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

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

I'll try to be short.

On 18.02.2014 05:09, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> The whole point of creating new software is making things easier. Easier to
>> use, easier to maintain, easier to remove.
>
> Well, systemd is easier to use after a little time learning how it
> works. And it seems to be easier to maintain that thousands of lines
> of spaghetti shell code. And, I'm sorry, did you just said "easier to
> remove"? Seriously?

You, as a person declaring ability to code, must understand what 
removal/substitution of components is important for.

> You think the kernel is "easier to remove"? Or glibc?

The difference is, the kernel wasn't designed to be removed, neither was 
glibc. I don't think the development of such projects as 
Debian/kFreeBSD, uClibc etc is easy. Systemd is going to be even harder 
to remove -- officially limiting itself to Linux kernels.

>> How Integrated? The TCP/IP stack *is* integrated. But it is *protocol*
>> integration, *standards* integration not *software* integration. You do want
>> tight integration where it just can't work otherwise, but the design of Unix
>> provides (well, again repeating this), and almost any robust design should
>> provide, the ignorance of one abstraction level about another. Why HAL? Why
>> udev? Why drivers as modules? Why not just go and integrate all stuff into
>> the kernel, well (again!) like MS do, and don't please say I compare wrong
>> things just because MS is not OSS.
>
> You make a wrong comparison, because MS is not free (libre) software.
> With Linux, and systemd, and OpenRC, and HAL, and devfs, and sysv, we
> have been able to try new technologies (and see that some of them
> fail, like HAL [yuck!]), because we have the source.

I knew you'd say this, ignoring my warning. Will you also claim that 
comparing Oracle and Postgres also doesn't have sense? Or comparing 
Photoshop and GIMP?

> As you said, you can replace the whole of Linux if you so desire (and
> have the technical ability).
>
> You will never be able to do that with any MS software, and so the
> comparison makes no sense.

BTW, I asked purely technically: why not integrate everything into the 
kernel, since we're having a working example?

>> -- not because of its design, technical details etc, but
>> because otherwise in short time you'll end up comparing systemd to itself.
>
> ?

...because there'll be nothing left to compare systemd to.

> The code is out there. You can choose to pick any point in time of the
> whole stack (ca. 2009, before systemd existed), and wrote from there
> if you have enough people willing and able to.

So you eventually agree that it all converges on money. Enough people, 
competent enough in init systems, is quite 'enough' money.

> No one is taking anything from any one. No one is forcing nothing.

No, no. No forcing. Just an offer you can't refuse.

> Free software is being written and offered, and knowledgeable people
> are choosing to use it in their distros.
>
> You are against that? Then wrote your own version with the same (or
> better) features.

Heck of an argument. You don't like that stupid program on your TV? 
C'mon broadcast yours own. You don't like that road crossing with 
hundreds of traffic accidents? C'mon stand there directing traffic 
instead of the road police. Etc.
You call the software free? Then put up with criticism and make 
conclusions on the feedback. If you don't or can't, don't claim it's 
free software.

Nothing personal, Canek, I respect your POV and your eagerness to help 
people and make the world better that you always show in this ML. :)

-- 
Best wishes,
Yuri K. Shatroff