--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 8/24/16, Brad Campbell <lists2009@???> wrote:

Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]
To: dng@???
Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 1:55 AM

> 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:

[snip]

>>>>
>>>> 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.
>

Apropos of this discussion . . . there is a new troll on FDN ramping up the rhetoric. It is revisionist history in action! Number one on his list speaks volumes:

1. systemd users don't care about compatibility to other NIXes in the same way that BSD doesn't care about compatibility to us or our licenses. There hasn't been 100% POSIX in ages.

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=623008#p623008

golinux