Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:35 AM, James wrote: > > I do not see the "/usr" types of systems (like a current gentoo workstation > or server) going away any time soon. What I hope WE can pull off at Gentoo > is integration of the best of the CoreOS ideas into "Gentoo proper". I'm not suggesting that "/usr types of systems" are going away. I'm just pointing out that they're not really the focus of CoreOS (hosting them inside containers is, but not running these kinds of applications in the host itself). You seem to be wanting a minimalist profile of Gentoo, not CoreOS. I think many of us would love to see that, and I've been an advocate of paring down @system for just this reason. I just wouldn't use the term "CoreOS" with that as this is going to lead to confusion. CoreOS is a specialized distro intended to host containers, no more, no less. It isn't intended as a starting point for embedded projects or such. Sure, maybe you could make it work, but sooner or later CoreOS will make some change that will make you very unhappy because they aren't making it for you. But, again, I'm all for a more lightweight Gentoo profile that doesn't bundle stuff like openssh, or even an init implementation (since we have several to choose from now). -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
Why do I get the feeling that this is another episode of the "i hate LennartSoft(tm) too" circlejerk on the gentoo mailing list? this mailing list used to be about gentoo. On Dec 3, 2014 1:38 AM, "James" wrote: > Rich Freeman gentoo.org> writes: > > > > > > is integration of the best of the CoreOS ideas into "Gentoo proper". > > > > I'm not suggesting that "/usr types of systems" are going away. I'm > > just pointing out that they're not really the focus of CoreOS (hosting > > them inside containers is, but not running these kinds of applications > > in the host itself). > > I do not intend to follow the CoreOS commercial path. It intend to mod > gentoo to achieve those attractive attributes back into my "gentoo proper". > tftp, pxe, dhcp, uefi and many other tools give us a path to > running the least (embedded) to the most (complex traditional server) > as an extension (compliment) to the cluster. So as was pointed out, > I'm merely "lifting" form CoreOS what they lifted from their predicessors; > no more no less. I see the gentoo admins being able to move hardrware > in and out of the cluster, dynamically and being able to run many > sorts of gentoo systems (embedded to fulls server) on a myriad of > hardware they own and control. > > > > You seem to be wanting a minimalist profile of Gentoo, not CoreOS. > > YES!, I want Gentoo to "CRUSH" CoreOS because we can and our goal is not > to deceptively move users to a "rent the binary" jail. OK? > > > > < think many of us would love to see that, and I've been an advocate of > > paring down system for just this reason. I just wouldn't use the > > term "CoreOS" with that as this is going to lead to confusion. CoreOS > > is a specialized distro intended to host containers, no more, no less. > > OK, we see CoreOS differently. For me it was an Epiphany moment of > where I'm been trying to end up, with the aforementioned Gentoo twists. > > > It isn't intended as a starting point for embedded projects or such. > > Sure, maybe you could make it work, but sooner or later CoreOS will > > make some change that will make you very unhappy because they aren't > > making it for you. > > CoreOS will never be in my critical path. Large corporations will turn > computer scientist and hackers into WalMart type-employees. Conglomerates > are the enemy, imho. I fear Conglomerates much more than any group > of government idiots. ymmv. > > (warning digression) > Just look at the entire "net neutrality" > turf struggle. That sort of "corner the market" monopolistic behavior > would not be possible, if we had just maintained the "MAE" precedence > for network peering. Obama had little choice; but, putting networks > under SS7 style telecom regulations is a deceptive and horrible idea. > Conglomerates lobby congress and get very bad ideas written into law. > All we needed is regulation to allow (force) all networks to peer with > other networks. The entire concept of "private peering" is horseshit > and it should be ended immediately. CoreOS and the "Cloud" lobbyist can > easily get regulations passed to put an end to this linux experiment, imho. > Differnt subject I know, but the tactics of conglomerates are always the > same. Roll up competition and eliminate it, oh all in the name of better > security and portecting our 1st amendment rights and our conglomerates. > (sorry of the digression). > > > > > But, again, I'm all for a more lightweight Gentoo profile that doesn't > > bundle stuff like openssh, or even an init implementation (since we > > have several to choose from now). > > Funny, ssh is one of a few things I would put into drastically reduce > @system. ymmv, unless you are going to add something like netconsole.c > back into the bundle. > > I do not see my vision of the cluster (CoreOS insprired) to be limiting > to anyone at Gentoo. Not the embedded folks, not the mimalist, not > any init-camp, not the devs, hackers, or wannabees. And certainly > not the users. Is this a large undertaking? Certainly. Are the pieces > mostly already in existence, just scattered about and transversing time? > (methinks YES). > > > It all depends on how your vision works. Being older, I see a return to > massive diskless nodes being what CoreOS and the entire "Cloud Vendor" > conglomerates want. Conversely, I see those cheap microP now accompanied by > enormous amount of ram and SSD that is dirt cheap forming the building > blocks for the Gentoo cluster paradigm shift. I see Gentoo "smashing" that > "Cloud-vendor CoreOS" paradigm by provide what they offer and so much more > (full /usr systems) out of the same core codebase. I see Gentoo keeping the > rank and file computer scientists and hackers, gamefully employed. I see > the CoreOS folks migrating computer scientists and hackers to the Walmart > model of underemployment at a few conglomerates. > > Gentoo provides an excellent set of choices and a very bright future for > me > (cluster). Other can pick their own poison...