Re: [gentoo-amd64] Boycott Systemd

["Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Harry Holt <harryholt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Barry Schwartz
>>> <chemoelectric@chemoelectric.org> wrote:
>>> > Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> skribis:
>>> >> Diversity isn't about feeding people who feels everything not-invented
>>> >> here is godawful. When you have a clearly defined problem and you can
>>> >> create a solution that satisfies that niche better than any other
>>> >> solutions, that is diversity.
>>> >
>>> > ‘Diversity’ here is deviation from established Unix/POSIX philosophy
>>> > in system design. Years of effort to simplify programming are being
>>> > thrown away on grounds that resemble common arguments in favor of the
>>> > ‘tight integration’ that is Microsoft Windows. I mean, seriously, many
>>> > of the pro-systemd arguments are like those I have heard for using
>>> > Windows: that applications ‘just work’, because they were written for
>>> > a dominant system.
>>> >
>>> > But I view this like a programmer, not like a Windows user; I want my
>>> > software to be portable because it is written portably (in a POSIX
>>> > sense), not because it is written for a universally available
>>> > particular POSIX variant. What I see is something like a return to the
>>> > days when you had to write different code for variants of USG, BSD,
>>> > and whatnot, except that now, unlike then, one of the variants is
>>> > overwhelmingly dominant.
>>> >
>>> > What I really fear, though, is what if one day the kernel team is a
>>> > different entity, more like other entities in the Linux world?
>>>
>>> As a professional programmer, I completely disagree with any dogma
>>> based on "philosophy" rather than technical merits. I will not rehash
>>> here the same discussion we have had several times in gentoo-user, so
>>> I will just paste what Linus recently had to say about "the
>>> traditional unix"[1].
>>>
>>> "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days more
>>> of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one
>>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a
>>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face
>>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major
>>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's
>>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I
>>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality.
>>>
>>> "It might describe some particular case, though, and I do think it's a
>>> useful teaching tool. People obviously still do those traditional
>>> pipelines of processes and file descriptors that UNIX is perhaps
>>> associated with, but there's a *lot* of cases where you have big
>>> complex unified systems."
>>>
>>> Let me emphasize the important part:
>>>
>>> "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX [...] model
>>> [...], but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work".
>>>
>>> So, I'm sorry, but if I'm going to take a programmer's word, is going
>>> to be Linus over almost anyone else. And to quote Rob Pike: "Not only
>>> is UNIX dead, it’s starting to smell really bad."
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
>>> --
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés
>>> Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
>>> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
>>>
>>
>> You left out a few gems from Linus.  I already posted Linus' rant about some
>> of the major failings of systemd and its developers - there are some issues
>> he brings up in his article that you still refuse to acknowledge as major
>> short-comings:
>>
>> "I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself.
>> I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too
>> cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design
>> details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are
>> details, not big issues."
>>
>> "Now, I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not
>> binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of
>> taste, but hey, details.."
>
> You make my point: all the things Linus doesn't like about systemd are
> "details".
>
>> But of course, actions speak louder than words.  Linus may have explained
>> why he kicked Kay Sievers out of the kernel maintainers, but if he did, it
>> wasn't included in the edited transcript.
>
> That happened almost six months ago. Nobody in LKML really cares about
> that; only systemd-haters keep bring it up.
>
> And yeah, actions speak louder than words. See which distributions
> switched or are about to switch to systemd.
>
> In the end, those are the only actions that matter.

And BTW, check the git logs for the Linux kernel; after Linus'
outburst in April, Kay has continued to be involved in several patches
to the Linux kernel, basically at the same rate that before the
outburst.

So, he was not kicked from anywhere. But that will not retract the
systemd-haters from bringing up that "argument".

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México