Re: [DNG] We Must be Prepared ....
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Jude Nelson wrote: >The reason they're working on kdbus at all is because they have >discovered that it's costly to pipe a lot of data between dbus >endpoints reminds me of the time we had some momentum to have vloopback into Linux. or even before that, the times Geert Knorr put together video4linux 1 and then 2... at those times, Alan Cox wipped us hard in the multimedia camp, because of keeping bloat out of the kernel, despite those patches did have a relevant use in the industry... now I wonder, if Alan Cox and some other wise mentors Linux hasn't mentioned, will be reasonable allies against the systemd avalanche. I was from the "we are young and we want innovation" camp back at that time and can personally relate to the need of some kdbus features in the Linux kernel, but it must be seen how that is accomplished. The real problem in systemd is not the innovation that it brings, but the method, or attitude, of fencing off from competition by lacking documentation and intertwining all components. I think the Linux Foundation should institute a "technical anti-trust" commission to marshall such take-over attempts out of the kernel. I that would be in place, with a reasonable policy about documentation and versioning and changes being negotiated rather than imposed unilaterally, then most of my fears about systemd/Linux would vanish. ciao -- Denis "Jaromil" Roio, Dyne.org Think (& Do) Tank We are free to share code and we code to share freedom Web: https://j.dyne.org Contact: https://j.dyne.org/c.vcf GPG: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10 Confidential communications: https://keybase.io/jaromil signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] We Must be Prepared ....
On 06/19/2015 02:59 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: Clarke Sideroad writes: I hoping the Kernel Developers as a combined whole would see the bigger Linux picture well beyond the desktop. I can't see the Kernel being made to swallow something that would poison the whole multifaceted structure in the way that the various distros swallowed the, "just another init, what's all the fuss about?", ever expanding systemd. Can you imagine the kernel supporting anything that is a problem for its biggest user? http://bit.ly/1ocxYwI Android initially just grabbed kernel and forked off. I suppose you are right the Kernel Developers did go through the hassle of luring Google back into the fold and the relationship gets positive press for both. In that light it does seem unlikely that they would forego all that, just to please the Poetterites. Clarke ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] We Must be Prepared ....
Whelp, looks like kdbus in systemd is no longer optional (but to be fair, its use can be disabled at runtime, and won't be used anyway if kdbus isn't present in the kernel). Announcement: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-June/033170.html -Jude On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Clarke Sideroad wrote: > On 06/19/2015 02:59 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >> Clarke Sideroad writes: >> >>> I hoping the Kernel Developers as a combined whole would see the >>> bigger Linux picture well beyond the desktop. >>> I can't see the Kernel being made to swallow something that would >>> poison the whole multifaceted structure in the way that the various >>> distros swallowed the, "just another init, what's all the fuss >>> about?", ever expanding systemd. >>> >> >> Can you imagine the kernel supporting anything that is a problem for its >> biggest user? http://bit.ly/1ocxYwI >> >> > Android initially just grabbed kernel and forked off. > > I suppose you are right the Kernel Developers did go through the hassle of > luring Google back into the fold and the relationship gets positive press > for both. In that light it does seem unlikely that they would forego all > that, just to please the Poetterites. > > Clarke > > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] We Must be Prepared ....
On 06/19/2015 11:16 AM, Jude Nelson wrote: Whelp, looks like kdbus in systemd is no longer optional (but to be fair, its use can be disabled at runtime, and won't be used anyway if kdbus isn't present in the kernel). Announcement: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-June/033170.html Please pardon my lack of technical understanding, but for me this brings up a question. If a Distro adds kdbus.ko module to its default kernel build, as encouraged, would it then make that kernel build systemd specific? I obviously don't trust any move by Lennart Poettering and crew and wonder it this yet another hook to make systemd lock-in more secure. Clarke ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Packages aren't the only path to alternate inits
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:29:36PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: > > I expect the dependency chain should be something like: > depends on: init, -sysv-init | -epoch-init > | -systemd-init | -openrc-init | > -upstart-init > > And if each of those -*-init packages depended on their > respective init system, and each of those init systems provide the > virtual package "init" (as is the case in Debian and Devuan Jessie), > then apt should be able to work out that when installing > that because sysvinit-core is the package providing init that it > must also install -sysv-init in order to satisfy the > dependency. The problem is whether changing init systems would > result in pulling in the new -*-init dependency required for > the new init system. > > Thoughts?? If you're happily running with epoch, and you install a daemon that happens not to have an epoch init package yet, the only way to resold the matter might be for aptitude to switch your entire machine over to sysv-init because it does have a sysv init package. Or worse, It might find a systemd init script :( That is likely not what you want. You might want the opportunity to cook your own epoch init script, packaged or not. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] We Must be Prepared ....
It does not make the kernel systems, but its presence might make some poorly written program think systems is present. But poor code assumes things all the time, so really it will not make a difference. Arnt ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[DNG] the kernel for Android
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:06:56AM -0400, Clarke Sideroad wrote: > On 06/19/2015 02:59 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >Clarke Sideroad writes: > >>I hoping the Kernel Developers as a combined whole would see the > >>bigger Linux picture well beyond the desktop. > >>I can't see the Kernel being made to swallow something that would > >>poison the whole multifaceted structure in the way that the various > >>distros swallowed the, "just another init, what's all the fuss > >>about?", ever expanding systemd. > > > >Can you imagine the kernel supporting anything that is a problem for its > >biggest user? http://bit.ly/1ocxYwI > > > > Android initially just grabbed kernel and forked off. > > I suppose you are right the Kernel Developers did go through the > hassle of luring Google back into the fold and the relationship gets > positive press for both. In that light it does seem unlikely that > they would forego all that, just to please the Poetterites. Just wondering. I know the kernel finally did accept a number of changes from Google into the Linux kernel after Google had revised them. Did they actually achieve enough consoance that Android will run on a stock Linux kernel? > > Clarke > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Packages aren't the only path to alternate inits
Le 18/06/2015 17:23, Laurent Bercot a écrit : Bow, since its possible to have seeral init systems installedd, and even to have different subsytems started by different init systems (not all running as PID 1, of course), perhaps the mutual exclusion among the init systems is a bad idea. Absolutely. Why enforce exclusion when you can have a choice ? Make a "currently active" vs. "inactive" switch, I don't know the Debian/Devuan terminology, and allow users to install both. There's already an exemple of that kind: you may have xdm, gdm3, kdm and lightdm installed; you decide which is the one in effect by running dpkg-reconfigure any-of-them. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
