More systemd fun, this time between Gentoo folks and the Sabayon maintainer:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/271890

My take: Gentoo - "Keep it around as an option/let's take a wait-and-see approach/why do we need another init system?" Sabayon - "It boots faster!/We need this now!/Force-feed it to all!"

Sabayon is not Gentoo. Gentoo uses OpenRC (SysVInit-like with dependency based scripts) by default. Gentoo could care less what it's spin-offs produce. The way the Gentoo users think is systemd is too expensive to the system, creates too many symlinks, and offers nothing significant to the equation.

I can respect this kind of thinking because it shows me that not everyone wants the latest greatest toy to play with, but are content with things they have that work, are tested, and will continue to work.

The problem with Lennart is his ego gets in the way of him being logical about his approach to init systems and other software in relationship to other non-Linux UNIX-like operating systems and environments.

Logic would tell you that systemd is optional to sysvinit or bsdinit and faster booting doesn't always mean better system overall, and that each UNIX-like system can contribute to each other significantly.

Lennart's way of thinking is the exact opposite. To him, sysvinit is dead, BSD is a joke, and meaninglessness of minor features and candy features of software overshadows fundamentals, stability, and tried, true, and tested software.

If you think I'm joking or lying in any way, go watch all his speeches on YouTube and read his manifesto/blog. The man has something off about him that even Freud would say is as plain as the nose on your face.

Amen.

Exactly hitest. Gentoo, like Slackware, and LFS, are about choice and freedom to choose what YOU want, not what the status-quo dictates.

This is ironically what my "signature" means. Following the status-quo can destroy your ideals, ruin you in every way, corrupt your goals, and tarnish your reputation. Just because some hot-shot smart-arse says he has the latest greatest toy to play with, doesn't mean you should line up like sheeple and march in step to the drums.

Not only does faster booting not always mean a better system overall, but systemd does not necessarily mean faster booting. Take a look at these benchmarks, especially page three:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...18_boots&num=1

5 members found this post helpful.

You're preachin' to the choir, man. Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of the discussion on that link. I was kinda enjoying Sabayon as a stepping stone to Gentoo, but now, knowing how they are jumping aboard the systemd bandwagon, and trying to pressure the Gentoo devs into the same, I've lost respect for them. So I guess I'll be trying Gentoo sooner rather than later.

As I mentioned previously, my concern with systemd is the way udev got sucked into the sources. Lennart can do what he wants for Red Hat, his employer, but decisions like absorbing udev and then telling the community, or hinting as much, that using udev someday requires systemd, is just wrong. And pig-headed. And egotistic.

Lennart is not a BDFL. If he wants to be a BDFL then he should act like one and keep the needs of downstream users ahead of his own preferences.

Lennart could win a few friends simply by splitting udev back to its own source tree and letting everybody in the community decide how systemd and udev function together.

2 members found this post helpful.

The industry is already moving away from the GPL ecosystem (especially GPLv3) towards more commercial-friendly licenses like MIT, BSDL, Apache, CDDL etc. Also companies are replacing GCC 4.3+ with LLVM/clang for the same reason. While some people may think, that BSD is a joke (it's currently in a weak position), maybe some day the whole "FreeDesktop userland" becomes a joke and irrelevant. Including GNU, systemd and its appendices plus the GNOME proliferations. For me trying to force bad code on other people is a sure sign of decadence.

Given enough time, Linux could very well get passed up by BSD based systems and even other UNICES out there.

As long as the GPL works in ways to exclude and limit Linux development and inclusions of features under non-GPL licenses like CDDL and such, things aren't going to get better, and in fact they could get worse if developments stall, grind to a halt, or even evaporate should people see systems like Free/PC-BSD being more license friendly.

Don't get me wrong the GPL license has it's benefits, but often those are equally overshadowed by the drawbacks just as well, so realistically, putting myself in a developer's shoes, I'd go for a license that isn't so system restrictive, and licenses like BDSL and MIT would be prime candidates.

Force enough bad code onto people JTSN, and eventually people will abandon you.

I think conflating GNU with the likes of systemd is a pathetic error. While it may be "GPL'd", it is not a GNU project. Furthermore, none of the GNU packages, to my knowledge, have ever been "forced" on anyone. Distribution maintainers make their choices now just as they ever have.
And another thing: If the Four Freedoms ever become "a joke", well, my friend, the joke will surely be on us. I'm not a Free Software purist, but suggesting there is something wrong with GNU because a few of the projects have gone to extremes smacks of misplaced, misguided anger which should be saved for the likes of L. Pottering and company.

Some people treat GNU as a bandwagon, and jump on for the ride. LP is one of those. Developers trying to make a name for themselves riding on the coattails of the Great Ones like Torvalds, and Stallman. RMS is not responsible for the goofyassed decisions of the GNOME project any more than Torvalds is for pulseaudio. Their creations have taken on lives of their own.

As for Linux getting "passed up" by BSD, that ship has sailed. Switching from GCC to CLANG is not going to make any Fortune 500 look twice at BSD. And the desktop? pfft. HaikuOS will take that mantle before any BSD will...

3 members found this post helpful.

A great example for bogus discussion tactics. Make up arguments, pretend they have been said by someone and then counter them.

