Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет: You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin - ./usr/bin) from one place to the other regardless, so it doesn't matter much. So, why not to make /usr/bin - ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin - /bin (notice the «/»)) ? :D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov m...@mva.name wrote: 18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет: You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin - ./usr/bin) from one place to the other regardless, so it doesn't matter much. So, why not to make /usr/bin - ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin - /bin (notice the «/»)) ? :D So, given the choices of: 1. Re-establishing FHS standards so that I can boot with / only. 2. Consolidating everything under /usr so that just about all OS-managed files are in a single place. 3. Stuffing everything in /usr into my root partition. I'd say that #3 is the worst of all possible worlds. At least there is some kind of expected benefit from the /usr move. Sure, you COULD shove everything into root, but I can't think of anybody in this debate who would consider that a useful solution. Go read the Fedora reasons-for-the-/usr-move page. Whether you think it is worth it or not is one thing, but at least there are reasons for it. I can't think of any benefits from doing the reverse. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 19-11-2012 15:20:56 +0700, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: 18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет: You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin - ./usr/bin) from one place to the other regardless, so it doesn't matter much. So, why not to make /usr/bin - ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin - /bin (notice the «/»)) ? :D Dunno if Linux has a way to, but if you use an alternative mountpoint, it's nice when the symlink points in the right direction, and not accidentially to a life filesystem coming from a rescue device or whatever. Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:54:38AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I foresee a new udev fork then. Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I created it. Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone involved. If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable. That's an odd transition... With avahi is ... I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy. Hyperbole, how nice :( Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone. No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior and needs to stop right now. greg k-h Greg, would you clarify what you meant by this? Meant by what part of the above response? Written 6 months ago? Your recent comments suggest to me that you did not mean what I thought you meant. What did you think I meant about what? Again, I have no objection to people forking projects, it's great, and fun to watch happen. Fork away on your own site, with whom ever you want to. But if this fork is now the official Gentoo fork, owned by the Gentoo Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer. And that is how this thread started, I wanted to know what was the resolution of the council meeting with the very unclear and vague meeting minutes. I have yet to get that answer, which is troubling. thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 11/18/2012 03:08 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:54:38AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I foresee a new udev fork then. Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I created it. Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone involved. If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable. That's an odd transition... With avahi is ... I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy. Hyperbole, how nice :( Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone. No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior and needs to stop right now. greg k-h Greg, would you clarify what you meant by this? Meant by what part of the above response? Written 6 months ago? Your recent comments suggest to me that you did not mean what I thought you meant. What did you think I meant about what? Again, I have no objection to people forking projects, it's great, and fun to watch happen. Fork away on your own site, with whom ever you want to. But if this fork is now the official Gentoo fork, owned by the Gentoo Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer. And that is how this thread started, I wanted to know what was the resolution of the council meeting with the very unclear and vague meeting minutes. I have yet to get that answer, which is troubling. thanks, greg k-h You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are. This will be an official Gentoo project when we make the announcement in the next few days. That makes it one project of many. GLEP 0039 clearly states how this works. If you are unhappy with GLEP 0039, then you should discuss that with the council. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are. It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by you. I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an official fork :) This will be an official Gentoo project when we make the announcement in the next few days. That makes it one project of many. GLEP 0039 clearly states how this works. If you are unhappy with GLEP 0039, then you should discuss that with the council. I fail to see how 0039 has to do with this, please explain. I also don't see the copyright issue here, nor do I see where the decision of the council was made. Again, that's my original question, What is the decision of the council regarding this issue? thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/2012 00:08, Greg KH wrote: But if this fork is now the official Gentoo fork, owned by the Gentoo Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer. Please note that I would be the first one, from a QA point of view, to raise a huge question mark if somebody is planning to make this the default anytime soon. You want to keep it around as an option? Sure, feel free. Moving as default? Over my dead public key. