Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

["Yuri K. Shatroff" <yks-uno@yandex.ru>]

17.02.2014 00:19, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-uno@yandex.ru> wrote:
> [ snip ]
>> Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of
>> systemd? ;)
>
> As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical.

Even religious.

> Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why
> the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion).

Oh I have read so many discussions already... :)
To me, systemd's technical superiority is far not obvious. Just another 
init system would be, but as long as systemd is much more that one, I 
can't say that. It should NOT be compared to OpenRC / upstart alone, 
rather to a whole bunch of tools it replaces, and probably even those 
it's ambitious to replace.

>> I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into any
>> existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just practical
>> uselessness?
>
> If it's "practically useless", why so many distributions keep choosing
> it? Why GNOME started using it?

Well, I said that technical superiority matters little for maintainers; 
what matters is money. If I'd write some super-puper fancy init system 
and kernel replacement, who would be interested? It's not the time of 
Linus' rise, now you don't deal with USENET freaks, but with Intel, 
RedHat and other billionaire corps. Do you have the guts and means to 
keep up with competitors, even not about kernel/init subsystems, but a 
user app like mailer/browser/messenger...
A kernel subsystem requires much more technical competence to maintain 
and is far more critical for functioning, so much more important here is 
not any 'technical superiority' but simply resources, human and 
financial, spared if using RH-maintained systemd.

>> Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the Linux
>> kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of
>> kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has much
>> in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us it
>> provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc.
>
> All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft
> becomes moot.

Once you mentioned "technical superiority", let's compare other stuff 
technically too. :)

>> A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the
>> questions:
>> 1. Is the software standards-compliant?
>> 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation?
>> 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal?
>> 4. Does the software achieve the goal?
>> 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"?
>> 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be like?
>> 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or group?
>
> That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care
> if Emacs is "standards-compliant" (whatever that means for a text
> editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible
> implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be
> yes.

You don't care about Emacs and Inkscape but do you care the same nought 
about e.g. /bin/cp, /bin/mv etc? Do you care that your browser talks 
HTTP rather than SHiTP? Do you care that once after a couple of years 
your systems get unmaintained and unmaintainable because the software on 
them becomes a load of bashed up crap which only a world's head lennart 
can deal with? Well, you'll say that red hat tralala, but we've seen the 
rise and fall of many giants e.g. Sun with their once 'technically 
superior' Solaris and SPARCs, well one can name many I just don't have 
time, also we seen MySQL bought by Oracle, and all.
Nothing is eternal, and it's (Again!) quite not always technical matters 
that matters.

>> AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are dubious
>> if just plain "no".
>
>  From your point of view.
>
>> I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to switch
>> to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and the benefit,
>> if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold.
>
> That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and
> unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd,
> then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start
> maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it.

At present, no. But the trend is clear.

> That's how free software works.

Actually, free software (one you don't pay for) works like any other 
software you pay for. You probably wanted to say "that's how the OSS 
model works" but it's getting less and less true. The OSS model in many 
cases retains only its open source. Take MySQL, take KDE, take GNOME. 
Who cares about users? We do what we deem feasible regardless if you 
like it or not. Don't like it? C'mon, fork, it's free. C'mon, it's 
technically superior. C'mon, who are you? An admin? A programmer? A 
Bachelor/PhD? Ha, man, we're BILLIONAIRES. That says it. We GRANT you 
our software AS IS. And its source. And its bugtrackers. We make 
business by the fact that we have millions of free testers 'round the 
world. We can afford that. If you can afford forking and maintaining, 
c'mon man.

>> But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. Time
>> is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, twice the
>> money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the users' opinion. To
>> be a realist, one has to admit that in near future 90% of new distro
>> versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx emerge and take over
>> Red Hat...
>
> I don't think neither time nor money had to do with Debian's (nor
> Arch's, nor OpenSuse's, nor Maegia's, nor Sabayon's) decision.

It's not in terms "think" or "don't think". It's a fact.

> It's just technically superior. But's that's just my opinion, and what
> I believe ;)

That's a good thing to believe in. It's hard to prove, hard to see, 
impossible to test all cases.
Money is what you don't believe in. You either have it enough or not.

> So, amen? :D

Amen. :D

> Regards.
>

-- 
Regards,
Yuri K. Shatroff