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

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

On 22.02.2014 21:21, Stroller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 February 2014, at 10:38 am, Yuri K. Shatroff
> <yks-uno@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
>> On 22.02.2014 11:40, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>>> [ ... ] Even as the complex beast it has become systemd is still
>>> simpler than the alternative of having abominations of unreliable
>>> shell scripts checking to see which version of grep and sed is
>>> used to split the command line, or whether the system uses
>>> tempfile or mktemp, or depending on perl.
>>
>> Well, simpler yeah, supporting only one kernel of specific versions
>> is always simpler than trying to support everything from SunOS to
>> NetBSD. This way, if the kernel supported only e.g. Intel
>> IvyBridge+ with one chipset family, one graphics (VESA) and so on,
>> it would have been incredibly simpler.
>
> I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and
> professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. … PS. Yes – it’s free
> of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.  It is NOT
> protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will
> support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that’s all I have :-(.

Good luck!

> Linux did indeed once support only one CPU family and one or two
> hard-drives, and the reason that it now supports more is that people
> dug into the code, submitted patches and got it fixed.
>
> Had all the original Linux developers spent their time on the
> comp.os.minix list, complaining "oh, those splitters, they're trying
> to fragment the Minix community" and "this Linus guy should be
> putting his effort into improving the Minix kernel", where would we
> be today?

Actually I don't get what you are arguing [against].

> It's almost hilarious the volume of traffic expended here on this
> subject, especially that by the naysayers. When I first learned of
> systemd I did not feel favourably towards it, but those ranting
> against it have only given Canek a platform to convince me.

I partially agree. In an emotional discussion the most probable winner 
(as seen from outside) is the calm one.
But being calm doesn't refute all technical and `political` stuff.
I personally was going to try systemd about a week ago when the 
discussion started. Now I'm quite convinced not to do this in the near 
future.
No calm arguments of systemd's supporters, such as the complexity of 
shell scripts, the simplicity of systemd compared to the Kernel, the 
ease of use of journald tools, the shitload of troubles of configuring 
syslog, the replacement for all network setup tools, the good intents of 
Red Hat, etc etc, didn't convince me. Emotions pass, results remain.

> And whilst I'm still of two minds on which init system I'd ideally
> prefer, I am not under any delusions that I can influence the
> developers of the Gentoo distro or those of the Linux kernel (who
> AIUI are adding kdbus to support systemd), either by ranting about it
> here or otherwise.

No delusions, there will always be an alternative.
Nobody actually has disagreed yet with my words that in a couple of 
years systemd is going to dominate "90%" (meaning the majority of) linux 
distros. But "10%" hopefully will remain without it. Anyway since 
systemd is not intending to support any other kernels, we'll probably 
see other OS or stuff like Debian/kFreeBSD develop more intensively.
Yet, of course, these alternatives will necessarily be poorer supported 
and one will have to take effort to migrate - to either the distro he 
used, but the version with systemd, or a different distro/OS.

> The amount of energy spent on this, you could have established a fork
> and written code by now - if y'all really want to prove your point,
> that's the way to do it.

What point?
I personally am terribly satisfied with the SysV init and shell scripts 
so what am I to fork and write?
What a fork to establish? A fork of debian, to maintain it w/o systemd? 
Let that be done by debianners maybe, if they so desire.

As for `ranting`, I do see a point in such talks (until these get 
personal), as I learn many new things (both from the posts and while 
trying to prove/refute the points) and I always try to ask a concrete 
question and answer a concrete question. Note: I do repeat *I* here 
because you answered *my* post.

In any case, no offense, your reply is a rant, too.

-- 
Best wishes,
Yuri K. Shatroff