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 11/18/2012 03:19 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are. It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by you. I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an official fork :) This will be an official Gentoo project when we make the announcement in the next few days. That makes it one project of many. GLEP 0039 clearly states how this works. If you are unhappy with GLEP 0039, then you should discuss that with the council. I fail to see how 0039 has to do with this, please explain. I also don't see the copyright issue here, nor do I see where the decision of the council was made. Again, that's my original question, What is the decision of the council regarding this issue? thanks, greg k-h I am sick of the harassment that I have received from you and a few others both in public and in private. The public branch has been deleted. Come back after we have done our first release. Otherwise, leave us alone. That is all that I have to say. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:19:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are. It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by you. I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an official fork :) Oh, and the README file says it is a Gentoo project: This is a Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently being done with openrc. However, we aim to be distro neutral and welcome contribution from others using a variety of system initializations. We also aim towards POSIX compliance. So why would I think otherwise? thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 00:27 -0800, Greg KH escribió: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:19:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are. It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by you. I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an official fork :) Oh, and the README file says it is a Gentoo project: This is a Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently being done with openrc. However, we aim to be distro neutral and welcome contribution from others using a variety of system initializations. We also aim towards POSIX compliance. So why would I think otherwise? thanks, greg k-h Looks like we think different about what a Gentoo project means, lets read: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/herds-and-projects/index.html That would explain why both, eudev and systemd Gentoo projects can coexist: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/systemd/index.xml signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/12 10:21, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 18/11/2012 00:08, Greg KH wrote: But if this fork is now the official Gentoo fork, owned by the Gentoo Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer. Please note that I would be the first one, from a QA point of view, to raise a huge question mark if somebody is planning to make this the default anytime soon. You want to keep it around as an option? Sure, feel free. Moving as default? Over my dead public key. Amen.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
By the way, Diego, what is you current point of view on Gentoo default init system? i.e., what do you personally prefer to see as default init here: SystemD or OpenRC? [Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are on non-SysD-related udev side.] And, if anyone is interested in my opinion: I *HATE* when somebody (will it be distro maintainers or RedHat corporation) forcing me their opinion on _what_ should I use and _how_ should I use this. Thats why I hate Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, RHEL, SuSE and so on. Thats why I'm using Gentoo and Gentoo-derivatives (Sabayon, for example) for almost 10 years. Thats why I am an evangelist of Gentoo and it's derivatives. More of that, thats why Daniel Robbins created Gentoo itself. So, I really hope, that Gentoo will not obey RedHat's will and will not force SystemD as default init system, and not drop pretty OpenRC to trash. And I hope, that ryao's eudev will be most used (if not default) variant of udev, since I'm sad with last vanilla udev functionality downgrades. -- Best, mva 18.11.2012 15:21, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет: On 18/11/2012 00:08, Greg KH wrote: But if this fork is now the official Gentoo fork, owned by the Gentoo Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer. Please note that I would be the first one, from a QA point of view, to raise a huge question mark if somebody is planning to make this the default anytime soon. You want to keep it around as an option? Sure, feel free. Moving as default? Over my dead public key. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov m...@mva.name wrote: So, I really hope, that Gentoo will not obey RedHat's will and will not force SystemD as default init system, and not drop pretty OpenRC to trash. And I hope, that ryao's eudev will be most used (if not default) variant of udev, since I'm sad with last vanilla udev functionality downgrades. I'm sure all of the options will be offered as options for as long as people care to take care of them. With the number of anti-systemd posts on -dev I don't see openrc going away anytime soon. I'm sure the default will stay as it is unless a substantial majority want it otherwise - we can't go flipping that every time the latest whatever comes along. And frankly, I could care less what it is since I can change it. If I wanted to be rigidly bound by defaults there are a lot of distros easier to maintain than Gentoo. iOS comes to mind. :) I run OpenRC on my main box, and systemd on a VM hosted within it. I wouldn't be surprised if I move to systemd some day as my experience with it has been a good one, but I'll use the tools I think are best for the problem at hand, and not what somebody else chooses for me, and I'll be the last to force a choice on anybody else. That said, Gentoo can only offer the options that devs step up and maintain, so if you care greatly about something start writing patches. That is my biggest concern over a lot of this mess - and Greg KH did a good job putting it into words in the six-month old thread that was just resurrected. Lennart et al only have the power you give to them - anybody can fork at any time or keep an old project going. If you don't like Gnome 3 then start writing code for Gnome 2. This is all FREE software, and it only exists when people take the time to write it. If nobody bothers to maintain the alternatives, then I guess collectively we're going to be stuck with whatever people take the time to write. So, feel free to offer advice/comments/etc. However, let's keep the tone civil. Unless you're their employer, the guys writing the software you don't like owe you precisely nothing. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/2012 03:11, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: [Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are on non-SysD-related udev side.] The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything I've been doing lately. As many other developers can easily attest, I don't use systemd and I'm not planning to use it anytime soon. So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected. And let this be a reminder that you can still disagree with the systemd everywhere, and only crowd while still not becoming laughing stock. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/12 17:04, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 18/11/2012 03:11, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: [Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are on non-SysD-related udev side.] The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything I've been doing lately. As many other developers can easily attest, I don't use systemd and I'm not planning to use it anytime soon. So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected. Same here. I haven't even tried it and got no plans to. I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of simplifying the system. The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from larger partitions, the need has long past. Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML either. - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18-11-2012 17:16:18 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML either. No need for a reason. It is a fact that it is in use *right now*. (Existing systems/installs that are not to be phased out anywhere near soon.) Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/2012 07:16, Samuli Suominen wrote: I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of simplifying the system. The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from larger partitions, the need has long past. Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML either. Ibidem. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
To be honest, in my opinion, «killing of separate /usr» can reasonable be continued by moving all it's content to / (/usr/bin - /bin, /usr/lib - lib, and so on) in despite of all objections, as it was invented just because of disk space exhaustion. 18.11.2012 22:16, Samuli Suominen пишет: On 18/11/12 17:04, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 18/11/2012 03:11, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: [Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are on non-SysD-related udev side.] The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything I've been doing lately. As many other developers can easily attest, I don't use systemd and I'm not planning to use it anytime soon. So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected. Same here. I haven't even tried it and got no plans to. I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of simplifying the system. The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from larger partitions, the need has long past. Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML either. - Samuli signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/2012 07:34, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: To be honest, in my opinion, «killing of separate /usr» can reasonable be continued by moving all it's content to / (/usr/bin - /bin, /usr/lib - lib, and so on) in despite of all objections, as it was invented just because of disk space exhaustion. Well, the objection to that was what actually caused this udev fork, so... Also, I doubt anybody would argue that it's not commutative (move to /usr, move to /) — it's just pragmatic, most stuff uses /usr anyway as base, so the move / - /usr is infinitely less painful than /usr - /. To me, I don't care. I haven't even used /boot in years. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything I've been doing lately. Nope ;) I knew that, but as far as I read some of your emails, it was thoughts that you protect udev+sysD integration and followed udev's functionality downgrade. So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected. Sorry, if I write it in that manner, that last part looks like adressed to you. I tried to write it mostly for GregKH and people, that protect SystemD-way distro-development path. And let this be a reminder that you can still disagree with the systemd everywhere, and only crowd while still not becoming laughing stock. And, by the way, I doubt, that people laugh about eudev (previously named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/2012 07:43, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: And, by the way, I doubt, that people laugh about eudev (previously named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket) People _are_ laughing at it. On G+, on Twitter, I suppose identi.ca and IRC as well. But yes, many more can't understand that... and neither do I. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 11/18/2012 04:34 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: To be honest, in my opinion, «killing of separate /usr» can reasonable be continued by moving all it's content to / (/usr/bin - /bin, /usr/lib - lib, and so on) in despite of all objections, as it was invented just because of disk space exhaustion. And since we have lots of wonderful file systems, a neat and interesting device mapper and a plethora of fun way to shot ourselves in the foot not only you have a separate /usr but even fun separate /usr/bin from /usr/share and other strange layout that some people prepared to solve some of their problems. The radical solution is to have a rich early boot able to do this kind of setup, for the transition you might want to not have init and udev non-workable because somebody decided that is useful using glib or some other library residing in /usr/ lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18-11-2012 07:42:40 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Also, I doubt anybody would argue that it's not commutative (move to /usr, move to /) — it's just pragmatic, most stuff uses /usr anyway as base, so the move / - /usr is infinitely less painful than /usr - /. You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin - ./usr/bin) from one place to the other regardless, so it doesn't matter much. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18-11-2012 07:47:22 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 18/11/2012 07:43, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: And, by the way, I doubt, that people laugh about eudev (previously named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket) People _are_ laughing at it. On G+, on Twitter, I suppose identi.ca and IRC as well. It's your choice to participate on those social platforms. Please don't make it our problem. It doesn't add anything useful to this discussion. Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 11/18/2012 04:47 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: But yes, many more can't understand that... and neither do I. Then would be nice if everybody shuts up, let people play with their toys and if something useful happens evaluate the result. According to the people that asked me to help the whole thing would had been an experiment to see if would be possible to have a smaller and cleaner udev. I liked the idea since I like alternatives and I consider many choices from upstream a tad narrow minded (beside the entertaining posts from Linus about their bug management). Nobody wanted hype there, just more people willing to chip in some time and effort to get there. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 18/11/2012 07:54, Fabian Groffen wrote: It's your choice to participate on those social platforms. Please don't make it our problem. It doesn't add anything useful to this discussion. It adds. Because, while I don't know about you, I rely on Gentoo on my job. And many others do, too. And making Gentoo the laughing stock (_again_, I'd add) is something that is detrimental to all of us there, as it makes it harder to let it be seen for what it is (a very real, quit reliable distribution) rather than a juvenile effort to be different from the rest. How long did it take us to get rid of the Gentoo is rice fame? Do we want to go back to that? _I_ don't think so. So yes, the social platforms matter and are our problem. And it appals me that a member of the council can't see that. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
It depends on who is actually laughing I'd say. just my 0.01c. -- Fabio Erculiani
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I foresee a new udev fork then. Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I created it. Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone involved. If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable. That's an odd transition... With avahi is ... I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy. Hyperbole, how nice :( Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone. No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior and needs to stop right now. greg k-h Greg, would you clarify what you meant by this? Your recent comments suggest to me that you did not mean what I thought you meant. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/12 09:54, Olivier Crête wrote: Hi, On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 06:34 +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my right, after all. I would express my opinion about Fabio made software, but I've never heard of any. Not his fault, he wrote plenty of interesting stuff though. Fabio attitude still isn't that horrible regarding feedbacks, Rigo got created more or less because the previous UI got a sound it sucks. His quite short and a bit extreme reaction probably is due having lots of unhappy user complaining at him for some issue with avahi (hangs in bonjour now and then) and pulse (skype freezing randomly anyone). Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi, systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going through the PA nonsense, really missing the old ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days. Maybe the reason every sensible distribution uses Avahi, Pulseaudio, etc is because they are better than other solutions out there? If there are solutions somebody will use them, if people are aware of them and doesn't get too hard. I did like the concept about pulse and even wrote support for pulse in a certain fringe software you might use. The pulse concept is quite good, some corner cases and some design issues make it annoying at time. The fact some of them are consider features or design obviously make the whole thing less nice. Do you think is a fast conspiracy to make your life suck? I believe engineers in every distribution are looking at what's available and picking what they think is the best solution, and it turns out Lennart is pretty damn good at making useful software. No, he is pretty damn good in getting interesting concepts, having people sold on them and then you need 5 years to have the audio seldom crash, bonjour seldom kill pidgin and so on. Till it is some minor annoyance that is comparable to not having the feature or the same to other feature provider (dmix isn't exactly great as well) you surely can live with it. Was alsa always working? I remember spending hours trying to figure out the right control in alsamixer and fighting with alsa's arcane configuration languages (it has 3 different ones). And how do you deal with modern technologies like Bluetooth audio without Pulseaudio exactly? I used to do that and it was working sort of fine even if it was crashing in dbus... Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the one of the majority of users I've been talking with. I think you only hear from users who like to complain, others are just happy that everything works for them thanks to Pulseaudio, systemd, etc. As said, if they are minor annoyances most people would just cope with them. A - Skype hangs because pulse? oh well, let's reload it no biggie B - AAaargh I missed the important confcall because #%$#@ skype hang due pulse, I hate YOU Lennart! A and B are different reactions from the same small issue. If you think that Lennart does not solve problems, maybe it's because you don't even understand what the problems were? For example, I encourage you to read about how the dynamic latency in PA allows for lower power usage or how modern audio hardware is designed to use a userspace sound server, etc. I recall when the whole thing got initially reported and it was pulse eats my batter and if you consider that the stock pulse on ubuntu oneric eats about a *least* 10% cpu on imx51 due funny resampling loops you know something needed some more attention. I guess I'm digressing. The main issue is that udev best replacement so far is mdev plus some additional helpers to let applications using libudev or the dbus interface still get compatibility. So having udev merge with systemd is quite in the shovel meet throat side. People that had and have some bad experience with pulse and avahi or directly with Lennart stubborn and abrasive personality can be *quite* concerned about this vertical and linux-only approach. If you consider that in 2 weeks the whole thing went from udev moves to systemd since is easier for us, but not be concerned udev can build stand alone to udev stand alone is unsupported you can see that isn't that simple and lots of people might start to get angry. lu - -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+xU3sACgkQ6Ex4woTpDjTNewCfU5cahmNPbgKQJt/2GkbVBh4o F1gAnjheSaIVRF55g1//9wu5dFe8ga3w =FlU7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Greg KH schrieb: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone. You mean as unacceptable as calling C++ proponents full of bullshit[1], developers of another operating system masturbating monkeys[2] and security researchers as people wanking around with their opinions[3]? Did I say any of that? I have no idea why you are comparing me to anyone else. Who ever said that those links are acceptable behavior either? I never did. greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
Greg KH schrieb: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone. You mean as unacceptable as calling C++ proponents full of bullshit[1], developers of another operating system masturbating monkeys[2] and security researchers as people wanking around with their opinions[3]? No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior and needs to stop right now. Insulting other people is indeed not nice. A borderline statement would be the card-carrying member of the Poettering gang which was coined by a well-known kernel developer who shall remain unnamed here. But using harsh words to describe other people's software? C'mon. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918 [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/296 [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/1/217
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 05/10/2012 04:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Greg KH schrieb: No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior and needs to stop right now. Insulting other people is indeed not nice. A borderline statement would be the card-carrying member of the Poettering gang which was coined by a well-known kernel developer who shall remain unnamed here. But using harsh words to describe other people's software? C'mon. Specific criticism's can be be constructive, but calling PulseAudio a name like FailAudio certainly isn't. I'd enjoy reading this thread a lot more if it contained more discussion about solutions, and less of what seems like whining due to self-pity. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
Hi, On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 06:34 +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my right, after all. I would express my opinion about Fabio made software, but I've never heard of any. Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi, systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going through the PA nonsense, really missing the old ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days. Maybe the reason every sensible distribution uses Avahi, Pulseaudio, etc is because they are better than other solutions out there? Do you think is a fast conspiracy to make your life suck? I believe engineers in every distribution are looking at what's available and picking what they think is the best solution, and it turns out Lennart is pretty damn good at making useful software. Was alsa always working? I remember spending hours trying to figure out the right control in alsamixer and fighting with alsa's arcane configuration languages (it has 3 different ones). And how do you deal with modern technologies like Bluetooth audio without Pulseaudio exactly? Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the one of the majority of users I've been talking with. I think you only hear from users who like to complain, others are just happy that everything works for them thanks to Pulseaudio, systemd, etc. If you think that Lennart does not solve problems, maybe it's because you don't even understand what the problems were? For example, I encourage you to read about how the dynamic latency in PA allows for lower power usage or how modern audio hardware is designed to use a userspace sound server, etc. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
Greg KH wrote: No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone else is perfectly happy with.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 05/10/2012 11:57 AM, David Leverton wrote: Greg KH wrote: No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone else is perfectly happy with. Isn't it presumptuous to say that they hate Unix? Maybe their vision of how they'd like Unix to be is just different from yours? -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
