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

Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

0pointer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#21

Post by wmf »

angersock wrote: post #19
falcolas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to put you down for negativity, for a lack of optimism, but damn it, I agree. It bothers me that come 2016 I will have no option but to move to a systemd based distro if we want to remain on a supported Linux version. Change is not always good.

If it were optional, sure, but it's being rammed down everyone's throats via the popular distros. And unfortunately, I kind of frown on going the whole "Well, just roll your own Linux without the parts you don't like". As for negativity and lack of optimism, well, I would be very disappointed if sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns became the standard of commentary here.

So your problem is really with the distros, not with Poettering et al. But as the old saying goes, if you think all the distros are assholes, maybe the problem isn't with the distros.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#22

Post by digi_owl »

wmf wrote: post #21
angersock wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were optional, sure, but it's being rammed down everyone's throats via the popular distros. And unfortunately, I kind of frown on going the whole "Well, just roll your own Linux without the parts you don't like". As for negativity and lack of optimism, well, I would be very disappointed if sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns became the standard of commentary here.

So your problem is really with the distros, not with Poettering et al. But as the old saying goes, if you think all the distros are assholes, maybe the problem isn't with the distros.

The problem is that key components are being "depreciated" by the Poettering crew for no better reason than "code elegance". Thus distros either have to take over maintainership a ever growing codebase, or accept the Poettering code wholesale.

One can really wonder what is going on when Gentoo opts for picking up maintainership while Debian, that has previously forked Firefox over trademark issues, does not (and Poettering etc are leaving snide remarks aimed at the Gentoo people for this "defiance").

One thing to keep in mind is the gorilla behind the curtains, Red Hat. Key devs of systemd etc are on their payroll...

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#23

Post by Redoubts »

digi_owl wrote: post #22
wmf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your problem is really with the distros, not with Poettering et al. But as the old saying goes, if you think all the distros are assholes, maybe the problem isn't with the distros.

The problem is that key components are being "depreciated" by the Poettering crew for no better reason than "code elegance". Thus distros either have to take over maintainership a ever growing codebase, or accept the Poettering code wholesale. One can really wonder what is going on when Gentoo opts for picking up maintainership while Debian, that has previously forked Firefox over trademark issues, does not (and Poet…

> key components are being "depreciated"

Only the greater community can do that, and it wouldn't be happening unless the alternative was solving real problems.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#24

Post by digi_owl »

nextos wrote: post #17
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #10

I'm the one who originally submitted this on 9/1/14, FWIW. I'm not sure if there's any substantial progress update yet. Last I heard, they're still waiting for kdbus to be merged, after which they'll need to finish up the GNOME sandboxing features, and only then will they truly start. Given that kdbus is receiving some shaky reception, it might prove to be a while. The weird thing to me is why Nix was never brought u…

It's indeed extremely odd they never say a word about Nix, Guix or even Gobo Linux. Ignoring history usually leads to reinventing things in a bad way. Nix for example, has put a lot of effort into getting all these things right. Why not having at least a look into it to see if we can borrow many of their ideas? That's the same thing they did when systemd was first released. Everyone complained it's not too wise to ha…

Because they don't use the sexy tech de jour, containers.

Gobo and Nix (Guix is something of a reimplementation of Nix) get around the whole "dependency hell" that Poettering's container fetish is supposed to solve without requiring the use of container, cgroups, or any of the other "sexy" that systemd uses (though i have come to understand that Nix has adopted systemd).

Heck, Gobo is basically driven by shell scripts. And its boot system is the sysv's init binary combined with homegrown scripts (it may be likened to BSD init).

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#27

Post by digi_owl »

wmf wrote: post #12
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

App bundles work for Apple because they have perfect control over the API/ABI stability and what consists of the base system, and then the user applications. On GNU/Linux, where you work by assembling white-box components, it's not so straightforward. That said, there have been similar attempts: Autopackage, Klik, 0install, Slax packages... none have received widespread adoption. Seems like no one actually cares unti…

Maybe assembling components is the problem. Why should we expect a good OS to emerge out of components that are independently developed with no coherent vision?

Civilization has done just that, unless one subscribe to the Illuminati theory...

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#28

Post by javert »

louwrentius wrote: post #26

It reads to me that a problem is being solved that I don't have. For one thing, I only care about Linux on the server, not on the desktop.

Funny because I only care about Linux on the desktop and I don't have this problem, either.

He talks about a state explosion of packages and libraries, but in practice, I don't see that it matters.

Yes, there is technically a state explosion, so you can't test every possible combination of packages. But you don't need to because they don't interfere with one another much in practice.

I won't pronounce that as universally true (I suspect some people would strongly disagree), but that's been my experience.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#29

Post by cgag »

falcolas wrote: post #18
angersock wrote: post #15

Can somebody just open up a fork of Linux for Poetering et al to fuck around in so they don't feel the political necessity to screw around with the infrastructure we all depend on? Fuck this. I'm moving to BSD. Conservatism can be a feature, not a bug.

I want to put you down for negativity, for a lack of optimism, but damn it, I agree. It bothers me that come 2016 I will have no option but to move to a systemd based distro if we want to remain on a supported Linux version. Change is not always good.

As far as unsupported distros go, void is pretty nice. One of very few interesting distros out there without being a full departure from the norm like nixos.

http://www.voidlinux.eu/

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#30

Post by revelation »

angersock wrote: post #15

Can somebody just open up a fork of Linux for Poetering et al to fuck around in so they don't feel the political necessity to screw around with the infrastructure we all depend on? Fuck this. I'm moving to BSD. Conservatism can be a feature, not a bug.

I don't get it anymore, either. It seems that nowadays the hardest problem of all on Linux is just to start a freaking program after booting. They keep breaking method after method and every single time theres just a mountain of fucking boilerplate to wade through for this months favored solution.
Post reply on HN