Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

unixsheikh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#111

Post by mcguire »

vitus wrote: post #84
zdw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better criticism of DoH is here: https://blog.powerdns.com/2019/12/03/doh-anti-competitive-an... I just hate that it breaks Split Horizon which is totally legitimate. Leaking local-to-the-LAN queries onto the public internet is also a concern. IMO the right way to do this is to run your own local DNS recursive resolver, and deploy DNSCurve. This doesn't work for myopic browser vendors though...

I get that breaking split horizon is a real concern, but also I would expect any enterprise deployment using internal DNS resolvers should be able to set up its users' Firefox config to either a) point at an internal DoH server, or b) turn it off? On one hand, I see the arguments against DoH-by-default -- loss of control, potential for unfixable poor / buggy implementations, requiring trust of third parties... (The t…

And forbid everyone from using any thing than chrome and safari. Web development around the enterprise is fun.

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#113

Post by Jkvngt »

I’m doing this right now. Linux has gotten too large, bloated, corporate. It no longer feels like a community project and there are quite a few recent move that make me question whether or not it will be viable down the line.

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#114

Post by LukeShu »

dTal wrote: post #103
dralley wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a "project" named systemd and an "init system" named systemd, in much the same way that there's the GNU project and GNU-$everything. Nobody says things like "what is GNU? Is it a kernel, a compiler, a libc, a build system, a set of userspace tools?". Likewise, the systemd project has many utilities under its umbrella, and most of them are completely optional.

Hm. GNU exists to unify software under a single philosophical umbrella - the thing that all GNU software has in common is a fanatical attitude to software freedom. What does all systemd software have in common? What's the unifying principle there?

I think the best answer is that systemd-the-project tries to be the things that all of the different distros historically had to do themselves, the things that didn't have an upstream, but maybe deserved to have an upstream so that they could be reused by other distros, and maybe benefit from more eyes and more engineering effort.

Each distro used to have to roll their own initscript system (with varying degrees of compatibility), so they made `systemd`. Each distro had their own init script to save/load the backlight state, so they made `systemd-backlight` (if you're going to replace the initscript system, you'll also have to replace the things that the initscripts for that system did). Each distro used to have to roll their own network configuration scripts (Debian's /etc/network, Arch Linux's netcfg and later netctl, ...), so they made `systemd-networkd`.

Some of this class of thing got picked up by other projects; each distro used to have to roll its own initramfs system; today Dracut exists, so systemd won't be doing that (unless the Dracut folks decide to team up with the systemd folks--remember gummiboot? gummiboot renamed to systemd-boot).

In one of your other comments you wrote "in my opinion that implies more modularity than it posesses." While there are some nasty couplings (it'll take some patching to get systemd-nspawn to work on a non-systemd system), you can successfully use many of the systemd modules on an OpenRC system; it is a lot more modular than people give it credit for.

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#115

Post by nyanpasu64 »

dataflow wrote: post #43
nine_k wrote: post #22

The fragmented nature is what I love about Linux. In other words it's called "choice". Because of the fragmentation, I don't have to use systemd, or pulseaudio, or snap, or Gnome desktop, or most other things I don't want to use for whatever reason. I can configure my box (or my container) mostly the way I see fit. If you want ultimate unification, choose macOS. These guys are certain that they know what you need, an…

> Because of the fragmentation, I don't have to use systemd, or pulseaudio, or snap, or Gnome desktop, or most other things I don't want to use for whatever reason. I think part of the very reason some folks like you don't like to use some of those things is their shortcomings... which likely come about in part due to the plethora of choices leading to fragmented efforts on the development side. People shift their at…

> "What if I want to replace the Windows Audio... service with something else?"

In Windows Vista, Microsoft rebuilt the audio stack on top of WASAPI, making MME and DirectSound shims which feed into WASAPI. However, they didn't break compatibility, and all APIs more-or-less work nowadays. On Linux, ALSA apps sometimes have trouble picking the right device when talking to PulseAudio, and it's difficult for PulseAudio and Jack to share a single device.

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#116

Post by jcranmer »

dTal wrote: post #92
willismichael wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, if nobody likes systemd, then why is it still around and why is it so difficult for me to find a distro that hasn't adopted it?

I was careful not to include any value judgements in my comment. I simply wanted to lay to rest this "init system" business. However, you ask a good question. Lots of people do like it, supposedly. But I think there's a large clue to its controversial nature in that people still call it an "init system", and pointing out that it isn't is interpreted by some as an attack. Basically, it started out as an init system, w…

> When Debian adopted systemd, after some debate, every Debian-based distro did too. This wasn't considered a particularly invasive change at the time. But systemd started to expand into its "middleware" position, absorbing vital system functions like udev.

