Re: [dev] Call for pkgsrc users

From: Christoph Lohmann <>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:17:58 +0200


On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:17:58 +0200 William Giokas <> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 07:44:34PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> > 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.
> (note the mass of --disable-XXXXXX's there.)

Thanks for the try to troll me. You can’t be serious.

> > 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.

Stop the trolling.

> > 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.)

Stop the trolling. Arch is not allowing any choice about the base pack‐
ages and you get a mass of packages just because the average Arch user
might need dbus in wpa_supplicant. WTF? Ah yes, there’s a configure flag
to remove it. Why isn’t it used? One package could be removed.

No, Arch is not simple, it’s just »how to pretend to use the shell for


Christoph Lohmann
Received on Wed Apr 10 2013 - 20:17:58 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Apr 10 2013 - 20:36:05 CEST