111–120 of 132 posts
Sure, it might be because System D integrates so tightly with the whole ecosystem that it is hard to replace it. Or: Those folks who write rants about system d are not very active in contributing to a distribution that runs without it. With some discussions, you have that feeling that there are "those who talk, and those who do".
I mean, it is kind of strange that with one apt-get install, one apt-get purge, one apt-get autoremove, and one pinfile in /etc/apt, you can replace systemd in Debian. You'd think Devuan could just do that and redistribute or something.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14580024
On that subject, the Debian Installer has an interesting bug in the current version.
* https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866206 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14710986)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are building these solutions: PulseAudio, systemd, NetworkManager, libuv, Xorg, SELinux, OpenSSH because they are forced to do so. How old are you? OpenSSH wasn't built because there was something wrong with Linux per-se, in fact it came out of BSD due to a licensing issue with SSH. SSH was a replacement for the rlogin/telnet type toolsuites due to them being ridiculously insecure. Nothing to do with Linux. Xo…
OpenSSH was ported from BSB because there was no alternative in Linux. If not for GNU available for Linus, we would have now flame wars Red Hat vs Canonical coreutils. X was fine 20 years ago as a prototype. In the meantime, we could have Linux Foundation to create a modern alternative. Instead, we have two competing solutions MIR and Wayland that still do not work very well. The reason we have such clusterfuck of in…
OpenSSH was ported from BSB because there was no alternative in Linux
The original version of SSH was available for Linux, before OSSH or OpenSSH where developed.
X was fine 20 years ago as a prototype
Chortle. X stopped being a prototype around 1985/1986 and has powered more systems then I bet you had hot meals and changes of underwear.
The reason we have such clusterfuck of incompatible distributions is that Linux is one man show. Instead of bringing industry toghether, Linus is doing his own thing
Now you are just trolling.
I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…
Does nobody other than my alma mater cover the concept of Coupling and Cohesion? It's not hard to argue the point on those grounds. I just kinda assumed everyone would be familiar enough with them to see that's the main thrust of systemd arguments, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Battle-hardened" code is a myth. Please do not appeal to it. Either you're doing the hard work for security or you aren't. You do not need to experience a breach in advance to have a hope of stopping a breach. Besides, if people cared about security they'd use tools and languages and runtimes that help them test thst code works right. They don't, by and large.
Hey, systemd has to be shipped when it's immature because you need users to try it out and help catch all the bugs and insecurities. Now you say battle hardened code is a myth. Sure, people should audit their own tools, but there are also casual users. And there are indirect users. They are entitled to enjoy the better (if not perfect) security provided by battle hardened code.
I've even said above I agree with criticisms that systemd didn't plan and was deployed too early and too fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I see with any complaints about Lennart's behavior is that his behavior is explicitly rewarded. No one is really "routing around the damage", unless they're taking the dysfunctional route of ignoring problems with the software. Lennart has been "crowned" with the position of being the de-facto leader of Linux init systems, since just about every distro that matters at all has adopted systemd. So unless th…
Out of curiosity, who put him in that position?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did read your post. I just disagree with it entirely. You're picking and choosing who gets to be a bad actor based on your moral compass. That's a thing you can do, but I have a different compass. Don't expect appeals on the axis of your internalized morality to be compelling? You can choose how you spend your time. But that doesn't mean you can choose how people evaluate that time and if it's fair or not. This is…
I’m sorry that I implied that you were acting in bad faith; that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in your replies. If I understood your argument correctly, your position is that both Lennart and Linux exhibit aggressive, egotistical, “asshole” behavior. This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair. I recognse this style of…
The word you're looking for is "non-sympathetic." I certainly am that.
> This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair.
Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'll return your gesture in kind: The Free Software as a whole is wracked with a plague of toxic leaders who copy the general lkml-style of aggressiveness, often promoting the fallacy of strictly-correct technological solutions and tying the production of such magical solutions to the capability of an individual as opposed to the capacity of the group.
In this context, the systemd project doesn't particularly stand out. It seems quite normal within a world that nourishes and rewards toxic social ecosystems.