Your timing is off. udev became part of systemd in 2012. The big Debian debate was in 2013-2014, and was acrimonious enough to eventually cause several of the CTTE members to resign their position over it. One of the core issues driving the Debian systemd debate was the fact that GNOME was planning on dropping support for anything other than systemd-logind (or something like that), and there was definite concern that packages were already making decisions that were forcing everyone to adopt systemd as the only init system.

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#117

Post by dTal »

jcranmer wrote: post #116
dTal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was careful not to include any value judgements in my comment. I simply wanted to lay to rest this "init system" business. However, you ask a good question. Lots of people do like it, supposedly. But I think there's a large clue to its controversial nature in that people still call it an "init system", and pointing out that it isn't is interpreted by some as an attack. Basically, it started out as an init system, w…

> When Debian adopted systemd, after some debate, every Debian-based distro did too. This wasn't considered a particularly invasive change at the time. But systemd started to expand into its "middleware" position, absorbing vital system functions like udev. Your timing is off. udev became part of systemd in 2012. The big Debian debate was in 2013-2014, and was acrimonious enough to eventually cause several of the CTT…

I stand corrected.

I eagerly await the publication of "SystemD: A History" and its subsequent adaptation into a dramatic screenplay.

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#118

Post by [deleted] »

dTal wrote: post #103
dralley wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a "project" named systemd and an "init system" named systemd, in much the same way that there's the GNU project and GNU-$everything. Nobody says things like "what is GNU? Is it a kernel, a compiler, a libc, a build system, a set of userspace tools?". Likewise, the systemd project has many utilities under its umbrella, and most of them are completely optional.

Hm. GNU exists to unify software under a single philosophical umbrella - the thing that all GNU software has in common is a fanatical attitude to software freedom. What does all systemd software have in common? What's the unifying principle there?

[deleted]

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#119

Post by scaladev »

willismichael wrote: post #52
dTal wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

systemd isn't an init system and doesn't pretend to be one [note] - it's OS middleware with ambitions to becoming a distro unto itself. The systemd project assumes responsibility for numerous aspects of the system that have no technical justification for being under the same project umbrella. You might like systemd-homed, for instance, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the functions of init. Calling it a…

Honest question, if nobody likes systemd, then why is it still around and why is it so difficult for me to find a distro that hasn't adopted it?

Because you only hear the loud minority that's been complaining for the last decade. I've never had a problem with systemd, I remember the days before it became ubiquitous with absolute dread, but I don't spend my days proclaiming my views on every corner of the internet like the opposite side does.

Re: Migrate Everything from Linux to BSD

#120

Post by ashafer »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #70
throwawayboise wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article addresses that. Companies are free to do whatever they want with BSD and as such they don't need to try to affect the way things are going. If that wasn't the case we would possible see, for example, Sony trying very hard to influence the development of FreeBSD because they use that in their PlayStation products.

I didn't understand that argument at all. The GPL mandates that companies release their code. That's it. There's no rule that the code has to be upstreamed or that the companies need to try to make other projects use it. To the extent such behavior is incentivized, it should be incentivized just as much with more permissively-licensed code.

I always understood the argument to be that for rapidly changing projects you might be forced to upstream your GPL code or face an uncomfortably high maintenance burden of constantly rebasing it. Linux almost purposefully does this, it's kind of like a "soft" vendor lock in. Linux kernel interfaces change regularly, and if you don't upstream your code you need to commit time to fixing what breaks. If you upstream, then someone else will handle updating your code for you for free. The more regularly they churn the internal interfaces the more it costs to maintain external patches and the more appealing upstreaming becomes.

The end result is lots of companies jamming their code upstream because it is cheaper (or they are soft-required) to do so, not because it is good for the project. The benefit is you have large corporate contributions, with the possible downside that the companies want to take your software in a different direction than you do (i.e. Microsoft embracing/extending).

The BSD license doesn't try to strongarm people into contributing, and the BSD projects are open to being a base for other projects. This is bad because companies may not contribute back to you. It is good because it means that you don't have 20 companies pressuring you do make decisions. They've gone in their 20 directions and they want you to continue to be a solid base for them to build on.

I think a lot of people (me included) like the feel of this way more. When you read through FreeBSD you don't see the legacy code from a bunch of corporations mixed in, you just see the good stuff. People contribute because they want to even though it's more work, versus reluctantly contributing because it's less work. Not saying permissive licenses are perfect and don't have their own problems, just explaining why they might have different advantages.

Post reply on HN