On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 17:58:03 -0500, Ruben Safir <ruben@???>
wrote:
>> On 11/29/2014 08:34 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 08:58:19PM +0000, chris wrote:
>> >> Aside from fixing Debian(!) and other than being anti - systemd, it
>> >> seems unclear to me what the aims and goals are for the project.
>> > For me its not anti-systemd - but pro-choice.
>> >
>> > I want to have the ability to install a Debian without touching
>> > systemd. You cant right now. You can choose to run sysvinit as
>> > pid1 but only by purging systemd and reinstalling sysvinit. But still
>> > then you are left with a whole lot of the systemd ecosystem.
>> >
>> > Have a look at the rdepends of libsystemd0 and other elements
>> > of the systemd ecosystem.
>> Right.
>>
>> Or more generically: We must base our goals on principles rather than
>> particular software packages we disagree with.
>>
>
> What is wrong with that? Despite what is being said, systemd is a very
> bad piece of software and written by individuals who can not be trusted.
> Is that cruel to say? I don't care. I only care how my systems work
> and how much innovation and usage I can get out of them. Most
> importantly, I expect them to behave as I demand.
>
> What I don't want to do is to spend the last part of they life hating
> systemd, DingoOS and Lennart.
>
>> We should not hate systemd, or Lennart,
>
> That is one opinion. Its been considered and rejected. Systemd really
> is a bad piece of software that wraps itself around every aspect of the
> operating system and demands conformity with its usage and design.
> At the same time it bottlenecks all future development through it.
>
> I do not want to use an operating system like that. Even if it was all
> perfect in all its code and it functioned flawlessly, and if the coding
> team was grander than the Wizard of Oz himself, and more benevolent than
> King David, I still don't want systemd. Its goals and design are
> dis-empower the user and to make the system dependent of systemd.
>
>
> I'm not convinced that this group can pull this off a fork. This will
> require a true fork of debian because all future development in the general
> GNU/Linux infrastructure is going to have to pass through systemd as
> long as systemd is at the core of the new OS. Systemd is NOT an init and
> it is not designed as one.
>
> It is an operating system wrapper in the light of svchost.exe, or maybe
> it is simple not like anything ever done before.
>
> Regardless, having all services run and controlled by a single user
> space application that audits and dished out resources from the kernel
> to all other applications is not how I wish my computer to function, and
> is in fact the problem that needs addressing. Systemd is desinged to
> reduce the degrees of freedom a user and developer has. Freedom of Init
> Usage is pretty lame and without value. It is likely undoable.
>
> The GNU/Linux needs to return to a simple init system that just is confined
> to initialization services and to keep its paws off users and their
> applications. If I kill httpd I expect to to die and stay dead.
>
> systemd has crossed two lines.
>
> First, it is not an init system... It is a OS Kernel wrapper. I have
> coined the term "Dingo OS" because it is not GNU and it is only Linux in
> that it used the Linux Kernel.
>
> Secondly, it has gone from enabling and empowering users to hindering
> them and caging them.
>
> If you would like help in forking off of systemd and creating a
> GNU/Linux branch that is not depending on either systemd or its
> development team, I would be willing to help. Actually, I don't care
> if it is a debian fork or an arch fork or even a suse fork....as long as
> it forks.
>
> I doubt that any other venture can succeed, aside from a complete fork.
> Honestly, the Manjaro group has a good first step forward. You are not
> likely going to be able to support Debian packages for a forked disto
> without systemd. GNU/Linux and DingoOS are fundamentally incompatible
> software designs, moving forward. Or maybe GNU/Linux is dead?
>
> This will not be like Umbuntu, if that is what you have in mind.
>
> Ruben
>
>
>
>> but the way it has been handled
>> in hijacking the system we knew and loved. And I think we can learn some
>> things from systemd too, but we would have to create something
>> consistent with the unix philosophy and common sense before we can use
>> it, not because it is impossible to do it otherwise, but because it
>> would be inefficient and dangerous.
>>

You hit the nail on the head pretty hard. Since the advent of systemd,
it has unexpectedly permuated the GNU/Linux distibution world without
much thought given to the implications it brings. I don't want systemd
the same reason I don't want Windows on my computer. It's framework
brings undefined behaviour on my well defined system and I don't like
it one bit.

You are right that someday, a project like Devuan, which is determined
on being anti-systemd, is eventually going to have to dismiss packages
that can only function with systemd installed. I suspect the first of
those packages will be Gnome. Systemd is causing a great divide of the
Linux software world and the implications are pretty grave. The
people standing in the ruins are wondering how it all came to this.

Why did 99% of the linux distribution market adopt systemd? I suspect
there are many undiscovered bugs and attack surfaces of systemd left to
be discovered.

I can only hope that our effort will help make developers realize the
need for an vendor-independent API's so that every software can
function with or without systemd.

Best regards, niarnholf