Zac Medico wrote: Isn't it presumptuous to say that they hate Unix? Maybe their vision of how they'd like Unix to be is just different from yours? If how they'd like Unix to be goes so blatantly against its fundamental design principles then I think it's reasonable to say that they hate it.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/09/2012 07:51 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I foresee a new udev fork then. If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable. With avahi is ... I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy. Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. I sincerely hope someone has hacked into your account and he is writing on your behalf. This sort of trash talk does not belong to a public Gentoo mailing list. Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPrB0WAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCFGYQAJiKzJ6RUYrkCswRBeWFk9Vn 6kOybbC9nn8LgQuoSjlNXWQ2jm5qqYEWhwzmFJMaeYJ7vpaVNL9nDTslloiXiw46 2dEjBUyXzmx90VIAvAvos3lec2C45vHXUYwjCp8VfwIfL+syPfb0wIXIn+RETAHg 2c4vyPRvv145zCPRkdF/b0GV4ai6JozRTrUOn2dobEs2SaqadqY4cw5uj1P47Msd Jezdz4MaPUPf16q0CoK6yi4U0jkzEqGtJbinHT4ib9PMhYX8WXjJtLloaBiQk01l bKNJWOAMIEpWK6dD2rko5pY4igS9ccbFCLlEDnELQBSHXDGAmarmGRlN6C/qVasY 019n3fSUsLt+kMeH2WgfmmXViyBgPeQxMY0E4HVkV+ztwNp3by8gG3jtuQeX+Kij WaECR/2/DwUTU+kLLkkEa2FZSrg8xwG3Ty5SpCAVQWcJIn3L1tziD58kt1DtpJjs jt0bV1eT2JnxL4v7GopxUI55n4bmqqzRP7SebkK4B7AOlae1fxjukqpNC6s6oTgc CBoWiJ7DkRbcTk+ww+MF+xUCmYrqPFlf8aQ8+j16LogaTCeV09QIhAqUKkcQB8Lx k6gGD6H5elPsYDm1gP/wBe1WEe6zLXDLd6LFiEYKHjyiznGDs1BAEk0oJMbob5I3 HbAYiBP8P7D7FBosO7oj =INQn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use. Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of software that we would prefer not to. - -- Ciaran McCreesh -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk+sHi8ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGZoQCeN5o15CIzO0xJTCNkOW9EhPoc rjgAoL5WoPQpcxRhceifxFkfecZg5YqK =+nyf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:59:40 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use. Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of software that we would prefer not to. No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven before, there are always alternatives. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:13:33 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use. Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of software that we would prefer not to. No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven before, there are always alternatives. That's a somewhat disingenuous claim when the alternatives are moving steadily towards don't use Linux at all or use the full GnomeOS stack. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:14:33 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:13:33 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use. Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of software that we would prefer not to. No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven before, there are always alternatives. That's a somewhat disingenuous claim when the alternatives are moving steadily towards don't use Linux at all or use the full GnomeOS stack. Then go rant upstream about it. Or another upstream. Or do something useful yourself. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I sincerely hope someone has hacked into your account and he is writing on your behalf. This sort of trash talk does not belong to a public Gentoo mailing list. Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use. No, this was really me. Forgive me for the rant, but the problem here is real and no, the alternative would be either giving up with the Linux stack or living with unreliable, overengineered software. I don't see any other viable alternative. Just answer my question, what is going to happen the day udev will require systemd in order to work properly? On a side note, I find it quite odd to be accused of trash talking by Linux Kernel people. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPrB0WAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCFGYQAJiKzJ6RUYrkCswRBeWFk9Vn 6kOybbC9nn8LgQuoSjlNXWQ2jm5qqYEWhwzmFJMaeYJ7vpaVNL9nDTslloiXiw46 2dEjBUyXzmx90VIAvAvos3lec2C45vHXUYwjCp8VfwIfL+syPfb0wIXIn+RETAHg 2c4vyPRvv145zCPRkdF/b0GV4ai6JozRTrUOn2dobEs2SaqadqY4cw5uj1P47Msd Jezdz4MaPUPf16q0CoK6yi4U0jkzEqGtJbinHT4ib9PMhYX8WXjJtLloaBiQk01l bKNJWOAMIEpWK6dD2rko5pY4igS9ccbFCLlEDnELQBSHXDGAmarmGRlN6C/qVasY 019n3fSUsLt+kMeH2WgfmmXViyBgPeQxMY0E4HVkV+ztwNp3by8gG3jtuQeX+Kij WaECR/2/DwUTU+kLLkkEa2FZSrg8xwG3Ty5SpCAVQWcJIn3L1tziD58kt1DtpJjs jt0bV1eT2JnxL4v7GopxUI55n4bmqqzRP7SebkK4B7AOlae1fxjukqpNC6s6oTgc CBoWiJ7DkRbcTk+ww+MF+xUCmYrqPFlf8aQ8+j16LogaTCeV09QIhAqUKkcQB8Lx k6gGD6H5elPsYDm1gP/wBe1WEe6zLXDLd6LFiEYKHjyiznGDs1BAEk0oJMbob5I3 HbAYiBP8P7D7FBosO7oj =INQn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fabio Erculiani
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote: I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my right, after all. Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi, systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going through the PA nonsense, really missing the old ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days. Er, the source is open, so choice is always there. What I think your complaint is the fact that it used to be easy to do those things (because upstream supported those options and USE flags exposed them to you) and now upstream is not supporting those options and there is no easy way to remove the dependencies without doing a bunch of work. If you want to bring complexity but you end up not being able to handle it, then you're not a really good engineer, IMHO. I don't think anyone expects complexity to come bug-free. Cathedral and the Bazaar? Release Early and Release Often? I expect the software to reach a stable state in a reasonable amount of time given the complexity involved. Having said that, I also wonder where's the lovely modularity the various *nix platforms had. If this is the actual direction of Linux Foundation, Redhat and Canonical, I am worried that Linux would end up being an OSX-wannabe. The problem as I understand it is that you want other people to write software that meets your needs and it turns out that the world doesn't always work that way. You can fork the software you hate (using versions before you hated it) or you can write your own software (like mdev + busybox) to replace the hated components. Both of those things are actually somewhat useful. Complaining about how some random people on the internet don't write software that you find palatable is just silly. Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the one of the majority of users I've been talking with. I am not against changes, I am actually in favor of them, but only when they really make sense and solve problems, which it doesn't seem the case lately. I didn't want to offend anyone, but just having fun (sigh) of IMHO bad design decisions. -- Fabio Erculiani