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:37 PM, James wrote: > Rich Freeman gentoo.org> writes: > >> You seem to be wanting a minimalist profile of Gentoo, not CoreOS. > > YES!, I want Gentoo to "CRUSH" CoreOS because we can and our goal is not > to deceptively move users to a "rent the binary" jail. OK? > Gentoo and CoreOS really target different uses. I certainly could see one being installed more than the other just as there are no doubt more tubes of toothpaste sold in a year than there are iPhones sold in a year (or, at least I hope there are). That doesn't mean that toothpaste is "crushing" the iPhone. This isn't unlike Gentoo vs ChromeOS. You're comparing a general-purpose distro (and one that is even more general-purpose/customizable than a typical one) to a tool made to do exactly one job well. CoreOS is just about hosting containers. Sure, some of those containers might be "rent the binary jails" - but you could run Gentoo in one of those containers just as easily. CoreOS really competes with the likes of VMWare/KVM, or even OpenStack. If you don't want to run a bazillion containers, then sure it isn't something you're going to be interested in. > >> It isn't intended as a starting point for embedded projects or such. >> Sure, maybe you could make it work, but sooner or later CoreOS will >> make some change that will make you very unhappy because they aren't >> making it for you. > > CoreOS will never be in my critical path. Large corporations will turn > computer scientist and hackers into WalMart type-employees. Conglomerates > are the enemy, imho. I fear Conglomerates much more than any group > of government idiots. ymmv. Well, then don't run it! Large corporations are actually the least-progressive when it comes to adopting these kinds of technologies. I actually see thing being embraced by mid-sized companies first. The "new way" of doing these things lets you quickly scale up from development to production without a lot of manual configuration of individual hosts. I work for a big company and they're still doing lots of manual installation scripts that get signed and dated like it is still the 80s. It isn't Walmart-type work primarily because it is so error-prone we always need people to fix all the stuff that breaks. My LUG meets at a mid-sized VoIP company that uses the likes of Puppet/Chef for everything and I'm sure Docker is on their radar as something to think about next - they're hardly robots but they realize that they'd rather have their bright employees doing something other than dealing with botched updates on hosts that bring down 47 VMs at a time. Their customers like that they can just pay them for a VoIP account and get full service for a low cost, versus paying the kid next door to figure out how to custom-rig a PBX for them. And, yes, they use Asterisk. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
On Wednesday, December 03, 2014 02:39:53 AM Mark David Dumlao wrote: > Why do I get the feeling that this is another episode of the "i hate > LennartSoft(tm) too" circlejerk on the gentoo mailing list? Why do I get the feeling you just want another flamewar? I don't see any mention of systemd or anything else written by Lennart, apart from your comment. > this mailing list used to be about gentoo. It still is. > On Dec 3, 2014 1:38 AM, "James" wrote: > > Rich Freeman gentoo.org> writes: > > > > is integration of the best of the CoreOS ideas into "Gentoo proper". > > > > > > I'm not suggesting that "/usr types of systems" are going away. I'm > > > just pointing out that they're not really the focus of CoreOS (hosting > > > them inside containers is, but not running these kinds of applications > > > in the host itself). > > > > I do not intend to follow the CoreOS commercial path. It intend to mod > > gentoo to achieve those attractive attributes back into my "gentoo > > proper". > > tftp, pxe, dhcp, uefi and many other tools give us a path to > > running the least (embedded) to the most (complex traditional server) > > as an extension (compliment) to the cluster. So as was pointed out, > > I'm merely "lifting" form CoreOS what they lifted from their predicessors; > > no more no less. I see the gentoo admins being able to move hardrware > > in and out of the cluster, dynamically and being able to run many > > sorts of gentoo systems (embedded to fulls server) on a myriad of > > hardware they own and control. > > > > > You seem to be wanting a minimalist profile of Gentoo, not CoreOS. > > > > YES!, I want Gentoo to "CRUSH" CoreOS because we can and our goal is not > > to deceptively move users to a "rent the binary" jail. OK? > > > > > < think many of us would love to see that, and I've been an advocate of > > > paring down system for just this reason. I just wouldn't use the > > > term "CoreOS" with that as this is going to lead to confusion. CoreOS > > > is a