.10.1-r2 USE="nls xscreensaver -debug -systemd -upower" But systemd is not required, as you can see by the '-'. :) Hartmut ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 11:36 -0500, william moss wrote: > On 02/20/2015 09:30 AM, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > * On 2015 20 Feb 05:55 -0600, Aldemir Akpinar wrote: > > As a home user of Debian running Xfce and also with a strong hobbyist > > interest and advocate for Linux systems, I do not wish to be excluded by > > Devuan and, at least for 1.0, that does not appear to be in the plan. > > > > - Nate > > > FreeBSD supports XFCE Via its package manager (pkg) or /usr/ports, so it > must be possible to run XFCE w/o the systemd daemon(s) or shared objects. > > Also, I configured server farms for decades (retired now) and a simple > GUI was convenient. People, even highly technical one, are pictorially > oriented; as a species we relate to images. In that context we ran the > CDE (common desktop environment) and its derivatives at Bell Labs (AT&T) > using Sun SPARC and HP RISC servers. Hurd does also run xfce4 without problems, and don't have anything *systemd* installed :) ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Nevertheless, RPC had already been solved in a general way by SunRPC (ONCRPC) before either GNOME or KDE existed. Heck, the earliest versions predate Linux. Given the combined functionality offered by PolicyKit/Polkit and dbus, I'm beginning to think that FreeDesktop has succeeded in re-inventing the virtual filesystem (albeit poorly). -Jude On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Gravis wrote: > > But I wonder why people have developped dbus instead of using a > ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic middleware? Yes it > exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. > > D-Bus has existed for about a decade if not more. As far as I can tell, > ZeroMQ > has existed for a few years. Also, D-Bus is written in the fashion that > matches how the GTK API which is a C API. libdbus has lots of language > wrappers. > > D-Bus is more for RPC than IPC which is an issue as there is no standard > in POSIX for RPC. > > --Gravis > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: > >> >> Le 20/02/2015 13:48, Martijn Dekkers a écrit : >> >>I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and >>> above. However, there's one thing here, >>> there are more people running servers than people running linux on their >>> desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. >>> >> >> I strongly believe that if we manage to pull together a kick-ass, >> up-to-date, and rock-solid server build that does not require systemd, we >> will see serious uptake from many, many users. >> >> >> Guys, I don't think there is contradiction between server and >> desktop. There is a difference in the user base and installed applications, >> not in the OS. dbus and udev/eudev/mdev/vdev/ are just useful services >> which make life easier if they are not poeterized, but could remain >> optional. I think most desktop users expect these services, but they >> understand it is not the top priority of the devs. >> >> By do-it-all desktops, I was targetting Gnome and KDE, not Xfce. It >> is too bad that xfce4 is now contaminated, But in my installed Wheezy >> servers and desktop, it is not. I've no complaint against it. Is there >> anything new in the Jessie version, appart from infection? >> >> Concerning dbus, there is a need for publisher/subscriber >> communication on the desktop. But I wonder why people have developped dbus >> instead of using a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic >> middleware? Yes it exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. >> >> Didier >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:42:43PM -0500, Gravis wrote: > > > CDE (common desktop environment) > > Not familiar with that. Is it related to Inferno? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment That's it. By the way, it does work on Debian (though I'm not sure if the sysvinit script for dtlogin ever got fixed - I sent a replacement once, and someone else mentioned the bug at one point). The build/install process is rather convoluted, since make install doesn't work right. CDE was an Open Group project from about the time Novell gave them the UNIX trademark. Inferno has the most tenuous of connections to it, being a later Bell Labs project. HTH, Isaac Dunham ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:42:43PM -0500, Gravis wrote: > > > CDE (common desktop environment) > > Not familiar with that. Is it related to Inferno? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment > > now what is "Inferno"? Long answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system) Short answer: Just as Plan 9 was a successor to Unix, Inferno is a successor to Plan 9. It's now been spun off as free software. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
