> > >

> >      True. This description of the project contains already a lot of
> > the ideas we are shaking on the list.

> >

> >      There are still concerns about the fact that some of the software
> > we use are big hairballs and enforce technical lock-ins. Eg. the Linux
> > kernel and the X- Window system.

This is going to be a bit of a rant, and while I think it is "on topic", some might
not. I'm old school UNIX: VAX, Solaris, Digital and so on. Linux is nice, but it
really is just the "Johnny-come-lately" as they used to say. When I make
these comments about Linux, please understand where I am coming from.


What you are describing to me, is the ham-fisted attitude of Linux, that Linux
is somehow self-contained, and not part of a larger whole. Everyone else
can be damned. There is a lot of resistance to the "old guard" notion that
Linux should follow any standard beyond its own. Linux does not care about
portability anymore.

The whole X/Wayland thing is yet another example. No one in their sane
mind denies that X isn't a total (bleep) disaster. The source code is such a
mess that not even the people who maintain it can unscramble it, and that is
not exaggerating. There are blocks of code that no one knows why they
were added, but if they are removed it breaks compatibly with things. A lot
of the screen rendering is out of date and very slow. That is why DRI was
added. DRI bypasses a lot of the cruft to render things directly, but since the
core of X is essentially network transparent, you are still wasting a lot of
overhead on network calls that could be done far more efficiently if X were
redesigned.


What X really needs is to be gutted: a complete rewrite, while providing a
compatibility layer for X11. Rather than do that, the Linux crowd chose to go
with Wayland, which could be described as much the same thing. Fair
enough, and even reasonable. At least it would be, except for the fact that
Wayland is designed to work only on KMS, which makes it dependent on
Linux. (Deliberate sarcasm: what a shock.)


> There's also the issue of non-free binary blobs, like
> > proprietary firmwares and drivers. We must accept some of these for
> > the sake of having a working OS.

On that we agree. The simple fact of the world is that even if someone like
NVidia or AMD WANTS to make a completely open driver, they can't. The
video cards use technology that has been licensed from someone else, and
those license agreements prevent them from disclosing all of the details
needed to make a driver that works as well as the blobs. The only way to get
around that would be to get legal consent from all parties, and that is not
going to happen. It's a shame that the patent system works as it does, but
that is life. As for the Linux fans who demand completely open drivers, they
are going to have a very long wait: probably on the order of 20 years for the
patents to expire.

> >

> >      BUT, everywhere there is choice, the solution(s) in the spirit of
> > KISS and UNIX shall be preferred and the others rejected. Only when we
> > haven't the choice will we install the non-KISS/non-UNIX.

> >

> >      For the moment, the only replacement for X-Window, Wayland is
> > certainly also a big hairball; this may simply mean that it can't be
> > otherwise. Same for the Linux kernel.

> >

> >      But for system startup/shutdown and service supervision, there's
> > a host of solutions. This also means systemd violates KISS and UNIX
> > not by necessity but either by inconsideration or by intention.

I say this with respect, but I think you are dreaming, Diedler. That spirit of
KISS is dying with the minority of the "old school UNIX" and Linux is
becoming something completely unrecognizable. In another decade or so, I
do not expect Linux to be compatible with anyone else. Another example is
GTK. It is being "molded" around Gnome 3's needs, and has subsequently
been abandoned by projects who switch to Qt. Right now, Linux userspace is
being "molded" around systemd.

While init systems like systemd are arguably not covered by POSIX, following
an interface standard is the only way to prevent source code from being tied
to things like systemd. Unfortunately, no one seems to consider that a
benefit. More than once, I've heard calls for Linux to completely abandon
POSIX in favor of doing its own thing. To me, that sounds exactly like the
same arguments that Microsoft used to make regarding Windows when they
backed out of the POSIX standard in 2000. We all know what happened
there: code lock-in. How the wheel turns. Linux has become its own worst
enemy, because it has become too successful, just as Microsoft once did.

I would have a lot less objection to a lot of what the majority of the Linux
community does if they would learn to play nice, with everyone else and just
work with POSIX rather than think that they can ignore it all the time.

T.J.