specialized distro intended to host containers, no more, no less. > > > > OK, we see CoreOS differently. For me it was an Epiphany moment of > > where I'm been trying to end up, with the aforementioned Gentoo twists. > > > > > It isn't intended as a starting point for embedded projects or such. > > > Sure, maybe you could make it work, but sooner or later CoreOS will > > > make some change that will make you very unhappy because they aren't > > > making it for you. > > > > CoreOS will never be in my critical path. Large corporations will turn > > computer scientist and hackers into WalMart type-employees. Conglomerates > > are the enemy, imho. I fear Conglomerates much more than any group > > of government idiots. ymmv. > > > > (warning digression) > > > > Just look at the entire "net neutrality" > > > > turf struggle. That sort of "corner the market" monopolistic behavior > > would not be possible, if we had just maintained the "MAE" precedence > > for network peering. Obama had little choice; but, putting networks > > under SS7 style telecom regulations is a deceptive and horrible idea. > > Conglomerates lobby congress and get very bad ideas written into law. > > All we needed is regulation to allow (force) all networks to peer with > > other networks. The entire concept of "private peering" is horseshit > > and it should be ended immediately. CoreOS and the "Cloud" lobbyist can > > easily get regulations passed to put an end to this linux experiment, > > imho. > > Differnt subject I know, but the tactics of conglomerates are always the > > same. Roll up competition and eliminate it, oh all in the name of better > > security and portecting our 1st amendment rights and our conglomerates. > > (sorry of the digression). > > > > > But, again, I'm all for a more lightweight Gentoo profile that doesn't > > > bundle stuff like openssh, or even an init implementation (since we > > > have several to choose from now). > > > > Funny, ssh is one of a few things I would put into drastically reduce > > @system. ymmv, unless you are going to add something like netconsole.c > > back into the bundle. > > > > I do not see my vision of the cluster (CoreOS insprired) to be limiting > > to anyone at Gentoo. Not the embedded folks, not the mimalist, not > > any init-camp, not the devs, hackers, or wannabees. And certainly > > not the users. Is this a large undertaking? Certainly. Are the pieces > > mostly already in existence, just scattered about and transversing time? > > (methinks YES). > > > > > > It all depends on how your vision works. Being older, I see a return to > > massive diskless nodes being what CoreOS and the entire "Cloud Vendor" > > conglomerates want. Conversely, I see those cheap microP now accompanied > > by > > enormous amount of ram and SSD that is dirt cheap forming the building > > blocks for the Gentoo cluster paradigm shift. I see Gentoo "smashing" that > > "Cloud-vendor CoreOS" paradigm by provide what they offer
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
Look up. the very first post contrastd coreos' systemd as opposed to openrc, bringing words like "evil"ution into the park. later on we hear that coreos is "stealing" gentoo's ideas and hope that it is CRUSHED. but why? its its own frigging distro now. not gentoo by a long shot. On Wednesday, December 03, 2014 02:39:53 AM Mark David Dumlao wrote: > Why do I get the feeling that this is another episode of the "i hate > LennartSoft(tm) too" circlejerk on the gentoo mailing list? Why do I get the feeling you just want another flamewar? I don't see any mention of systemd or anything else written by Lennart, apart from your comment. > this mailing list used to be about gentoo. It still is. > On Dec 3, 2014 1:38 AM, "James" wrote: > > Rich Freeman gentoo.org> writes: > > > > is integration of the best of the CoreOS ideas into "Gentoo proper". > > > > > > I'm not suggesting that "/usr types of systems" are going away. I'm > > > just pointing out that they're not really the focus of CoreOS (hosting > > > them inside containers is, but not running these kinds of applications > > > in the host itself). > > > > I do not intend to follow the CoreOS commercial path. It intend to mod > > gentoo to achieve those attractive attributes back into my "gentoo > > proper". > > tftp, pxe, dhcp, uefi and many other tools give us a path to > > running the least (embedded) to the most (complex traditional server) > > as an extension (compliment) to the cluster. So as was pointed out, > > I'm merely "lifting" form CoreOS what they lifted from their predicessors; > > no more no less. I see the gentoo admins being able to move hardrware > > in and out of the cluster, dynamically and being able to run many > > sorts of gentoo systems (embedded to fulls server) on a myriad of > > hardware they own and control. > > > > > You seem to be wanting a minimalist profile of Gentoo, not CoreOS. > > > > YES!, I want Gentoo to "CRUSH" CoreOS because we can and our goal is not > > to deceptively move users to a "rent the binary" jail. OK? > > > > > < think many of us would love to see that, and I've been an advocate of > > > paring down system for just this reason. I just wouldn't use the > > > term "CoreOS" with that as this is going to lead to confusion. CoreOS > > > is a specialized distro intended to host containers, no more, no less. > > > > OK, we see CoreOS differently. For me it was an Epiphany moment of > > where I'm been trying to end up, with the aforementioned Gentoo twists. > > > > > It isn't intended as a starting point for embedded projects or such. > > > Sure, maybe