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:40:41AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close integration with the underlying udev implementation[PS]. Nope, can't make that assurance at all. Actually, maybe I can make the opposite assurance, let's see what the future brings... :) greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
I foresee a new udev fork then. If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable. With avahi is ... I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy. Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. -- Fabio Erculiani
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I foresee a new udev fork then. Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I created it. Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone involved. If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable. That's an odd transition... With avahi is ... I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy. Hyperbole, how nice :( Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone. No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior and needs to stop right now. greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 05/10/12 06:36, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I foresee a new udev fork then. Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I created it. Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone involved. Forks are often unnecessary. Now instead of working on something useful I get to spend my time reverting to previous behaviour, just so I can have a working solution instead of a shiny one. Are we really doing so well that we can just rewrite everything instead of maybe, for once, have things boring predictable and bugfree? I mean ... things were going so well. Machines Just Booted Every TIme. And now - UEFI is glitching all over the place, the GPT-aware bootloaders have config files with insane complexity and are exquisitely buggy, and someone thought making the init system exciting would just make life oh so much better. Result: I can't get more than a blinking cursor out of some machines without resorting to Dirty Hacks I would really prefer not to even consider. Seriously. I don't have time for these games. Stop breaking stuff! If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable. That's an odd transition... Same people involved, same mentality - and we don't want to be standing on the sides saying Told you so again. Gets boring. With avahi is ... I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy. Hyperbole, how nice :( Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. It's reactive. I've been called stupid, conservative, behind the times, user of obsolete software that will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why should we be ashamed of not agreeing with these funny pranksters? Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone. Then make it stop? :) No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to. Yeah, I can just stop updating. Sounds like a solution to all problems ;) There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior and needs to stop right now. Goes both ways. We're here because of Freedom, in various flavours. Freedom to copy things around and use for free. Freedom to swap out one part and use another. Freedom to break things badly. So why would I give up my freedom to tinker just because someone else is writing more code than I do? And I still have the freedom to complain all day long about undesigned stuff people try to force on me. Hey, you even have the freedom to complain about my complaining. Either way, I hope I can continue using Free Linux for a while and not be forced to use random things that are silly. I'd have expected you to support that. Take care, Patrick
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/10/12 06:36, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks. The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself. It's reactive. I've been called stupid, conservative, behind the times, user of obsolete software that will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why should we be ashamed of not agreeing with these funny pranksters? Look, I have pretty mixed feelings about all the vertical integration. However, let's at least do each other the professional courtesy of not resorting to name-calling. We're allowed to disagree, and that's OK. By all means voice your opinion. However, let's talk about the issues, and not the people advocating them. This is just polite behavior. It is also the rules for posting on this list, especially if you hold a g.o address. So why would I give up my freedom to tinker just because someone else is writing more code than I do? I understand your frustration. Really, I do - I often find myself sharing it. However, in the end people working on FOSS are basically free to do what they want, and everybody is free to use or support what they want. I don't like the fact that most people contributing to Android tend/aspire to be associated with the commercial market for smartphones, and as a result they tend to embrace pro-developer / anti-consumer solutions (like not allowing easy blocking of ads, or randomizing calls to read the IMEI, etc). However, the market is what it is. The only thing that is really any different today is that companies are at least releasing the source for the stuff they do - in the past they'd have just closed it all off so that there wouldn't even be the option of forking. If I want to I can at least find the API call to read my IMEI and tamper with it. I think part of the community frustration is the increasing level of commercial support around Linux. That has given us much more robust stuff to play with, but it also has resulted in a loss of control and change in general atmosphere. In the world of 1999 Linux market share took a back seat to hackability. In the world of the Canonicals, market share matters a great deal, and appealing to open source contributors matters a lot less. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my right, after all. Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi, systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going through the PA nonsense, really missing the old ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days. If you want to bring complexity but you end up not being able to handle it, then you're not a really good engineer, IMHO. Having said that, I also wonder where's the lovely modularity the various *nix platforms had. If this is the actual direction of Linux Foundation, Redhat and Canonical, I am worried that Linux would end up being an OSX-wannabe. Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the one of the majority of users I've been talking with. I am not against changes, I am actually in favor of them, but only when they really make sense and solve problems, which it doesn't seem the case lately. I didn't want to offend anyone, but just having fun (sigh) of IMHO bad design decisions. -- Fabio Erculiani
[gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
Greg KH wrote: On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:50:24PM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs: systemd and udev are being merged into one tarball. For the foreseeable future, it will still build 2 separate binaries. What happens down the road if/when it all becomes one combined binary? snip (It's much easier to introduce coupling between software in the same package. GregKH has also mooted a tightly-coupled core Linux distro, which afaict is the same reasoning as GnomeOS, and /that/ sounds like a clusterfsck waiting to happen.) mooted? Yes, in the sense of raised it as a possibility or in this case a future direction[1] as discussed on debian-dev[2]. I'll assume you're just not familiar with the word 'moot' as a verb; originally the adjective meant 'on the agenda' or 'on the table', and 'to moot' means to raise an item for discussion. Its modern meaning of 'no longer worth discussing' comes from the judiciary: for it to be dismissed, it had to be under discussion in the first place, and so usage evolved. And since when does having a set of tightly coupled base libraries and systems that work well together somehow turn into GnomeOS? Reaching like that is just foolish on your part. When did I say that it's the same thing? I simply said it sounds like the same reasoning. Compare: There are a number of folk in the Linux ecosystem pushing for a small core of tightly coupled components to make the core of a modern linux distro. The idea is that this 'core distro' can evolve in sync with the kernel, and generally move fast. This is both good for the overall platform and very hard to implement for the 'universal' distros [such as Gentoo or Debian]. [1] ..with: The future of GNOME is as a Linux based OS. It is harmful to pretend that you are writing the OS core to work on any number of different kernels, user space subsystem combinations, and core libraries.. Kernels just aren't that interesting. Linux isn't an OS. Now it is our job to try to build one - finally. Let's do it.[3] They sound like very similar reasoning to me. You misinterpreted what I said, which is one thing: there was no need to be discourteous. Let me be clear: I don't personally have an issue with udev talking to dbus (a requirement for it sounds wrong to me, but that's by-the-by.) It would annoy me no end, however, if udev required systemd, since I don't want to switch to it. And that is what we were discussing: possible future coupling between the two, which is much easier to do when the sources are part of the same package. Everything I need done on a desktop or a laptop in terms of hotplug, acpid events and wifi, the current udev has been able to do for years. I'd find it odd (read: the design smells) if those use-cases suddenly required new external dependencies. AFAIC vertical integration is supposed to mean closer downward coupling, typically skipping a layer or two; if it also means upward coupling, then the design is flawed ime. *shrug* What you do with your time, is your business. I'll evaluate any coupling that does or doesn't come up as and when, and make my own decisions then. That it's been mooted by you ;) means I'm glad others are doing work on busybox and mdev integration into openrc (I've read tonight that mdev works fine for simple hotplug like USB sticks) especially the applet to fsck and mount /usr early. OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close integration with the underlying udev implementation[PS]. SteveL. [1] https://plus.google.com/u/0/111049168280159033135/posts/V2t57Efkf1s [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00649.html [3] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00439.html [PS] Though it reminds me of packages distributing libraries, and I'd question why one git repo can't be used to make two tarballs, with beta testing of udev alone by distros like Gentoo or Debian. A separate tarball would mean automated tests can be done, which is useful as a basis for systemd et al: another benefit of no upward coupling. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
On 05/07/12 21:40, Steven J Long wrote: The future of GNOME is as a Linux based OS. It is harmful to pretend that you are writing the OS core to work on any number of different kernels, user space subsystem combinations, and core libraries.. Kernels just aren't that interesting. Linux isn't an OS. Now it is our job to try to build one - finally. Let's do it.[3] For what it is worth, the OS core is the kernel, libc and bootloader. GNOME runs on top of that. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
