[ale] Origins of Linux, do we care?

[leam hall]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Solomon Peachy <pizza at shaftnet.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:51:54PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
> > > It's not much of a history if it was written on July 31, 1992.
> >
> > It provides insight into original motivations.
>
> I believe the quote "Just for fun" encapsulates Linus's original
> motivations. Oh, and not being able to afford a RealUnix(tm) system...
>

One reason I started using Linux was cost.  It became fun, after a kinda
frustrating learning curve.

>  Yes. We have a system that's vastly technically superior, highly
> > customizable, and provided under  Free Software license. It was also not
> so
> > intrusive, and that is what really bugs me.
>
> Wait -- what are you claiming is "vastly technically superior" here?
>

Ah, sorry, my lack of clarity. The init process is vastly technically
superior to the Windows boot process.


> > There is the philosophy of "small tools" as a point of elegance. There is
> > also the pragmatic requirement of not having to learn a new OS amount of
> > stuff to stay on the same OS. There is also the point of lightweight
> which
> > keeps systems zippy. There is also the basic idea of giving you options.
>
> I get that systemd uses a different approach.  But that doesn't
> automatically make it bad.
>

Agreed.


> Since you're bringing up the "do one thing, do it well" philosophy, if
> you're being honest you'll also measure the alternatives with that same
> yardstick.
>

Agreed.


> But let me ask explicitly -- how is systemd's design not "elegant"?  How
> is is not a collection of "small tools"?
>

Because one cannot improve on one tool without breaking (into) the others.
For example, the RH "chkconfig" and "system" commands integrated into the
existing init scripts. You could choose to use them, or not. If someone
came from another *nix flavor they would have a basic knowledge of the init
system.



> > Really, I hear nothing about systemd that makes me think it's a good
> idea.
> > When it's so intrusive it definitely becomes a bad idea. Really, from
> > usability and morality it is no better than MS.
>
> So.. you're seriously equating software freely released under a copyleft
> license (and adopted on its merits) to a completely closed, proprietary
> system which gained market share by way of coercive,
> proven-in-court-illegal behaivor?
>

Yes. Even though, as far as we know, the systemd folks haven't been nearly
so legally wrong as others, they are being as demanding and unopen. "Our
way or the highway."

From
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2841873/meet-systemd-the-controversial-project-taking-over-a-linux-distro-near-you.html

"The systemd project also contains logind, a daemon that manages user
logins, and journald, an event-logging system that controversially writes
to binary files and not text ones. Systemd has also absorbed the udev
project <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udev> and its code, which handles the
management of virtual device files in the */dev/* directory and events when
devices are plugged in and unplugged. The list goes on and on: systemd also
includes a cron <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron>-style task scheduler
and networkd, a daemon for managing network connections.

More recently, systemd is gaining consoled, a user-mode console daemon that
can be used when Linux’s virtual terminal code is stripped out of the
kernel itself. The kernel developers seem happy to get this stuff out of
the kernel and into user-space , but some people have to be thinking: Does
systemd really have to take over this as well?"


...You sure have a strange definition of "morality".
>

I consider the intrusiveness of systemd to be against what I understand
about Linux. Which does not make me right and everyone else wrong.



> I really don't care what you use; that's your choice. However, I do care
> when opinions are publically justified by vague, hand-waving appeals to
> emotion that aren't backed up by anything resembling facts.
>
> You have every right to your own opinions (and choices) -- just not your
> own facts.
>

The facts I refer to, and I'm open to being corrected, are that systemd
replaces several functions previously unrelated and that it precludes using
similar functionality in a side by side manner. Are you disagreeing with
those points?

I understand the init system may not be the best solution for what is
needed today. It meets my needs but it might not meet the needs of others.
My own preference would have been for a new system that could stand
alongside the existing and would let people move into it.

Leam

-- 
Mind on a Mission <http://leamhall.blogspot.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20150918/f385f5ca/attachment.html>