On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:59:18PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:59:18 +0200 William Giokas <1007380_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:12:00PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> > > Greetings comrades,
> > >
> > > I have been rediscovering pkgsrc due to the inability of the Arch devel‐
> > > opers to keep to their principles. I know pkgsrc has its merits because
> > > of its portability, but it’s flexible.
> >
> > Might I ask what principle they're not keeping to?
>
> [0].
>
> »Arch Linux retains the inherent complexities of a GNU/Linux system,
> while keeping them well organized and transparent. Arch Linux developers
> and users believe that trying to hide the complexities of a system actu‐
> ally results in an even more complex system, and is therefore to be
> avoided.«
>
> »Simple design and implementation shall always trump simple user inter‐
> face.«
>
> Systemd anyone? It's a Windows configuration replacement for dummies.
If you really want a simple system, then initscripts were anything but
simple. Yes, if you were a shell scripting guru, maybe SysV was what you
wanted. In that case, find an implementation of SysV that is being
developed and you can use. You can simply replace systemd, so long as
you're fine writing init scripts for everything you need that depends on
systemd.
> »The openness principle extends to its community members as well, as
> Arch Linux users are very open with assistance and contribution.«
>
> Systemd and the removal of sysvinit was enforced without any openess or
> any consent. The scripts were removed due to some developer having the
> horizon of a blind kneeing ant in the dark with justs him and his cat as
> participants of the census how many people want systemd.
There was a lot of user participation. systemd is being actively
developed and is entirely modular, if you are willing to configure and
compile your own version. I would think that would allign with the
suckless way of thinking.
> »A freshly installed Arch Linux system contains only basic core compo‐
> nents with no automatic configuration performed. Users are able to con‐
> figure the system as they wish, from the shell. From the start of the
> installation procedure, every component of the system is 100% transpar‐
> ent and accessible for instant access, removal, or replacement by alter‐
> native components.«
>
> I don’t need to say anything about that.
Please do. From what I know, there is no automatic configuration
performed, it contains the core of a Linux distribution with all the
needed tools to do what you want in the base group, and allows you to
build your own packages extremely easily with any changes you think to
make. systemd is just as transparent as initscripts, and is simply much
more standardized than SysV.
> »A freshly installed Arch Linux system contains only basic core compo‐
> nents with no automatic configuration performed. Users are able to con‐
> figure the system as they wish, from the shell. From the start of the
> installation procedure, every component of the system is 100% transpar‐
> ent and accessible for instant access, removal, or replacement by alter‐
> native components.«
>
> The »basic core« shouldn’t be using systemd or udev. You can boot Linux
> into udevtmpfs and no init scripts without systemd and just a simple
> busybox init. Then run and install whatever you like. Systemd is en‐
> forcing dbus and systemd. They are now enforcing systemd for the basic
> network management [1].
And initscripts enforce initscripts. It's purely a matter of choice. If
you want to build a system that does not have systemd but instead uses
the now outdated and unmaintained inistcripts, then be my guest. You can
still use pacman, makepkg, whatever, you'll just have to maintain your
own scripts. Oh wait, that's what we had to do with systemd before it
became standard.
You are obviously missing what the [core] repository is: it is not the
base group (which netctl is NOT in), it only serves to be a list of
programs you can use that[2]
* are needed to boot any kind of supported Arch system.
* may be needed to connect to the Internet.
* are essential for package building.
* can manage and check/repair supported filesystems.
* virtually anyone will want or need early in the system setup process (e.g. openssh).
* are dependencies (but not necessarily makedepends) of the above
Oh look, netctl fits one of those categories. As does dhcpcd, which you
don't need. As does gcc, which you also don't need, as does less, which
you also don't need...I could go on.
You can boot Linux any way you want. That is what you go to
distributions for, a starting point so you can build on top of it.
> So if you really think Arch Linux is still keeping to what’s said on
> that PHP page in a web wiki, well, you are blinded and seem to use Gnome
> shell because it’s »light« and »fits your needs«. We have camps in
> Siberia for such people.
I use dwm because it is 'light' and 'fits my needs' because it does. I
use systemd because it is 'light' and 'fits my needs'. I use Arch
because it has both.
Now if you want a system that does not use systemd, then have fun with
upstart or initscripts.
When you install Arch you choose what goes on it. There is no "YOU HAVE
TO HAVE THESE 500 PACKAGES AND THIS DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT" sign flashing.
If you want to build it your way, do so. If it's not fitting your needs,
then stop using it.
> [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
> [1] https://www.archlinux.org/news/netctl-is-now-in-core/
[2]
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Repository#.5Bcore.5D
Thank you,
--
William Giokas | KaiSforza
GnuPG Key: 0x73CD09CF
Fingerprint: F73F 50EF BBE2 9846 8306 E6B8 6902 06D8 73CD 09CF
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Wed Apr 10 2013 - 19:41:25 CEST