> > CDE (common desktop environment) > Not familiar with that. Is it related to Inferno? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment now what is "Inferno"? --Gravis On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:36:20AM -0500, william moss wrote: > > > > FreeBSD supports XFCE Via its package manager (pkg) or /usr/ports, so it > > must be possible to run XFCE w/o the systemd daemon(s) or shared objects. > > > > Also, I configured server farms for decades (retired now) and a simple > > GUI was convenient. People, even highly technical one, are pictorially > > oriented; as a species we relate to images. > > Especially, it appears, mathematicians. That's why mathematical > notation is so two-dimmensional. Making it linear is a concession to > typesetters, not to mathematicians. > > > In that context we ran the > > CDE (common desktop environment) and its derivatives at Bell Labs (AT&T) > > using Sun SPARC and HP RISC servers. > > Not familiar with that. Is it related to Inferno? > > -- hendrik > ___ > 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] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:36:20AM -0500, william moss wrote: > > FreeBSD supports XFCE Via its package manager (pkg) or /usr/ports, so it > must be possible to run XFCE w/o the systemd daemon(s) or shared objects. > > Also, I configured server farms for decades (retired now) and a simple > GUI was convenient. People, even highly technical one, are pictorially > oriented; as a species we relate to images. Especially, it appears, mathematicians. That's why mathematical notation is so two-dimmensional. Making it linear is a concession to typesetters, not to mathematicians. > In that context we ran the > CDE (common desktop environment) and its derivatives at Bell Labs (AT&T) > using Sun SPARC and HP RISC servers. Not familiar with that. Is it related to Inferno? -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/20/2015 09:30 AM, Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2015 20 Feb 05:55 -0600, Aldemir Akpinar wrote: >> I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and above. >> However, there's one thing here, >> there are more people running servers than people running linux on their >> desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. > > Focus is fine, but I trust the team when they state Xfce will be the > default DE that they are taking a very pragmatic approach. For one, I > believe there are many more Linux desktop users than we ever know. > Informally, I know of many hobbyists who use Linux as their desktop. > They do not appear on sales numbers anywhere as they are likely > converting a Windows PC to run their Linux desktop. To intentionally > lock these users out would be a grave disservice, IMHO. Hopefully, the > systemd regressions introduced into Xfce will be easy for the team to > revert (actually, I wonder whether the problem is in Xfce upstream or > the way the Debian maintainers built their packages so that without > systemd running as PID 1 the Xcfe power manager becomes a lame duck as > does LightDM). > > Dropping Gnome will not be a loss nor will dropping KDE (or whatever > they are calling it these days) from Devuan as these projects pretty > much have a philosophy opposite of that expressed by the Unix > philosophy. IMO, Xfce is more of a loose confederation of programs that > work well together as a "desktop", than an integrated whole. For > example, Thunar and Xfce Terminal run just fine as stand-alone apps > inside a bare OpenBox session, at least on Wheezy. > > As a home user of Debian running Xfce and also with a strong hobbyist > interest and advocate for Linux systems, I do not wish to be excluded by > Devuan and, at least for 1.0, that does not appear to be in the plan. > > - Nate > FreeBSD supports XFCE Via its package manager (pkg) or /usr/ports, so it must be possible to run XFCE w/o the systemd daemon(s) or shared objects. Also, I configured server farms for decades (retired now) and a simple GUI was convenient. People, even highly technical one, are pictorially oriented; as a species we relate to images. In that context we ran the CDE (common desktop environment) and its derivatives at Bell Labs (AT&T) using Sun SPARC and HP RISC servers. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlTnYn8ACgkQpY/BHpBmP2pnAwD9F46ZClMvqan4wimNYndHH8Op fMIJ7ghWP4/kbwKwO38A/2FOzxNpGFCWpzFgLBADHV+cfvFoXBsFtBrnSi7SvshT =qF8g -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
* On 2015 20 Feb 09:03 -0600, Didier Kryn wrote: > Guys, I don't think there is contradiction between server and > desktop. There is a difference in the user base and installed > applications, not in the OS. dbus and udev/eudev/mdev/vdev/ are just > useful services which make life easier if they are not poeterized, but > could remain optional. I think most desktop users expect these > services, but they understand it is not the top priority of the devs. Once de-poeterized, these programs will become useful forks. Again, it's about choice. If a server admin finds de-poetorized udev is useful, fine, or if static dev is preferable, fine. I may, in fact, choose to go back to static dev on my main desktop, but my laptop does benefit from udev. The discussions on the *dev programs by Jude et. al. have been encouraging. I'm looking forward to moving away from the "one size fits all" world we've been led into. > By do-it-all desktops, I was targetting Gnome and KDE, not > Xfce. It is too bad that xfce4 is now contaminated, But in my > installed Wheezy servers and desktop, it is not. I've no complaint > against it. Is there anything new in the Jessie version, appart from > infection? There are some visible tweaks in Xfce 4.10, mostly to some plugins as I recall. The official Xfce ChangeLog is mute on systemd: http://www.xfce.org/download/changelogs/4.10 