Open letter to the Linux World (opens in new tab)

(lkml.org)

20 pointsetix11y ago2 comments

2 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Karellen11y ago· 1 in thread

"I had heard about systemd a few years back, when upstart and some other init replacements I can't remember were showing up on the scene. And while it seemed mildly interesting, I was not in favor of using it, nor any of them for that matter. init was working just fine for me. init was simple and robust. While configuration had it's distro-specific differences, it was often these differences that made one pick the distro to use in the first place, and to stay with that distro. The tools essentially were the distro. I just dist-upgraded to Jessie, and voila - PID 1 was suddenly systemd. What a clusterfuck. In a 'One Linux' world, what would distros actually be? Deprecated. No longer relevant. Archaic shells of their once proud individualism. Basically, they're now just a logo and a default desktop background image."

Really? That's what you think the whole difference between the distros is, the fucking init system?

You're using Debian, but you don't think the Social Contract and DFSG are any part of what Debian uses to set itself apart? You're just completely ignoring that, I can only presume on purpose? You don't think that portage and USE flags distinguishes Gentoo from the other distros in any way? Or that Slackware's deliberately ascetic package managment is at all important? Or that it's unique directory layout and symlink farm is what makes GoboLinux awesome? The defining characteristic of all the these distros is what init system they use?

"Debian has made a grave and cowardly mistake here, and they need a course correction immediately. Incorporating systemd was not an intelligent choice, and certainly not one very well considered."

Obviously, you aren't aware of the debian-devel thread on the matter. "Not [a choice] very well considered" my arse.

"Gnome. The Linux Foundation. freedesktop.org, and others. These are all groups with agendas. These are not those who believe in freedom."

And Debian too? All of these groups don't believe in freedom? They're just one huge cabal, none of whom believe in freedom, wanting to control you for... what end, exactly? Because it's beyond the realm of possibility in your mind that they might have all independently come to the same conclusion, for the simple technical that systemd might actually be better than sysv-init?

Are you fucking kidding me?

For someone who started an open letter asking a question about the nature of intelligence, it certainly seems to this reader that the author is a long way from finding any answers at all in their quest...

pdkl9511y ago

> Really? That's what you think the whole difference between the distros is, the fucking init system?

Systemd isn't (just) an init system. According to Poettering himself, in a recent talk[1], noted how systemd has already taken over:

"init system, journal logging, login management, device management, temporary and volatile file management, binary format registration, backlight save/restore, rfkill save/restore, bootchart, readahead, encrypted storage setup, EFI/GPT partition discovery, virtual machine/container registration, minimal container management, hostname management, locale management, time management, random seed management, sysctl variable management, and console managment."

His roadmap for the next features to annex includes:

    - DNS/DNSSEC, mDNS responder
    - IPC (kernel code! (kdbus, etc))
    - NTP
    - More container integration, w/ new OS image format
    - mandating layout of /usr /etc and /var
    - "Verifiable OS images"
      "All the way to the firmware"
      "Boot Loading"
      (good luck using custom kernels once
       PoetteringOS starts requiring UEFI SecureBoot)
    - (etc)

Do you call that "the fucking init system"? There isn't much left after that, and if past and current behavior is any judge, Poettering will probably expand that list over time.

> Or that it's unique directory layout and symlink farm

That's exactly the kind of thing that the systemd crowd is trying to prevent. See the part above where the current goal is to mandate the filesystem layout. Remember, it was Poettering himself that said that the goal of systemd was to "...get rid of many of the more pointless differences of the various distributions..."

> Obviously, you aren't aware of the debian-devel thread on the matter.

Obviously, the author has read that threat (as have I). It was quite the experience, and is one of the most revealing threads I've seen regarding the abusive, manipulative, our-way-or-nothing methods used by the systemd camp. Debian has indeed made a dangerous choice, which was further discussed in the replies to this LKML post.

> And Debian too? All of these groups don't believe in freedom? They're just one huge cabal...

No such claim was made. Debian has put itself in a situation where the freedom currently enjoyed will not be possible in the future. Systemd is forcing incompatibilities with the traditional Linux/Unix ways - on purpose - and they already have limited manpower. Siding with systemd will require either more manpower than they have, or dropping the "old ways".

> ...the author is a long way from finding any answers...

Ahh, attacking the author. This type of tactic is pretty common from the systemd shills, as a method of shutting down the discussion. Instead of using this kind of rhetoric, I suggest actually reading up on the history of the current init situation.

Unless you actually want Linux to become a windows-style monoculture, incompatible with most traditional unix software - because removing "old" features and backwards compatibility is the stated goal of the larger "CoreOS"/systemd project.

[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTczNDk

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse