On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-...@yandex.ru> wrote: > I'll try to be short. [ snip ] > You, as a person declaring ability to code, must understand what > removal/substitution of components is important for.
In some cases it is; in some others it just creates a chaos, like it was the plumbing layer in Linux before systemd. >> You think the kernel is "easier to remove"? Or glibc? > > The difference is, the kernel wasn't designed to be removed, neither was > glibc. I don't think the development of such projects as Debian/kFreeBSD, > uClibc etc is easy. Systemd is going to be even harder to remove -- > officially limiting itself to Linux kernels. I agree with you on this one: systemd is *not* designed to be removed. But at not point has anybody said anything about not being able to use Linux (the kernel) without systemd. That it could happen anyhow? It's possible. Don't want it to happen? Write code that doesn't needs systemd. It's really that simple. [ snip ] >> You make a wrong comparison, because MS is not free (libre) software. >> With Linux, and systemd, and OpenRC, and HAL, and devfs, and sysv, we >> have been able to try new technologies (and see that some of them >> fail, like HAL [yuck!]), because we have the source. > > I knew you'd say this, ignoring my warning. Will you also claim that > comparing Oracle and Postgres also doesn't have sense? Or comparing > Photoshop and GIMP? Well, it depends. It's totally valid to compare Linux with Windows as OSes. It's totally valid to compare Photoshop to Gimp as image editors. It's totally valid to compare Oracle and PostgreSQL as databases. It's *NOT* valid to compare Microsoft to the Linux Foundation (for the arguments I gave). It's *NOT* valid to compare Adobe to the Gimp developers. It's *NOT* valid to compare Oracle (the company) to the PostgreSQL Global Development Group. It's *NOT* valid to compare the lock-in enforced by Microsoft, to software libre being created by RedHat employers. >> As you said, you can replace the whole of Linux if you so desire (and >> have the technical ability). >> >> You will never be able to do that with any MS software, and so the >> comparison makes no sense. > > BTW, I asked purely technically: why not integrate everything into the > kernel, since we're having a working example? I'm pretty sure someone crazy enough did this. But nobody in the community will want to use that code. Some years ago, someone sent a patch to the LKML to support "single mode Linux" (basically removing multiuser support). Nobody wanted to use that code either. On the contrary, a *lot* of people want to use systemd. I do, the GNOME project does, Debian just choose it, etc. See the difference? >>> -- not because of its design, technical details etc, but >>> because otherwise in short time you'll end up comparing systemd to >>> itself. >> >> ? > > ...because there'll be nothing left to compare systemd to. I'm pretty sure OpenRC will never go away (and neither SysV, BTW). And if you want alternatives to systemd, *write them*. >> The code is out there. You can choose to pick any point in time of the >> whole stack (ca. 2009, before systemd existed), and wrote from there >> if you have enough people willing and able to. > > So you eventually agree that it all converges on money. Enough people, > competent enough in init systems, is quite 'enough' money. No, I don't agree with your monetary reasons. Almost nobody payed for Linux development at the beginning. Nor for GNOME development, at the beginning. And, AFAIK, nobody actually pay for Gentoo development (everybody, make a donation!) If some willing and able want to, they will support anything. Being payed or not. >> No one is taking anything from any one. No one is forcing nothing. > > No, no. No forcing. Just an offer you can't refuse. You CAN refuse. It's just that no one is going to do the work for you. >> Free software is being written and offered, and knowledgeable people >> are choosing to use it in their distros. >> >> You are against that? Then wrote your own version with the same (or >> better) features. > > Heck of an argument. You don't like that stupid program on your TV? C'mon > broadcast yours own. The analogy doesn't make sense; I use my Linux boxen to work, and I (personally) don't watch TV (at least from the air). > You don't like that road crossing with hundreds of > traffic accidents? C'mon stand there directing traffic instead of the road > police. Etc. Another analogy that doesn't makes sense. I pay taxes so my government fixes the road crossing. > You call the software free? Then put up with criticism and make conclusions > on the feedback. If you don't or can't, don't claim it's free software. Hey, I'm here putting up with criticism and feedback for software I didn't even make! > Nothing personal, Canek, I respect your POV and your eagerness to help > people and make the world better that you always show in this ML. :) Thanks; the thing is, really, that in 1996 when I joined the Linux community, if someone found anything they didn't like it or had a better idea, they contributed. Not necessarily with code; documentation, bug reports, testing. Nowadays, cool software (from my POV) is made available, and I hear a lot of people whining and complaining and saying they are being forced to use it... When from the start nobody is forcing anyone to use Linux, AFAIK. And with Linux (and contrary to Windows or MacOS, and similar to the pletora of *BSDs), you *can* influence the direction of any part of the stack that you want. But you need to put your code (or bug reports, documentation, etc.) where your mouth is. I don't see much of the latter. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