I'm not certain at the moment, but it appears to me that the Xfce support for systemd in Jessie was backported just to resolve the issues with power manager and the shutdown menu. > Concerning dbus, there is a need for publisher/subscriber > communication on the desktop. But I wonder why people have developped > dbus instead of using a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, > language-agnostic middleware? Yes it exsts; there's at least one, > ZeroMQ. Most likely, a strong Not Invented Here syndrome. IMO, polkit is another evil that should be excised along with systemd. But, maybe I just don't understand it. packagekit should be dropped as well as I do not understand its purpose in an apt based system. I do my package management through Aptitude for the most part, once in a while I use apt-get directly, and sometimes I install manually using Midnight Commander. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
> But I wonder why people have developped dbus instead of using a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic middleware? Yes it exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. D-Bus has existed for about a decade if not more. As far as I can tell, ZeroMQ has existed for a few years. Also, D-Bus is written in the fashion that matches how the GTK API which is a C API. libdbus has lots of language wrappers. D-Bus is more for RPC than IPC which is an issue as there is no standard in POSIX for RPC. --Gravis On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: > > Le 20/02/2015 13:48, Martijn Dekkers a écrit : > >I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and >> above. However, there's one thing here, >> there are more people running servers than people running linux on their >> desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. >> > > I strongly believe that if we manage to pull together a kick-ass, > up-to-date, and rock-solid server build that does not require systemd, we > will see serious uptake from many, many users. > > > Guys, I don't think there is contradiction between server and desktop. > There is a difference in the user base and installed applications, not in > the OS. dbus and udev/eudev/mdev/vdev/ are just useful services which make > life easier if they are not poeterized, but could remain optional. I think > most desktop users expect these services, but they understand it is not the > top priority of the devs. > > By do-it-all desktops, I was targetting Gnome and KDE, not Xfce. It is > too bad that xfce4 is now contaminated, But in my installed Wheezy servers > and desktop, it is not. I've no complaint against it. Is there anything new > in the Jessie version, appart from infection? > > Concerning dbus, there is a need for publisher/subscriber > communication on the desktop. But I wonder why people have developped dbus > instead of using a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic > middleware? Yes it exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. > > Didier > > ___ > 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] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Concerning dbus, there is a need for publisher/subscriber communication on > the desktop. But I wonder why people have developped dbus instead of using > a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic middleware? Yes > it exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. > Something something context switches. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Le 20/02/2015 13:48, Martijn Dekkers a écrit : I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and above. However, there's one thing here, there are more people running servers than people running linux on their desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. I strongly believe that if we manage to pull together a kick-ass, up-to-date, and rock-solid server build that does not require systemd, we will see serious uptake from many, many users. Guys, I don't think there is contradiction between server and desktop. There is a difference in the user base and installed applications, not in the OS. dbus and udev/eudev/mdev/vdev/ are just useful services which make life easier if they are not poeterized, but could remain optional. I think most desktop users expect these services, but they understand it is not the top priority of the devs. By do-it-all desktops, I was targetting Gnome and KDE, not Xfce. It is too bad that xfce4 is now contaminated, But in my installed Wheezy servers and desktop, it is not. I've no complaint against it. Is there anything new in the Jessie version, appart from infection? Concerning dbus, there is a need for publisher/subscriber communication on the desktop. But I wonder why people have developped dbus instead of using a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic middleware? Yes it exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ. Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
