On 02/19/2014 09:06 AM, Gevisz wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:04:14 -0600
Daniel Campbell <lists@sporkbox.us> wrote:

On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko
<bircoph@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I
ask to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate
systemd profile for those willing to use it.

Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd profile, you
need to use systemd.

Or to create a non-systemd profile :)

That's the best response I've read in, like, many years. That's
perfect; I'm 100% behind it. I even volunteer to help (with testing)
to anyone going for this.

You guys create a systemd-sucks-we-dont-want-it profile, and I
promise to give you guys a hand.

Make a profile that "frees" users from using systemd, and I think
even several Gentoo developers will get behind that.

Now we are talking; this has been my whole point the whole time.
Everybody that don't want to use systemd; help this idea, and if
there are enough of you, you'll pulled through.

Regards.



For all this talk about technical details,
nobody seems to notice the marketing

A few people including myself have noted it earlier.

that's going on and frankly it disgusts me.

 And me too.

I have to confess that it does feel very evangelistic the approach from folks pushing systemd. perhaps it is just because for some it has been four years of looking at new ways of doing things, whilst others are just realising now how different it is.
I saw an interesting blog post [1] that basically tried to convince directly gentoo devs.
it was interesting because of this comment:

<snip>
"
Yes, I think you’re dead on, there. It’s not that Gnome depends on systemd – but it’s increasingly dependent on features that are only provided by systemd. The example of OpenRC not behaving according to GDM’s assumptions is a perfect illustration of that. It’s dependent not on systemd, but on something that for practical purposes is indistinguishable from systemd
"
</snip>

the difficulty is that without knowing what features are required but assumed to be there it becomes very difficult to build something the has the API that logind or others might be requiring. an update of gnome might require a new feature that is hot off the presses, and until it breaks an openrc-logind system no one is aware of that requirement. the API does seem to be online [2], albeit updated 30days ago; i can't comment if this is up to date enough or not.

I think the argument on the blog page is a bit disingenuous too - essentially implying that if you want gnome then you must have logind, and if you want logind you must supply the features supplied by systemd: but to get a list of the features required is _your_ problem: go through the gnome source code to find out.
these kinds of things are what folks are taking umbrage against.

I'm also a little confused over the socket matrix feature. I think it's very clever to be negotiating and buffering socket and mounts to services that need them, but I haven't seen a good technical argument as to why this is required. From my perspective i see it as xinet.d for unix sockets and well, is anyone using xinet.d on a production server? Hopefuly someone can enlighten me? also what happens if the socket arbitrator dies ?

not trying to troll here, just my main point is that the communication between systemd supporters seems to be more of an issue than the possibility of change.

thanks guys

[1] https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/
[2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind/