SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
It would be great if you pro-systemd advocates could consistently obey each others' rules. systembsd does not meet a4z's criteria for "a working system". At this time it is only an unintegrated GSOC project in a personal repository that hasn't been updated since mid-October.
Putting that aside for one moment, if one GSOC student can create an unofficial portable implementation of the systemd interfaces in one summer, why can't the whole systemd cabal of experienced professional rockstar coders do that in four and a half years?
Maybe the answer to that question involves what motivates them...
I'm not pro or anti systemd I really don't care the only thing that's changed for me is syntax, I'm against silly hyperbolic arguments which the anti-systemd camp seems to be full of. The statement was that systemd people don't care about portability systembsd shows that it's as portable as any other Linux system so it's a non argument. It's not up to the systemd cabal to port anything to anything if the BSD guys want systemd they'll port it. So it goes.
And actually systemd isn't being duplicated. It is doing the duplication itself of long existing services, functions, etc.
So other than one big monolithic project, the benefits are negligible other than being new things.
its essentially the cathedral development model like Microsoft. you have one corporation, one interface, when they change the interface your old code is now 'legacy' by default and you are shuffled onto the next shiney.
not a very flossy or decentralized direction for Linux to go. I imagine Tejun Heo, and google just see there work in the kernel as another google project. the priorities are defined by there internal business strategy.
I'm not pro or anti systemd I really don't care the only thing that's changed for me is syntax, I'm against silly hyperbolic arguments which the anti-systemd camp seems to be full of. The statement was that systemd people don't care about portability systembsd shows that it's as portable as any other Linux system so it's a non argument. It's not up to the systemd cabal to port anything to anything if the BSD guys want systemd they'll port it. So it goes.
forcing projects to implement your interfaces in an ad hock fashion in order to compile and run your software is not portability. and it will be two much work for smaller projects that lack resources. systembsd is not done its a lot of work and may never be done unless significant resources are put into it.
edit:
its like saying directX is portable, just so long as you implement directX from scratch on your platform. and by the way we are removing openGL support for your platform next version so you better get busy!
forcing projects to implement your interfaces in an ad hock fashion in order to compile and run your software is not portability. and it will be two much work for smaller projects that lack resources. systembsd is not done its a lot of work and may never be done unless significant resources are put into it.
Perhaps someone could give us a graph (refreshed every day) with two curves:
on the x axis the time in days
on the y axis the number of posts and the number of characters posted
Only software shipped in Slackware shall be used and the results shall be displayed until this thread be closed or after 1 (one) year of no activity, whichever comes first, on a publicly accessible server, up to date every day one minute after midnight UTC.
PS In addition to the curves, the result will be provided in a form accessible to blind or visually impaired people.
Last edited by Didier Spaier; 12-10-2014 at 06:55 AM.
Working examples already exist as viable existing stand-alone projects. Since when are those opinions? Those have been fact for years. Where have you been? If those aren't examples, then exactly how has GNU/Linux existed all these years before systemd came along? How did Slackware work for so long? A miracle from Bob Dobbs himself? Seriously... where have you been, and what have we been using as GNU/Linux for all this time?
and the all the distributions did not change the the way Slackware does it since ever why ....?
you can refer to stand alone projects as much as you want, as long as you are not able to put them together and make the result usable for others every thing you say is theoretical something.
and you are not able to do this, others are, they can even come with something new, and you can not, you polemic does not change this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7
I didn't know coding in free open source software was about making money and getting rich. I thought it was about contributing to promoting free open source software without the need for profiteering, monoplositic markets, and price gouging. If that's the case Linus should charge for using the kernel, Stallman for GNU, and every other developer get their $15 of fame.
If that's the case, then why hasn't Bill Gates open sourced Windows yet? He's famous and rich enough, so why isn't Windows open source?
your point of view is nice, a little naive, but nice. Take away everything from, for example from Salckware, that was done via paid work and not much stays, and for sure not a usable kernel.
but you do not need to think about such details because it seems that you are not able to come up with something someone would give you money.
All different *BSDs are build on a different code base (including the kernel).
It's what I like about them, different BSD's are different systems with different user-cases, not just changing the wallpaper as some self-claimed elite debian admins do (because they think it's naughty to change the init default).
BSD and Linux are quite compatible right now due to a lot of hard work. no need for shims. that could be maintained but it would take a more careful considered engineering approach. something that the systemd people have expressed no interest in doing. so you end up with the possibility that even simple desktop applications will not be portable because they have dependency trees that wind down to very low level component. its not very well thought out design imo.
BSD and Linux are quite compatible right now due to a lot of hard work. no need for shims. that could be maintained but it would take a more careful considered engineering approach. something that the systemd people have expressed no interest in doing. so you end up with the possibility that even simple desktop applications will not be portable because they have a dependency trees that winds down to very low level component. its not very well thought out design imo.
Why should the systemd people be interested in porting their product to BSD? If the BSD guys want systemd (which they don't) they can port it themselves. A youngster proved it could be done and there are a many paid BSD developers that could be on it in a heartbeat. Again systemd is portable it just has to be desired.
BSD and Linux are quite compatible right now due to a lot of hard work. no need for shims. that could be maintained but it would take a more careful considered engineering approach. something that the systemd people have expressed no interest in doing. so you end up with the possibility that even simple desktop applications will not be portable because they have a dependency trees that winds down to very low level component. its not very well thought out design imo.
Aaaaargh ... !!!!!
Could you please show ***any*** proof for ***any*** of your wild accusations?!
Aaaaargh ... !!!!!
Could you please show ***any*** proof for ***any*** of your wild accusations?!
I would have to dig it up from another forum discussion. I believe it was on the Debian forum. but essentially people were checking for systemd dependencies with ldd and what not and even simple programs like the cdplayer and the calculator had some systemd dependency. it was quite funny.
edit:
it was under gnome if i recall.
Myth: systemd being Linux-only is not nice to the BSDs.
Completely wrong. The BSD folks are pretty much uninterested in systemd. If systemd was portable, this would change nothing, they still wouldn't adopt it. And the same is true for the other Unixes in the world. Solaris has SMF, BSD has their own "rc" system, and they always maintained it separately from Linux. The init system is very close to the core of the entire OS. And these other operating systems hence define themselves among other things by their core userspace. The assumption that they'd adopt our core userspace if we just made it portable, is completely without any foundation.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
