On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 07:44:34PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:44:34 +0200 William Giokas <1007380_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:59:18PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> > > 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 the now outdated and unmaintained inistcripts, then be my guest.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.
>
> If that’s »core«, then Arch Linux is clearly missing the meaning of
> »core«.
How what I said there had anything to do with [core], then I don't know.
Did you read the link? It's been like that long before systemd was even
an idea.
> You can’t easily build Archlinux your way and it’s not modular. You
> are using the rhetoric of the systemd authors, which slowly changed from
> »you can« to »you have to« when systemd was adopted too widely. No,
> it’s not possible to follow your pace; just because you change your sys‐
> tem too fast because you are paid by some company to do so. You are
> simply ruining Open Source.
I'm not just following the authors rhetoric, you can actually disable
almost every feature in systemd with configure flags. See the
./configure --help output if you don't believe me. I build systemd my
way and it works fine. Granted, I keep most of the functionality in
systemd because I use a lot of it, but if I wanted to, I could remove
the hostname support and use another tool, or not build the bootchart
tool if I don't use it. I could even disable kmod support if that's not
something I want.
http://ix.io/57x (note the mass of --disable-XXXXXX's there.)
> If you want an Open Source version of Windows, well, do it, but don’t
> ever write on a PHP web wiki page that your principles are »simplicity«
> or that they are related to »Unix«. You want Redmond engineers creating
> abstractions abstracting abstractions for you so you can call yourself
> hip in the computer world.
I don't see how systemd is not simple. You don't have to put everything
into a single .c file for it to be simple, and writing things in bash is
possibly the opposite of that. If you're going to start calling systemd
complex, then be my guest and stop using the ridiculoulsy complex Linux
kernel, and swith to the hurd. That should give you plenty to do.
If you still have this systemd-phobia, then you need to learn more about
what systemd is and why it is not portable to the BSD's or other Unixes.
There are extremely strong technical arguments for using systemd as a
simple, easy to use and easy to configure initialization system. There
may be arguments against systemd, and if that is what you are going to
believe, then be my guest to leave Arch and use something like Gentoo of
*BSD.
> If the only reason for you to use Arch is that it’s not installing 500
> packages for you because you don’t want them, please stop ruining Lin‐
> ux. We don’t need such users here.
You obviously didn't get the point of that at all. Most distributions
aim for a desktop audience of users that want a similar workstation. The
point of Arch is that you get 0 packages by default and pick exactly
which ones get installed. (It could be argued that 'base' is there by
default, but even that doesn't /need/ to be installed. I don't even need
the 'linux' package.)
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 - 20:13:51 CEST