boycott systemd

Message

bark_bark_bark · #261 Post by **bark_bark_bark** » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 22:27

Scooby wrote:
saintless wrote:
technosaurus wrote:People get upset with forking Debian, because it is an unnecessary over-the-top political move.
I couldn't say it better and totally agree.
Yet I have also heard the counter-statement that systemd was conceived more for political than technical reasons.

Guess both sides uses the same type of arguments, huh?

systemd was conceived for political reasons.

anikin · #262 Post by **anikin** » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 22:35

bark_bark_bark wrote:...systemd was conceived for political reasons.

You have been warned.

James C · #263 Post by **James C** » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 22:39

One daemon to rule them all: systemd, a corporate putsch in the Linux ecosystem

https://linuxapocalypsis.wordpress.com/ ... ecosystem/

Politics in the free software landscape has always been a complex matter. Clashes abound in its short history and the power balance between the most influential independent developers, the corporations and the rest of the community is a precarious, fragile and always evolving construct. One that is about to change, dramatically, in favour of the corporations. And it is not a coincidence that this is happening right now, when the commercial implications of the Linux kernel have become huge and are expected to grow exponentially in the forthcoming years.

Indeed, a strategy has been devised in order to seize control of the Linux kernel. At the core of this strategy lays a daemon of daemons called systemd.

Initially, systemd was presented as a replacement for the venerable SysVinit offering faster boot times and a number of other improvements. It was early adopted by a number of distributions that served as beta testers. Later, it was incorporated in major distributions either developed or sponsored by the very same corporations which pay the salaries of the main systemd developers. More or less at the same time as this was happening, we also learned that systemd really aimed at being a centralised daemon that would manage every aspect related to system administration, from security policies to network connection or package management.

starhawk · #264 Post by **starhawk** » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 22:44

@James C -- ah, you were typing as I was. Beat me to it!

My original post --

My understanding, although I have not investigated it fully -- I'm relying on my local Linux guru guy here -- is that systemd is Red Hat's corporate side trying to take over Linux. If that is correct (key phrase!) then bark_ is not far, just replace 'political' with 'corporate greed'. Actually, since those are never far away from each other these days... hmm...

Trust but verify here tho -- I trust, but I have not verified, and the conversation I'm referencing was a goodly while ago, so I may be remembering it inaccurately. I want to be very clear here on that.

As my local friend has an account here (member jbruchon) I will ask him to post what he knows and has heard...

starhawk · #265 Post by **starhawk** » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 23:07

jbruchon declined to post and referred me to the following two articles. (I'm not going to quote them, sorry, just titles and links this time.) My understanding is that these are what he was referencing in the conversation I referred to in my previous post.

Broken by design: systemd --> http://ewontfix.com/14/

Systemd has 6 service startup notification types, and they're all wrong --> http://ewontfix.com/15/

saintless · #266 Post by **saintless** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 05:38

Scooby wrote:Yet I have also heard the counter-statement that systemd was conceived more for political than technical reasons.

Guess both sides uses the same type of arguments, huh?

There is no such thing like both sides.
We have small group of systemd haters who are trying to conflict all the time with any different opinion. They should not be afraid from "broken by design" and " all wrong startup notification types" init and nobody force them to use it. If they are right any distro with default systemd will be forgotten soon or will return to sysvinit as default.
We have also very large group of people who do not mind to test, explore, improve and use systemd without saying anything bad for sysvinit or busybox and who do not act like animals.

James C · #267 Post by **James C** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 06:20

Join the Microsoft Openness team to celebrate Debian 8 at LinuxFest Northwest

http://openness.microsoft.com/blog/2015 ... linuxfest/

[quote]This Saturday, April 25, the Debian Project will release Debian 8 (codename “Jessie

darry1966 · #268 Post by **darry1966** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 06:38

http://news.siduction.org/2014/10/debia ... be-forked/

Old article but interesting.

Scooby · #269 Post by **Scooby** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 13:45

saintless wrote: There is no such thing like both sides.
We have small group of systemd haters who are trying to conflict all the time with any different opinion. They should not be afraid from "broken by design" and " all wrong startup notification types" init and nobody force them to use it. If they are right any distro with default systemd will be forgotten soon or will return to sysvinit as default.
We have also very large group of people who do not mind to test, explore, improve and use systemd without saying anything bad for sysvinit or busybox and who do not act like animals.