* On 2015 20 Feb 05:55 -0600, Aldemir Akpinar wrote: > I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and above. > However, there's one thing here, > there are more people running servers than people running linux on their > desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. Focus is fine, but I trust the team when they state Xfce will be the default DE that they are taking a very pragmatic approach. For one, I believe there are many more Linux desktop users than we ever know. Informally, I know of many hobbyists who use Linux as their desktop. They do not appear on sales numbers anywhere as they are likely converting a Windows PC to run their Linux desktop. To intentionally lock these users out would be a grave disservice, IMHO. Hopefully, the systemd regressions introduced into Xfce will be easy for the team to revert (actually, I wonder whether the problem is in Xfce upstream or the way the Debian maintainers built their packages so that without systemd running as PID 1 the Xcfe power manager becomes a lame duck as does LightDM). Dropping Gnome will not be a loss nor will dropping KDE (or whatever they are calling it these days) from Devuan as these projects pretty much have a philosophy opposite of that expressed by the Unix philosophy. IMO, Xfce is more of a loose confederation of programs that work well together as a "desktop", than an integrated whole. For example, Thunar and Xfce Terminal run just fine as stand-alone apps inside a bare OpenBox session, at least on Wheezy. As a home user of Debian running Xfce and also with a strong hobbyist interest and advocate for Linux systems, I do not wish to be excluded by Devuan and, at least for 1.0, that does not appear to be in the plan. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
> I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and above. > However, there's one thing here, > there are more people running servers than people running linux on their > desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. > I strongly believe that if we manage to pull together a kick-ass, up-to-date, and rock-solid server build that does not require systemd, we will see serious uptake from many, many users. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On 20.02.2015 12:54, Aldemir Akpinar wrote: > > > BTW I think nobody here cares about having Devuan support Gnome. > The do-it-all DEs, > those providing their own integrated replacement for every > application, are, by design, > opposed to the Nix principles. It is not a surprise that systemd and > Gnome are working > together. > > > I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and > above. However, there's one thing here, > there are more people running servers than people running linux on their > desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. > So I am quite hopeful about Jude's work that it will solve many of my > headaches. > On the other hand, I know systemd is a bigger problem when you install > anything with a GUI on linux, so I understand many of you guys' > frustrations. > But I think if we are going to sort this problem out we'd better aim a > bigger audience first. It is a loop: 1 Getting a bigger audience 2 Satisfy this audience more then other do 3 parts of the Audience become devuan supporter (devs, tester, etc..) 4 more people in the community, more work can be done so, goto 1 > > This is my 2 cents. > -- > aldemir > > > ___ > 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] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
> > BTW I think nobody here cares about having Devuan support Gnome. The > do-it-all DEs, > those providing their own integrated replacement for every application, > are, by design, > opposed to the Nix principles. It is not a surprise that systemd and Gnome > are working > together. > I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and above. However, there's one thing here, there are more people running servers than people running linux on their desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers. So I am quite hopeful about Jude's work that it will solve many of my headaches. On the other hand, I know systemd is a bigger problem when you install anything with a GUI on linux, so I understand many of you guys' frustrations. But I think if we are going to sort this problem out we'd better aim a bigger audience first. This is my 2 cents. -- aldemir ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Le 19/02/2015 18:05, John Crisp a écrit : The short version of this whole thing is that Poettering - and with him, RedHat - are trying to take the kernel away from Linux Torvalds. They are doing so by creating another kernel in userland that everything depends on. Once they have enough stuff jacked into Poettering's matrix, they'll use it to leverage Torvalds out of the picture and finally take the whole cake for themselves. Another kernel in userland, this is the exact word, and it is clear as from seeing systemd extending its domination to every part of the userland. And when they've kicked Thorvalds out, they'll migrate enough of systemd into the kernel to make it impossible to take it out. I guess even Apple does not make such a thing with FreeBSD. Systemd is nothing more than a cynical play for domination and control of the entire Linux ecosystem. To "own the stack" of a modern distro. And since RedHat has managed to co-opt so many core projects, there is precious little to stop them. "Linux" as we think of it today is on life support. Android/Linux and systemd/Linux are now looking to be the two dominant entities. Traditional Linux - one that adheres to the Unix philosophy - is all but dead. Hopefully, Devuan can save it. I agree 100% with you. But you phrase it better than me :-) Thank you for it. They are so clearly and quickly hijacking the system that they can't hide their intentions anymore. I am sure Debian people will eventually understand what's going on. The question is when. BTW I think nobody here cares about having Devuan support Gnome. The do-it-all DEs, those providing their own integrated replacement for every application, are, by design, opposed to the Nix principles. It is not a surprise that systemd and Gnome are working together. But how can we name the free OS Devuan will provide? It is definitely not the same as Debian, but Debian won't rename itself "Systemd/Linux". Gnu itself considers free only very few distros, and even Debian was not in the list, because it tolerated non-free software. This never prevented Debian from calling its distributions "Gnu/Linux". And, since it isn't in Gnu's list, it cannot be removed. Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:05:03 +0100 John Crisp wrote: > I read the following article a while back and the one reply that > really actually made the most sense to me and summed up my feelings > that there are wider political issues at stake - this was on page 3 > of the comments by Trevor Potts. > > IMHO If RHEL can't make Mr Torvalds develop the way you want, build > another system to replace him - effectively 'fork Linux' > > With a business head on rather than development, it make a lot of > sense. They like things they can control. > > Just my 2c worth :-) > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ The following is the direct link to Trevor Potts' specific comment: http://m.forums.theregister.co.uk/post/reply/2375127 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] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On 19/02/15 18:38, Steve Litt wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:05:03 +0100 > John Crisp wrote: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ > > Trade mag journalists. Can't live with them, can't live without > them. :-) > LOl - yeah. But it was the comment that was the interesting bit (I think Mr Potts who wrote the comment is a journo there too - http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2160/) - I just wanted to add the original reference :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:05:03 +0100 John Crisp wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ Wow, this article (the article itself, not the replies) has a mislead right off the bat: "The dispute centred on plans to replace the sysvinit init system management toolkit with systemd" Ummm, no. If they'd replaced sysinit with OpenRC, runit, s6, or Epoch, we'd be dancing in the streets. We specifically object to systemd. The author then goes on to call systemd "a similar but less-Linux-specific set of tools". Systemd is about as Linux specific as you can get. Trade mag journalists. Can't live with them, can't live without them. :-) 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] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
On 19/02/15 13:36, hal wrote: > Hello all, and great work on the Alpha! I am tagging this off-topic as it > doesn't really pertain to Devuan development except in a tangential aspect. > > I've always thought it a bit odd that just a handful of people, leading > certain Open Source projects, could get away with steering any certain Linux > distro directly into the path of oncoming traffic. I ran across this > article yesterday and thought it may explain some of the things that happened > with SuSE, Caldera, Gnome and now Debian. > > There are many changes that have happened with Linux distros over the years > and many just never made sense to me. Some new implementation supposing to > make things easier was just a mess to work with (NetworkManager, > resolvconf, udev, MDNS). Usually it was claimed "It is easier for users" but > often the case was wrong. When things work, they work OK, but good luck if > you need to fix it when it doesn't work. > > This articla was a bit concerning because the largest contributers to the > Linux kernel come from private businesses now. That's always been fine with > me until things like systemd happen which completely alter every aspect > of the system causing new problems at every level. The fact that most of the > major distros jumped on the band wagon without question was also strange to > me. It now makes sense to me because the collective of private > business makes up the majority of the development. There are far more private > interests funding the drive behind these changes than there are hackers to > fix/oversee them. > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/linux-has-2000-new-developers-and-gets-1-patches-for-each-version/ I read the following article a while back and the one reply that really actually made the most sense to me and summed up my feelings that there are wider political issues at stake - this was on page 3 of the comments by Trevor Potts. IMHO If RHEL can't make Mr Torvalds develop the way you want, build another system to replace him - effectively 'fork Linux' With a business head on rather than development, it make a lot of sense. They like things they can control. Just my 2c worth :-) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/ttsystemdtt_row_ends_with_debian_getting_forked/ Trevor Potts : Re: If systemd is so bad... "If systemd is so bad... ...then why are so many distros using it?" It's called blackmail. RedHat are behind the whole thing. They spend