[arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd

[Nicholas MIller]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson at hughes.net> wrote:

> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
> last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free
> for all continues. I think a comment on Allan's blog post might illustrate
> how I perceive this situation.
>
> Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?
> Allan McRae posted to Arch Planet on August 13, 2012 03:59 PM
>
> It's not about a single file, ie rc.conf (well not completely), it's about
> the simplicity of the system.
>
>     Controversy #2 – The demise of /etc/rc.conf
>     While the single rc.conf is highlighted as major feature of Arch Linux,
> reading the reviews makes you notice that configuration of an Arch install
> was never down to a single file. Other files mentioned included…
>
>     But lets take a step back here… How about some quotes from Judd, the
> founder of Arch Linux:
>         “In Arch “simple” is different what other distros are considering.
> The learning is more important than getting something easily done.”
>         “Relying on GUIs to build/use your system is just going to hurt a
> user in the end. At some point in time a user will need to know all that
> some GUIs hide.”
>
> My question becomes, are we trading the simplicity and ease of setting up a
> single individuals computer, not corporate or work machine, or a set of two
> or three home machines for the trappings of the corporate desktop? Are we
> trading learning the shell (bash or otherwise) and learning to write bug
> free shell scripts, for learning a set or arbitrary and possibly arcane
> rules, decided upon in a building somewhere in the world, by someone who
> knows how to use your computer better than you do? We've already seen the
> likes of those already seen with polkit and consolekit. Even with udev
> moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list has already
> stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He considers it an
> abomination. As to the standardization mentioned, does not such
> standardization remove one's freedom? I'm not an RMS fan, so don't go
> there. However, I am old enough to remember when there was no choice for
> home computers, and a commercial by Apple for the first Mac using the idea
> of breaking out of 1984 and the dull boring corporate world. Now here we
> are moving the one OS that's stayed somewhat of a maverick into the stable,
> then out to pasture to graze with with the rest of the corporate world. At
> least IMHO. It's not about changing Arch, it's about becoming part of the
> corporate structure and playing nice with everyone else. You can read that
> line with the knowledge "Old hippies die hard. And I still don't trust the
> establishment as far a I can throw my house!"
>
> Interoperability is necessary in today's world, but I think it can be done
> with out sacrificing the heart and soul of Linux. When it comes to the move
> of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like
> not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
> mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the
> system. I've never really cared for the mess of the LSB. IMHO systemd is
> for administrators who, unlike Judd Vinet, want to hide the system setup
> from the user with fancy gui's and not allow anyone but the sysadmin to
> make any changes.
>
> I laud the devs who are working on this project, but I ask you to consider
> "Is it better for Arch to lead one of the last bastion's of freedom when
> using Linux into lock step with the the PTB's, or would it be better to
> develop an alternative that keeps, not just Arch Linux, but Linux a viable
> alternative to OSX, Windows, any Unix/BSD environment, and the corporate
> world?" I know it's the simpler, and probably less stressfull solution, but
> is it the better solution?
>
> I firmly believe more discussions like this on the ml would be more
> productive than the brawls we've seen lately. It also might provide the
> dev's an opportunity to participate more instead of throwing their hands up
> in the air and saying never again. To me the mailing list has become
> reactive. Too many responses, I've been guilty of this, come from
> predetermined ideas which may or may not be rooted in fact. They may be
> rooted in the users experience which may have been affected by other
> circumstances such as the dependency hell being created by the tighter and
> tighter upstream integration by KDE and Gnome. This again signals the move
> towards a "corporate desktop environment".
>
> A wise unix guru, can't remember the name right now, said something to the
> effect "the system should be a set of well written programs loosely
> connected programs, each doing one thing and doing it well". Something many
> of today's programs don't accomplish.
>
> As I said on the arch-general mailing list. These are the battles that have
> spawned many a linux distro and there is always LFS, even though they moved
> to use udev inside systemd.
>
> Myra Nelson
>
> To those who I bcc'd this to;
>
> I would like to humbly appologize if I intruded on your personal space, but
> I wanted to make sure it would be read by you in your own private space
> without the need to filter through the BS that's likely to occur on the ml.
>
>
> --
> Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
>

That seems to be one of the more well thought out (not pro), responces to
systemd,