11–20 of 203 posts
It sort of makes sense. Systemd has many utilities which can replace stuff from Busybox. And Busybox contains its own init system.
Also, most of systems using busybox shouldn't be running Systemd (or any other 'new' init system to be honest)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics. "But politics shouldn't be a factor in software design. We should cooperate to work with the technologically most useful solution and not let personal or ideological differences get in the way." Bless your heart.
Of course, this makes the assumption that the actors are actually cooperating.
The political significance is quite high, and I have to say I feel that this move, though perhaps a bit childish, is a valid signal to express grievances with the absolutist attitudes of the systemd developers. Plus let's be honest here, they aren't the pinnacles of mature behavior either. I think this is the first time a major project has done a statement like this against systemd. I would expect more to follow their example.
I of course summarized my issues in "Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd architecture for real-world service management" [1] and hope to see systemd go the way of devfsd and HAL.
Why?
> systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world. Can we get a bit a of context on that?
It sort of makes sense. Systemd has many utilities which can replace stuff from Busybox. And Busybox contains its own init system.
Correct Also, most of systems using busybox shouldn't be running Systemd (or any other 'new' init system to be honest)
Why?
Politics. "But politics shouldn't be a factor in software design. We should cooperate to work with the technologically most useful solution and not let personal or ideological differences get in the way." Bless your heart.
GNU/Linux projects have been designed for figthing on socio-ethico-political grounds against proprietary software. The first one being Unix. (GNU's Not Unix)
On the other hand, BSD prefers to see itself like a community of pragmatism, and creating values in business by sharing externalities (plus a bunch of fanatics that loves nice code like others ferarris).
The constant criticism of BSD vs linux is building tools for ideological reasons rarely favours the best solutions because you give yourself an obligation to beat the time to market of "proprietary companies" and to add support for stuff that do not worth being shared.(Word/WYSIWIG editors are a terrible idea in the first place, why spend resources to give them more traction by helping to broaden the user base?)
It favours kludges and hacks instead of a consistent simple design. It burns benevolent time, and attention.
And BSD have been denouncing GNU/linux projects (Gcc, gnome, systemd, binary blobs in linux kernels) like long term disasters by locking people in technical debts of poor designs.
Actually, I am a linux guy with BSD boxes and hadn't I problem with hardware support I would be fully on BSD.
I would say they have a point. And just for the record, GNU fundation is not Linus Torvald's best friends.
The first time I heard Moglen's talk he was litterally saying that linux was a bad example of a free software project.
Yes, freedom of choice is political. But it is not a question of organisation, but individuality.
Still some communities aims to gather more zealots than master in their domains. That is the distinction between Free Software and Open Source.
> systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world. Can we get a bit a of context on that?
There is some controversy about Systemd and Lennart Poettering, one of the main developers. Wikipedia have more info: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#History_and_controvers... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Poettering#Controversi...
> systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world. Can we get a bit a of context on that?
It's fashionable in some parts of the linux world to hate on systemd.