you could make it work, but sooner or later CoreOS will > > > make some change that will make you very unhappy because they aren't > > > making it for you. > > > > CoreOS will never be in my critical path. Large corporations will turn > > computer scientist and hackers into WalMart type-employees. Conglomerates > > are the enemy, imho. I fear Conglomerates much more than any group > > of government idiots. ymmv. > > > > (warning digression) > > > > Just look at the entire "net neutrality" > > > > turf struggle. That sort of "corner the market" monopolistic behavior > > would not be possible, if we had just maintained the "MAE" precedence > > for network peering. Obama had little choice; but, putting networks > > under SS7 style telecom regulations is a deceptive and horrible idea. > > Conglomerates lobby congress and get very bad ideas written into law. > > All we needed is regulation to allow (force) all networks to peer with > > other networks. The entire concept of "private peering" is horseshit > > and it should be ended immediately. CoreOS and the "Cloud" lobbyist can > > easily get regulations passed to put an end to this linux experiment, > > imho. > > Differnt subject I know, but the tactics of conglomerates are always the > > same. Roll up competition and eliminate it, oh all in the name of better > > security and portecting our 1st amendment rights and our conglomerates. > > (sorry of the digression). > > > > > But, again, I'm all for a more lightweight Gentoo profile that doesn't > > > bundle stuff like openssh, or even an init implementation (since we > > > have several to choose from now). > > > > Funny, ssh is one of a few things I would put into drastically reduce > > @system. ymmv, unless you are going to add something like netconsole.c > > back into the bundle. > > > > I do not see my vision of the cluster (CoreOS insprired) to be limiting > > to anyone at Gentoo. Not the embedded folks, not the mimalist, not > > any init-camp, not the devs, hackers, or wannabees. And certainly > > not the users. Is this a large undertaking? Certainly. Are the pieces > > mostly already in existence, just scattered about and transversing time? > > (methinks YES). > > > > > > It all depends on how your vision works. Being older, I see a return to > > massive diskless nodes being what CoreOS and the entire "Cloud Vendor" > > conglomerates want. Conversely,
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > > but why? its its own frigging distro now. not gentoo by a long shot. > I think it is actually a compliment to the flexibility of Gentoo that these derivatives are so different. Gentoo is a somewhat-generic linux distro overall - in its default install it isn't too different from Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/Arch on the surface and in terms of typical package selection. However, ChromeOS and CoreOS are very non-traditional linux "distros." When people ask me what Gentoo is "good for" I of course talk about enthusiasts who care about both understanding their systems and having a high degree of control, but I also talk about projects where you're trying to blaze new trails and departing significantly from the typical "linux desktop" or LAMP box. If all you want is a stable LAMP box then honestly you're probably better off with the likes of Debian/CentOS/etc. However, if you're doing something embedded, or trying to change the world, then starting with Gentoo gives you a lot more flexibility to blaze new ground while not having to build EVERYTHING from scratch. So, when people use Gentoo to do things that we personally don't find useful, I think it is just a testimony to the fact that we've actually accomplished one of our core missions: empowering our users to make their own choices. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: but why? its its own frigging distro now. not gentoo by a long shot. I think it is actually a compliment to the flexibility of Gentoo that these derivatives are so different. Gentoo is a somewhat-generic linux distro overall - in its default install it isn't too different from Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/Arch on the surface and in terms of typical package selection. However, ChromeOS and CoreOS are very non-traditional linux "distros." When people ask me what Gentoo is "good for" I of course talk about enthusiasts who care about both understanding their systems and having a high degree of control, but I also talk about projects where you're trying to blaze new trails and departing significantly from the typical "linux desktop" or LAMP box. If all you want is a stable LAMP box then honestly you're probably better off with the likes of Debian/CentOS/etc. However, if you're doing something embedded, or trying to change the world, then starting with Gentoo gives you a lot more flexibility to blaze new ground while not having to build EVERYTHING from scratch. So, when people use Gentoo to do things that we personally don't find useful, I think it is just a testimony to the fact that we've actually accomplished one of our core missions: empowering our users to make their own choices. +1 more power to you Rich. thanks Saifi.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:17 AM, James wrote: > > And finally, I think that alll init systems are going to become very > irrelevant in the next few years, as what they provide, can be passed > from a *personal cluster* to any and all hardware, dymanically. That's > what the cell phones (smart phones) do now. What do you mean? (Android has its own init and iOS has launchd.)
