On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld <jo...@antarean.org> wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sebastian Beßler >> >> <sebast...@darkmetatron.de> wrote: >> > Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler >> >> >> >> <sebast...@darkmetatron.de> wrote: >> >>> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: >> >>>> with an initramfs you will be able to do anything, so it will make >> >>>> no >> >>>> sense to keep supporting initramfs-less systems. >> >>> >> >>> With "Microsoft Windows" you will be able to do anything, so it will >> >>> make no sense to keep supporting "Microsoft Windows"-less systems. >> >> >> >> Irrelevant: see the name on the list? It's called Gentoo Linux. I know >> >> you are trying to be witty, but only shows you are comparing apples >> >> and oranges. >> > >> > No, because first it was sarcasm and second it shows that your argument >> > is invalid. For near to every X there is some Y that can do what X can >> > do, but there are still many good and valid reasons to have X. So it >> > will make sense to keep supporting Y-less systems. >> >> And you conveniently skipped my answer to your last two examples. No >> problem, here it goes again: >> >> "Last time I checked, neither GNOME nor Emacs demanded that Gentoo >> developers or users had to write a fork/replacement for a core >> component of the system. GNOME and Emacs just need ebuilds and >> adapting their configuration to Gentoo-isms. Testing and bug >> reporting, as usual. The only code needed is some small patches for >> both and around 200 lines of emacslisp for site-gentoo.el." > > Funny that you mention this. There might be something similar brewing for > users of Gnome where quite a few low-level parts will end up being mandatory > for Gnome: > > "...but I'm increasingly seeing talk on the > gnome side of the "Gnome OS", to include pulse-audio, systemd, policykit, > udev/u* (thus forcing lvm as well, at least lvm installation tho nothing > forces one to use it... yet, since lvm is required for udisks), etc."
I'm pretty sure the last part is false. I certainly have udisk installet (it's pulled by gnome-disk-utility), but I don't use LVM. So there. > It's a reply in the gentoo-dev thread I started. > > Requiring pulse-audio and policykit, I can understand. But requiring a > specific init-system for the desktop seems a bit overkill. I don't think that will happen, although certainly is what Lennart (and probably Kay) wants. What I think will happen is that, if available, GNOME will use systemd. FreeBSD does not have udev, and GNOME works there (with diminished functionality). That's the future, I believe: you will be able to use GNOME without systemd, but it will be like more awesomer with systemd. > I'm not a gnome user and am happy with my KDE-desktop. But the same post also > mentions KDE seems to be headed in a similar direction. Just slower. Because it makes sense for the full-fledge desktop. Notice that Gustavo Barbieri (who works a lot on e17) is a heavy promoter of systemd. Maybe even makes sense for Xfce, but that I don't know. At the end of the day, systemd manages how to start and stop processes. Which is basically the task of gnome-session-manager (and whatever is the equivalent in KDE). > Mind you, I do think systemd is nice and usefull on a desktop machine, but I > don't see much need for this on a server where the sysadmins generally prefer > to have a much more detailed control of what is happening. I think systemd gives you that in servers. With OpenRC and Apache with user CGI scripts, ¿do you know how to list the httpd daemon spawned processes, and only those? Remember that a CGI script can double fork. With systemd is a matter of: systemctl status apache-httpd.service And you can kill every process related to a daemon, no matter how many forks its children process make. That alone makes systemd more usefull for servers thatn SysV+OpenRC, I think. > Then again, I don't feel Gnome or KDE have any reason to be installed on a > server, but that's just how I see it. Dear evolution, of course not. Why would you install GNOME or KDE in a server? My two servers run with systemd, and not a single GUI library is installed in them. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
