On 24/08/16 13:57, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:37:53 +0800
> Brad Campbell <lists2009@???> wrote:
>
>> On 24/08/16 11:13, Steve Litt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:47:41 -0400
>>> Clarke Sideroad <clarke.sideroad@???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think kdbus is dead due to the bad press, but I believe there is
>>>> bus1 coming along to replace that.
>>>> https://github.com/bus1/bus1
>>>> http://www.bus1.org/
>>>>
>>>> Some familiar names, but possibly not directly part of
>>>> systemd........
>>>>
>>>> Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>> DANGER Will Robinson. From the COPYING document:
>>>
>>> ===========================================
>>> COPYRIGHT: (ordered alphabetically)
>>> Copyright (C) 2014-2015 Red Hat, Inc.
>>> AUTHORS: (ordered alphabetically)
>>> David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@???>
>>> Tom Gundersen <teg@???>
>>> ===========================================
>>>
>>> And from Wikipedia's systemd page:
>>>

>>> ===========================================
>>> Original author(s)     
>>> Lennart Poettering, Kay Sievers, Harald
>>> Hoyer, Daniel Mack, Tom Gundersen and David Herrmann
>>> ===========================================

>>>
>>> These saboteurs just won't quit. It's our job to get out the word so
>>> bus1 fares no better than kdbus, because Lennart bragged about his
>>> plans when he gets the kernel to enforce use of systemd.
>>
>> I'm not worried. Mantra from get-go has been "Don't break userspace".
>> If there is a valid use-case for a feature there will be plenty of
>> opposition to it's removal.
>
> [snip]
>
>> If bus1 really has technical merit, can demonstrate it solves real
>> problems and has all its shortcomings addressed there is no reason it
>> shouldn't be integrated into the kernel. They can't then just go and
>> remove netlink to spite non-systemd users. It has an existing
>> userspace and other use cases.
>
> Assuming by "they" you mean the Lennart and the Redhats, they already
> have an established pattern and practice of breaking user space. If you
> mean the kernel developers, they won't be the ones breaking userspace,
> but a kernel-included bus1 will act very much like the firmware chips
> they put into toner cartridges just so you won't buy competing toner.

I'm not entirely sure you understand what I mean by "break userspace".
It is entirely in the context of the kernel and its interface with
userspace and absolutely nothing to do with userspace itself. It means
they can't just go and rip bits out of the kernel that mean *our*
userspace won't run on it. I don't care what they do with *their* userspace.


> We're way past the point of thinking the world is a technocracy.
>
> Edbarx said it best: "attempting to remove systemd from SID is more
> like attempting to remove the DNA from living cells expecting them not
> to die."
>
> That sounds very much like breaking userspace to me.

No, again you have the wrong end of the "userspace". You refer to
distributions, and I don't care what those distributions do, what they
break or which init they use. What I care passionately about is ensuring
that stuff that runs right now continues to run on newer kernels. Oddly
enough, history has shown that's generally what Linus appears to care
about also.

It takes *years* of notice and warning for features to be marked
deprecated, and then years for them to be removed. *If* during those
years we discover that our device manager is going to cease to function,
we have several years to figure out a solution and get it implemented
and tested. That's a BIG *IF*.

Don't Panic.

--
Dolphins are so intelligent that within a few weeks they can
train Americans to stand at the edge of the pool and throw them
fish.