No offense, but I don't view the GPL as a true free license for open source software. And GNOME to my knowledge was founded for the main reason that KDE's toolkit Qt was just not "free enough", where "free" only meant "GPL compatible". Meanwhile the "issue" is gone, but the resulting fragmentation is still there.

And again allegations of things that have never been said. Big commercial vendors like Apple and Google are looking for less restrictive licensed software. That's a fact.

Back to the relevance of systemd's "inevitability": While the Linux kernel itself is widely used and very successful, the "Free Desktop" ecosystem as itself failed in reaching any relevant market-share. It's a niche project in the sub-two-percent range. And it seems (in)famous software quality and developer attitude are making sure it stays there. As for BSD: Their code is actually in wide use, i. e. on every Apple device, far beyond anything that Lennart's systemd will ever reach.

1 members found this post helpful.

The only reason GNU made such a huge stride in developing GNU/Linux and why the GPL license was chosen for the Linux kernel, was very plain and simple. GNU was an operating system without a working kernel. HURD and Mach didn't work, period. In fact HURD and Mach still have a lot to be done before it's even considered a BETA kernel and OS core. Under Debian's guidance HURD and Mach is making huge leaps forward, but it still has a long way to go. Linux gave GNU something it lacked, and GNU gave something Linux lacked, each other. While GNU/Linux has grown significantly under free software and developmental licenses, there are factors that BSD was able to capitalize on that Linux can't.

The BSDs, UNIX branded systems, and Solaris-based systems have all contributed greatly to each other. Linux has contributed greatly to UNIX/BSD/Solaris also, but Linux seemingly doesn't want contributions from other UNICES, as they keeping saying, "We'll develop it, you just benefit from us."

As far as BSD... BSD has a complete core system under a unified development. This means the system itself is always going to work, not a jigsaw puzzle of random pieces that have to be cut out from the sheet, tested, reshaped, and retested before anything works. Yes, you can add-on stuff to the BSD-core system, but BSD 9.1 is through-in and through-out a single unified system. That is light-years ahead of GNU/Linux.

If you think I'm joking, ask our BDFL of the trials and troubles he has to go through to test the core of Slackware before anything can be really finalized from the core, outward. Still want proof, go read the Linux From Scratch book and see how many patches and software revisions they go through before they end up with a stable core system in the book. Hell, go ask any Linux distribution maintainer all the tests they have to run.

If anything, BSD might be behind in some areas like hardware drivers and some problems with bad ports, but in many ways, BSD is ahead of Linux in many ways that Linux simply can't compete with due to one problem since day #1... the GPL license, and the underlying fact that there is no true Linux operating system.

1 members found this post helpful.

False! Linux was not GPL when it first was released, Linus changed it because it was the best license available at the time for having others to share code and for the code to be safe from the greedy.

And why its takes eons to get anything new into the core of these systems, why the simplest of thing takes ages to get fixed in BSD land. And yet the BSD have not alot to show for their development process. BSD OS'es had a head start of over a decade over Linux and yet are nowhere as fast, stable, or scalable.



The GPL is the reason Linux is the most shipped OS kernel in the world. I do not see Microsoft, IBM or Oracle or Google trying to get they're code into a BSD OS do I? The GPL is a major part the reason why Linux got the mindshare it did.

2 members found this post helpful.

Pixxt: I agree with most of what you say, but it should be pointed out for fairness' sake that Microsoft does incorporate quite a bit of BSD code into Windows. If you grep various Windows binaries, you will see the BSD copyright notice pop up.

The differences in licensing is the biggest thing driving adoption of BSD in the industry -- since the BSD license is nonviral (requires only that the copyright notice be included with the binaries, and if source code is transported that source code must have the BSD license text in it), companies can use it without sharing their secret sauce with the rest of the world.

This is a good thing for businesses (usually*), a bad thing for the end-user .. and a mixed blessing for those of us who are both.

(*) caveat here: the GPL licenses are proof against embrace-and-extend attacks, but the BSD license is not. Fortunately this vulnerability is seldom exploited.

Utter rubbish. Do you use these operating systems or do you just rely on hearsay? What makes you think the BSD devs want "anything new [in] the core of their systems"? What makes you say the various BSDs are not as fast, stable or scalable? Have you used them? I have a NetBSD gateway idling at this very moment in time at 16M of RAM and 0.00% CPU. This gateway serves over 70 users and peaks at about 30MB of RAM and 2 or 3% CPU. It's been running flawlessly for 256 days. There are so many things in NetBSD and OpenBSD which are light years ahead of their equivalents in GNU/Linux. ZFS in FreeBSD, for example. PF in OpenBSD and NetBSD. Pkgsrc in NetBSD. And, last but not least, a group of quiet devs who go about their business and don't need to trumpet their achievements around the 'net.

Linux fanboys who rubbish the BSDs just because *BSD is slow to poison itself with garbage like systemd, Mono, Gnome3, Unity and all the other toxic rubbish that has infested the GNU/Linux ecosystem in recent years are one of the biggest reasons I am fast moving away from Linux completely. To be honest it's just Slackware that's holding me here. All the rest of the *buntu and RPM crap repulses me, not to mention the explosion of deliberately dumbed-down blogs which are designed to keep Linux at the same infantile level for years to come.

Please do your research before you come out with nonsense about BSD. If you don't use it or know how to use it then just stay quiet.

15 members found this post helpful.