lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: OT: Open letter to the Linux World
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
> But systemd has no clear goals, no specification, the single
> implementation is a moving target... it's basically a microsoft
> product.

I think the actual goal is to control everything.
To satisfy the control freak.
And yes, it is the M$ way of seeing things.

> i thought we'd moved _on_ from the days of "this site optimized for
> internet explorer", but systemd is that all over again. Linux is all
> about modularity where you swap out openssh for libressh (or dropbear)
> and swap out xfree86 for x.org and swap out glibc for eglibc (or
> uclibc or musl) and you have at least a fighting chance to make it
> work. Unfortunately, the systemd developers take the suggestion that
> you might want to keep the option of doing that open as some sort of
> personal attack.

Yes. They want you to use their stuff, and in their way.

> I don't care what they're doing. I don't want to _have_ to care what
> they're doing. I want a description of the problem space from which I
> can write a new implementation. If I can't even reverse engineer such
> a thing because it's still too much of a moving target several years
> into the project, then what they're doing is crazy and I refuse to get
> any of it on me.
>
>> Not the quality of the code. Not the desire to fix some
>> old design problems of SystemV-style init.
>
> I'm still unclear on what problem they were actually trying to solve.
>
> (In my defense, _they_ seem unclear. We're way beyond Zawinski's law
> here...)
>
>> Code quality is good. The goals are legitimate.
>
> 1) Not really, but that's beside the point. 2) What _are_ the goals?
> They keep changing...

The _stated_ goal, initially, was a better service, a daemon babysitter.
It is a legitimate goal because "industry standard" one, SysV,
leaves a lot to be desired.

But then it suddenly started having unrelated functionality
added to it. Again. And again.

>> The problem is: the author is a control freak.
>
> I don't care. Honestly don't care.
>
> My problem is the blank incomprehension on their part when I go "If I
> were to clone a minimal subset of systemd in busybox or toybox, where
> would I start reading?" and they can't fit in their head the idea that
> anybody would _want_ to do that, and if they think I'm serious they
> feel threatened and start changing stuff faster.

Yes. You are agreeing with me: they are control freaks.

> I don't care about the personality of the developers behind the
> project. I don't want to use their code, I want to write a new one.

I only care to the extent necessary to figure out how,
and whether it is possible, to cooperate with the people on the project.

It's possible to cooperate even with people with whom you have
lots of disagreements in details.
When someone's core desire is to make you use _their_ code,
and not being able to switch parts with reasonable expenditure
of time/effort, it is not possible for me.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-09 20:41    [W:0.097 / U:3.380 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site