I do not agree with these statements but feel like we are repeating
same stuff over and over.

I guess will have to disagree on this one point in our lives.

So each one can put their effort into the projects that are nearer
to their own ideals.

cimarron · #270 Post by **cimarron** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 16:18

saintless wrote:They should not be afraid from "broken by design" and " all wrong startup notification types" init and nobody force them to use it.

A different init can be used presently, but systemd cannot be removed without also removing integral software like policykit, udisks2, lightdm, network-manager, and more (I tried). So, effectively, people are already being "forced" to use it... unless developers like those at Devuan come up with alternatives.

I don't understand why you are arguing against this here. As you say, the majority of Debian users support (or go along with) systemd and you will be able to use it no matter what a few people here say. But it seems the majority here do not like or respect systemd's purpose or methods or creators. Not surprising, given that the nature of Puppy (and many of its users) is pretty much the opposite of systemd. You seem to want to go a different path than people here, and that's fine. But why criticize and argue here where we do not want to use systemd and are trying to figure out ways to get rid of it (the creators certainly don't make it easy to get rid of!)?

saintless · #271 Post by **saintless** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 17:10

cimarron wrote:A different init can be used presently, but systemd cannot be removed without also removing integral software like policykit, udisks2, lightdm, network-manager, and more (I tried).

You forgot to post the gnome dependencies from screenshot in the link and we all know gnome depends on systemd. Piece of cake anyway. But posting the solution will not be suitable for this thread title.

cimarron wrote:I don't understand why you are arguing against this here.

I forgot only systemd haters are welcome here.
Have a nice chating!

bark_bark_bark · #272 Post by **bark_bark_bark** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 17:16

The anti-systemd crowd is 100 times more sane than the pro-systemd crowd. The pro-systemd crowd would prefer turn linux into something 1000 times more broken than Win9x/ME.

gcmartin · #273 Post by **gcmartin** » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 17:49

Halt! Let ALL step back for a moment.

PUPPY Linux is a best of breed. It evolution has come from the advances of technology. Why cant it advance without this kind of discussion where members are camping out looking for a "fight".

Let try to look at this a little differently. One way of approaching this is to understand that there are 2 camps

industry direction
industry resistance

Puppy does NOT need to address either of these to florish. Some systemd effort is already in (in case you may not have noticed). And PUPPY presently, for all the rest, is firmly supporting past approaches.

For its past approach we can just ride the wave of nonsystemd. For the new hardware and any technology benefit given by systemd, we can take it too. We dont have to belong entrenched in any given camp to experience those things which will attract users.

Users want a system that works to address their needs. Technologist want to develop systems that threads the connection between hardware and services to someone's/something's benefit.

Puppy, as I see it does that. And it will continue to as we are seeing more and more hardware technology show up with members requesting guidance or showing use.

My concern is not whether we abandon or embrace, rather, does it bring value to the table allowing PUP developers to continue to match PUPPY with hardware thru the services that systemd is currently and planned to provide.

Retooling the old, or building the new, both offer advantages that Puppylanders can benefit.

Step back everyone, and look at the REAL picture.

James C · #274 Post by **James C** » Sun 26 Apr 2015, 03:33

Nowhere near as easy as the systemd fanbois will have you believe but Debian 8.0 Jessie XFCE with no systemd in sight.

Code: Select all

Computer
Processor	2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+
Memory	4148MB (312MB used)
Operating System	Debian GNU/Linux 8.0
User Name	james (james)
Date/Time	Sat Apr 25 22:26:21 2015
Display
Resolution	1440x900 pixels
OpenGL Renderer	Gallium 0.4 on llvmpipe (LLVM 3.5, 128 bits)
X11 Vendor	The X.Org Foundation
Multimedia
Audio Adapter	HDA-Intel - HDA NVidia
Audio Adapter	HDA-Intel - HDA NVidia

Code: Select all

Operating System
Version
Kernel	Linux 3.16.0-4-686-pae (i686)
Compiled	#1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt9-2 (2015-04-13)
C Library	Unknown
Default C Compiler	GNU C Compiler version 4.9.2 (Debian 4.9.2-10)
Distribution	Debian GNU/Linux 8.0
Current Session
Computer Name	nosystemd
User Name	james (james)
Home Directory	/home/james
Desktop Environment	XFCE 4

Code: Select all

james@nosystemd:~$ cat /proc/1/comm 
init

james@nosystemd:~$ uname -a
Linux nosystemd 3.16.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt9-2 (2015-04-13) i686 GNU/Linux

greengeek · #275 Post by **greengeek** » Sun 26 Apr 2015, 05:35

Which of the following is coded in a way that is easier to understand and easier to alter to meet the needs of a user who wants their system to behave exactly the way they want it to?:
- A busybox init
- A sysvinit init
- A systemd init

- some other form of init?

s243a · #276 Post by **s243a** » Sun 26 Apr 2015, 05:56

I'm inclined to think that simpler is better and that no one wants a corporate takeover of open-source. However, I truly don't know enough on this topic to comment. I do have a slightly unrelated question to this debate.

