[arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd

[Myra Nelson]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Nicholas MIller <nick.kyky at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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,
>

Thank you. My intent was to start an intelligent discussion. The rants and
raves are going no where. I'm not necessarily against systemd, just the
PTB's upstream dictating how Linux is and can be used. To me Linux is about
choice, unlike the OS I used for so many years. My other goal is to get the
devs involved to think about how to help the Arch community in general. If
Arch is what you make of it, don't take that choice away.

Yes, Tom, I've backed off a little. I've started reading the systemd
mailing list and although Arch likes to lead the way into the future, I'm
not sure systemd is the future any more than upstart, polkit, consolekit,
gnome3, kde4, ad nauseum. This last line may elicit the wrong responses,
but I hope not. It wasn't meant to slam any one particular idea. Just point
out that:

>From Alan Kay:

Simple things should be simple. Complex things should be possible.

Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of
bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just
done by brute force and thousands of slaves.

We in the Linux community rest on the shoulders of giants all the way down
to Torvalds and GKH. We should act like it.

Myra
-- 
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!