From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5FD1389E2 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E7C83E0AEC; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B522E0994 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id rp18so8367755iec.24 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:18:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=xWPlTrvy4b5blMwRtmh8B7SIC+9ZJq+regYs6Z7GJvI=; b=q/itBmda3AgtF4bC9xGE9OGjbKHS7HNf3E0n9+v/PATn4aVu0zuIFSA0S3FPYKHU1Q 8hGPgYGQWP/P8BBMvYBdXoxZAqPlGuWN9N3qT6djmHLwGWD9DlCIOxSgZ5kYVYmczJZD 3Vc/i4gbM/k2st8ETdg/fihwOIn5XGlYFP7V+jTIcY+youI0vQL1vi7xp2YnqYLLt5Fs UymylJFQwMAKenitcSxPjShVHis6S/sPvlk2StJ7/PoYk64mWdKM/bxizYr02qq7C1Nl YEdmOSAidYaqNL5WkOo9vPNzAOSO0troI5APQ5asemcTfUqOKs8nfsJJxwdt9wmpVNuy l7FA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.132.210 with SMTP id o79mr17595555ioi.50.1416831522089; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.120.228 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:18:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141121230421.51204830@marcec.fritz.box> References: <546EE70C.2050506@yourstruly.sx> <20141121230421.51204830@marcec.fritz.box> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 06:18:41 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now From: Sid S To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fd70894b016050899cbe5 X-Archives-Salt: 280801e5-af38-464e-9c99-e9752ef3f7fe X-Archives-Hash: 5f4c831f161238beff9908fc5b66b3ea --001a113fd70894b016050899cbe5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The reason this question is so hard to answer is because it is not a technical question, it is a moral and ethical one. The links presented start to approach the issue being discussed in this light but do not entirely accept the right question. I suspect this is because it seems rather absurd. We shall analyze some popular responses in this light. Systemd is easy to work around! http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html except, https://lobste.rs/s/y5skqt/avoiding_systemd_isn_t_hard/comments/eayjn3#c_ea= yjn3 but http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html gives some decent counterpoints, which http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/ either supports or is ambivalent about. They all basically boil down to "someone is doing the work, and if it is a better way to do it it will be okay." Except this isn't true. The proof by contradiction is exceptionally simple: If this was a just world, Lennart's pants would be on fire. Lennart's pants are not on fire. Therefore, this is not a just world, and justice must be manufactured. You might ask why his pants (and the pants of most systemd supporters) would be on fire. Well, https://pappp.net/?p=3D969 clearly explains how FLOS is not UNIX, and the easy counterpoints get thoroughly trashed http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/, and http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/ here's a guy agreeing and suggesting everyone hit the big red EJECT. Why UNIX? Well, because that's just a concise, easy-to-phrase proxy for the deeper issue of https://pay.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2k5b7e/the_concern_isnt_that_system= d_itself_isnt/ (aside: read the C++ in the kernel tangent if you are not familiar, it seems to mirror this argument taking place and notably, Linus has chosen a side on that one!) which is echoed here http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/ and here http://lwn.net/Articles/576078/ and here http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ (start with unix philosophy) and here http://lwn.net/Articles/494605/. Once upon a time I met a very masterful troll who got me to say precisely what I needed to say precisely when I did not want to say it. What he got me to say was: >Oct 27 06:05:30 <*******> I study the orthodoxy consistently[sic] >Oct 27 06:05:38 To find its flaws, yes So did Lennart &co. study the orthodox to learn from its failures? Did they construct a conservative (re)implementation of the software exhibiting those failures? It has been shown and continues to be shown that: no, they are flying by the seat of their pants. A solution could have been constructed which requires far less labor. Not only far less of *their* labor, but far less labor for *everyone else* using a *nix. But they did not thoroughly investigate such avenues, even within their reimplementation! They are recreating bugs! It is impossible for them to claim they are doing it over to do it right, as they have already failed at that purpose. They have been shown to have wasted effort and continue to do so. When labor is scarce, that is the most unethical action one can undertake. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Marc Joliet wrote: > Am Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:32:16 -0600 > schrieb Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s : > > [...] > > I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for LWN a week ago: > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/ > [...] > > Thanks for the link, it was a good read. > > FWIW, I found this linked in one of the comments: > > http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ > > Both articles echo thoughts that I have more and more with every > "discussion" > regarding systemd. > > My takeaway is similar to that of the lwn.net article (that is, both > sides are > being unnecessarily thick-headed), and find it remarkable how much I > recognise > from "discussions" here on gentoo-user (in contrast, gentoo-amd64 has bee= n > much > more level-headed). However, I disagree with with the categorisation at > the > end, mainly because I hate it when people have to sort each other into > "camps", > so that they know who to hate and who to like (which isn't the author's > fault, > I think, politicised discussions tend to go that way as they intensify), > but > also because I think it is too strict and doesn't account for overlap (fo= r > myself I see reasons for both being and not being in either group). > > Greetings > -- > Marc Joliet > -- > "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know = we > don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup > --001a113fd70894b016050899cbe5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The reason this question is so hard to answer is because it is = not a technical question, it is a moral and ethical one. The links presente= d start to approach the issue being discussed in this light but do not enti= rely accept the right question. I suspect this is because it seems rather a= bsurd.