My question is, "Is 'Systemd-nspawn', part of systemd, and if so, does it have any relevance to this debate?".

I've tried chroot (see thread) in an effort to experiment with sandboxing (see thread) but realized that there were more complexities than I thought. Systemd-nspawn seems simpler but perhaps this functionality could be easily simulated with shell scripts.

Also as noted on another thread, perhaps isolating programs from each other isn't something that we would normally want to do because we would use too many resources and create maintenance problems.

amigo · #277 Post by **amigo** » Sun 26 Apr 2015, 08:30

sysvinit is the most flexible one of the three. It's limited only by what you can script it to do.

saintless · #278 Post by **saintless** » Sun 26 Apr 2015, 09:09

James C wrote:Nowhere near as easy as the systemd fanbois will have you believe but Debian 8.0 Jessie XFCE with no systemd in sight.

It takes one hour without donations and big words to do what Devuan is doing from months.
Jessie-Sysvinit-XFCE4-nosystemd screenshot

Code: Select all

root@debian:~/Desktop# lsb_release -irc
Distributor ID:	Debian
Release:	8.0
Codename:	jessie

root@debian:~/Desktop# uname -a
Linux debian 3.16.0-4-586 #1 Debian 3.16.7-ckt9-2 (2015-04-13) i686 GNU/Linux

root@debian:~/Desktop# cat /proc/1/comm
init

root@debian:~/Desktop# apt-get purge libpam-systemd
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Package 'libpam-systemd' is not installed, so not removed
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

root@debian:~/Desktop# apt-get purge systemd
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Package 'systemd' is not installed, so not removed
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

Read more how to use init metapackage in Jessie and SID and you will see Debian gives you more init choices you can imagine.
But as usual the facts will not stop the lies posted here.

James C · #279 Post by **James C** » Sun 26 Apr 2015, 11:05

You of course realize that XFCE is not dependent on systemd.

https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11574

Currently systemd is optional and we want to keep it that way....

You also realize that Debian Jessie ships with GNOME Shell 3.14 as the default desktop environment,which is heavily dependent on systemd...not XFCE.

Might explain why Devuan chose to use XFCE as the quickest path to a finished product. By the way, the install in my post is not a Devuan release..... I chose to use XFCE precisely because it provides an easy way to remove systemd. Guess that's why you used it too.

saintless · #280 Post by **saintless** » Sun 26 Apr 2015, 11:50

James C wrote:You of course realize that XFCE is not dependent on systemd.

https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11574

It is according to Devuan developer:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 806#841806
Or one of you is lying

You also realize that Debian Jessie ships with GNOME Shell 3.14 as the default desktop environment,which is heavily dependent on systemd...not XFCE.

You made one small step to the truth. Gnome is systemd dependand but not Debian in general. Then Devuan should be called Gnomuan.
And again you step back from the truth. I'm sure you know the default Debian install CD is the first one. Then the default DE is of your choice - KDE, Gnome, Lxde, XFCE:
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/8.0 ... /jigdo-cd/
Or even cinnamon-desktop and mate provided from Debian Live:
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/cur ... so-hybrid/

By the way, the install in my post is not a Devuan release.....

Mine example is also standard Debian with packages only from main Jessie repository.

I chose to use XFCE precisely because it provides an easy way to remove systemd. Guess that's why you used it too.

No, I made the choice because of Devuan developer statement XFCE can not be installed without systemd. And because you wrote "Nowhere near as easy as the systemd fanbois will have you believe..."
You both do not tell the truth. It is possible and very easy.
As I wrote the facts will not stop the lies posted here from anti-systemd crowd.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

boycott systemd

One daemon to rule them all: systemd, a corporate putsch in

Join the Microsoft Openness team to celebrate Debian 8 at Li