the money that makes a lot of critical pieces of your average Linux distribution work. Now those things won't work without systemd and/or getting them to work without systemd is a right bitch/there are roadmaps to make them not work without systemd in short order. The short version of this whole thing is that Poettering - and with him, RedHat - are trying to take the kernel away from Linux Torvalds. They are doing so by creating another kernel in userland that everything depends on. Once they have enough stuff jacked into Poettering's matrix, they'll use it to leverage Torvalds out of the picture and finally take the whole cake for themselves. Systemd is nothing more than a cynical play for domination and control of the entire Linux ecosystem. To "own the stack" of a modern distro. And since RedHat has managed to co-opt so many core projects, there is precious little to stop them. "Linux" as we think of it today is on life support. Android/Linux and systemd/Linux are now looking to be the two dominant entities. Traditional Linux - one that adheres to the Unix philosophy - is all but dead. Hopefully, Devuan can save it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
it's my understanding that most additions to the kernel from hardware companies are for drivers. i can only assume the rest are for new features they want to use or random bug fixes. i think the linux kernel itself is safe from needless radical changes because the linux kernel people actually get the last say on whether or not they accept a patch. frankly, i think it's a good system due to it's limited scope and direct oversight. the origin of the systemd problem isnt that anyone can publish code, it's the lack of oversight in distributions possibly due to the massive scope of the software they are distributing. tl;dr: Quality Control is very very very important. --Gravis On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:36 AM, hal wrote: > Hello all, and great work on the Alpha! I am tagging this off-topic as it > doesn't really pertain to Devuan development except in a tangential aspect. > > I've always thought it a bit odd that just a handful of people, leading > certain Open Source projects, could get away with steering any certain > Linux distro directly into the path of oncoming traffic. I ran across this > article yesterday and thought it may explain some of the things that > happened with SuSE, Caldera, Gnome and now Debian. > > There are many changes that have happened with Linux distros over the > years and many just never made sense to me. Some new implementation > supposing to make things easier was just a mess to work with > (NetworkManager, > resolvconf, udev, MDNS). Usually it was claimed "It is easier for users" > but often the case was wrong. When things work, they work OK, but good luck > if you need to fix it when it doesn't work. > > This articla was a bit concerning because the largest contributers to the > Linux kernel come from private businesses now. That's always been fine with > me until things like systemd happen which completely alter every aspect > of the system causing new problems at every level. The fact that most of > the major distros jumped on the band wagon without question was also > strange to me. It now makes sense to me because the collective of private > business makes up the majority of the development. There are far more > private interests funding the drive behind these changes than there are > hackers to fix/oversee them. > > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/linux-has-2000-new-developers-and-gets-1-patches-for-each-version/ > ___ > 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
[Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
Hello all, and great work on the Alpha! I am tagging this off-topic as it doesn't really pertain to Devuan development except in a tangential aspect. I've always thought it a bit odd that just a handful of people, leading certain Open Source projects, could get away with steering any certain Linux distro directly into the path of oncoming traffic. I ran across this article yesterday and thought it may explain some of the things that happened with SuSE, Caldera, Gnome and now Debian. There are many changes that have happened with Linux distros over the years and many just never made sense to me. Some new implementation supposing to make things easier was just a mess to work with (NetworkManager, resolvconf, udev, MDNS). Usually it was claimed "It is easier for users" but often the case was wrong. When things work, they work OK, but good luck if you need to fix it when it doesn't work. This articla was a bit concerning because the largest contributers to the Linux kernel come from private businesses now. That's always been fine with me until things like systemd happen which completely alter every aspect of the system causing new problems at every level. The fact that most of the major distros jumped on the band wagon without question was also strange to me. It now makes sense to me because the collective of private business makes up the majority of the development. There are far more private interests funding the drive behind these changes than there are hackers to fix/oversee them. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/linux-has-2000-new-developers-and-gets-1-patches-for-each-version/ ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