Discarding Systemd uniquely is in this climate for Lennart's behavior is difficult to justify. You can argue his behavior is different and you yourself have a distinct objection to this. As I've said; that's your prerogative. You can in fact decide to give Linus a pass but not Lennart.
But I submit that this process of deciding who can be cruel and who cannot is inherently unfair. It's axiomatically unfair. To further extend that to the basis of technology decisions (that in most cases people far more expert than either of us in the specific field of linux distro maintenance) is to essentially undermine the very reasoning that supports the "meritocracy" that supposedly undermines this ecosystem.
You CAN draw a differentiation, I'm not denying that. They do subtly different things. I in no way defend Lennert's attitude.
If I had my way, I'd throw the lot of them out of their respective projects and install someone more level headed. I genuinely wish we could do that. For me, the good outcome is that people wake up and realize, "Wow, ALL these people are reprehensible and we should lose them all."
> I think the thing that makes Linus more acceptable than Lennart is that Linus is open about mistakes and has grown a developement community which encourages collaboration,
This is you, handing out a pass for bad behavior to Linus. Because "he can grow." Okay, sure. But I've been watching him since the start of the project. I don't think he's grown very much at all except where it financially benefits him.
I think this process of granting dispensation and refusing to censure specific people in the technology community is an epidemic of hero worship. It's an epidemic that leads us to small mistakes (bad mailing list management & tech decisions made against the advice of the principles we claim to cherish) up to large mistakes (Clinkle, Uber, and Github's management was all run with this principle at the fore, and it had disastrous results).
> I think that, since this topic is regarding systemsd, people will take about Lennart, and as the topic is not about the Linux kernel, people won’t talk about Linus.
A bold assertion, given that people are naturally drawing comparisons to that end outside this thread without prompting from me. I take this as evidence the cognitive dissonance of passing Torvalds and condemning Poettering weighs on people when they consider it, and they seek to rationalize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sorry that I implied that you were acting in bad faith; that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in your replies. If I understood your argument correctly, your position is that both Lennart and Linux exhibit aggressive, egotistical, “asshole” behavior. This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair. I recognse this style of…
> that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in your replies. The word you're looking for is "non-sympathetic." I certainly am that. > This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair. Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'll return your gesture in kind: The Free Software as a whole is wracked with a plague of toxic le…
I would use this to describe someone who clearly didn't care about the other person's point of view; you seem to be completely ignoring what they said and misrepresenting them to be arguing for a case you have prepared a counter-argument for. E.g. when I say "I had a bad day" to my boss & they reply "tough, deal with it", they're not listening sympathetically; when they reply "you would have an easier time if you stopped creating so many bugs", then they're listening in bad faith.
> Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position.
I'm using a technique called 'active listening', where you repeat back to the person what you think they mean. This way, they can respond "yeah that's right", or "no, I see when I said it could be interpreted as but I meant ". I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better.
> This is you, handing out a pass for bad behavior to Linus.
I didn't say that Linus gets a pass from me. I haven't mentioned any of my preferences regarding specific developers and their aggressive behaviours. My thesis is, "it's ok to call out a person on bad behaviour when other people also show that bad behaviour".
> Because "he can grow."
I didn't say that. If you're paraphrasing my statement, I meant the community has grown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. I think @pmoriarty here just nailed it. It's not necessarily that "SystemD sucks" or that it doesn't do what it proclaims to do. But the fact that it's so monolithic (in practice, if not in principle) and subsumes so much of the rest of the system, and i…
> The "Unix Philosophy" of "do one thing and do it well" isn't just a tagline. That philosophy is cherished because it's been proven to be valuable. Replacing init with something that moves away from that is certainly worthy of questioning, if not outright criticism. Systemd is a whole group of small, factored tools that call to each other. This complaint gets trotted out a lot and I lump it in with the "It is differ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was adopted because the maintainers of distributions like Debian examined the alternatives and decided that systemd was technically superior. For example, please see the analysis of systemd and upstart by Debian maintainer and then-Technical Committee member Russ Allbery: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html
> distributions like Debian In fact, only Debian underwent that process. Ubuntu did not. Nor did Fedora. The Arch process was very different. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11834348
After all, Ubuntu is basically for Debain what RHEL is for Fedora.