We shall analyze some popular responses in this light.<= br>
Systemd is easy to work around! http://www.vitavonni.de/= blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html
except, https://lobste.rs/s/y5skqt/avoiding_systemd_isn_t_hard/comments/e= ayjn3#c_eayjn3
but http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths= .html gives some decent counterpoints,
which http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/ either suppo= rts or is ambivalent about.

They all basically boil down to &q= uot;someone is doing the work, and if it is a better way to do it it will b= e okay." Except this isn't true. The proof by contradiction is exc= eptionally simple:

If this was a just world, Lennart's pan= ts would be on fire.
Lennart's pants are not on fire.
There= fore, this is not a just world, and justice must be manufactured.

You might ask why his pants (and the pants of most systemd supporters) = would be on fire. Well,
https://p= appp.net/?p=3D969 clearly explains how FLOS is not UNIX, and
the eas= y counterpoints get thoroughly trashed http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/, and
http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/1= 1/20/systemd-redux/ here's a guy agreeing and suggesting everyone h= it the big red EJECT.

Why UNIX? Well, because that's just = a concise, easy-to-phrase proxy for the deeper issue of
https://pay.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2k5b7e/the_concern_isnt_= that_systemd_itself_isnt/ (aside: read the C++ in the kernel tangent if= you are not familiar, it seems to mirror this argument taking place and no= tably, Linus has chosen a side on that one!)
which is echoed here = http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/=
and here http://l= wn.net/Articles/576078/
and here http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystem= dAntiSystemd/ (start with unix philosophy)
and here http://lwn.net/Articles/494605/.
<= div>

Once upon a = time I met a very masterful troll who got me to say precisely what I needed= to say precisely when I did not want to say it. What he got me to say was:=
>Oct 27 06:05:30 <*******>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 I study the ortho= doxy consistently[sic]
>Oct 27 06:05:38 <R0b0t1`>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0 To find its flaws, yes

So did Lennart &co. stu= dy the orthodox to learn from its failures? Did they construct a conservati= ve (re)implementation of the software exhibiting those failures? It has bee= n shown and continues to be shown that: no, they are flying by the seat of = their pants. A solution could have been constructed which requires far less= labor. Not only far less of their labor, but far less labor for = everyone else using a *nix. But they did not thoroughly investigate suc= h avenues, even within their reimplementation! They are recreating bugs! It= is impossible for them to claim they are doing it over to do it right, as = they have already failed at that purpose.

They have been = shown to have wasted effort and continue to do so. When labor is scarce, th= at is the most unethical action one can undertake.

=

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014= at 4:04 PM, Marc Joliet <marcec@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:32:16 -0600
schrieb Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s <caneko@gmail.com>:

[...]
> I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for = LWN a week ago:
>
> http://l= wn.net/Articles/619992/
[...]

Thanks for the link, it was a good read.

FWIW, I found this linked in one of the comments:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/<= /a>

Both articles echo thoughts that I have more and more with every "disc= ussion"
regarding systemd.

My takeaway is similar to that of the lwn.net article (that is, both sides are
being unnecessarily thick-headed), and find it remarkable how much I recogn= ise
from "discussions" here on gentoo-user (in contrast, gentoo-amd64= has been much
more level-headed).=C2=A0 However, I disagree with with the categorisation = at the
end, mainly because I hate it when people have to sort each other into &quo= t;camps",
so that they know who to hate and who to like (which isn't the author&#= 39;s fault,
I think, politicised discussions tend to go that way as they intensify), bu= t
also because I think it is too strict and doesn't account for overlap (= for
myself I see reasons for both being and not being in either group).

Greetings
--
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who kn= ow we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup

--001a113fd70894b016050899cbe5--