[arch-general] systemd new dependencies impede using OpenRC

[Terry Z.]

I am a bit disappointed to hear that there appears to be such a large
disconnect between the developer philosophy and the user philosophy in the
community.  Even the website itself (which granted in many cases simply
points to various wiki sections), tends to give the impression the Arch Way
and philosophy are user centric. In fact. It even has an entire "user
centric" point in it. To hear that this "Arch Way" is not an official
stance but something the community came up with is news to me.

I'm completely fine with the focus being entirely on simplicity and
minimalism from a dev standpoint.  There is something to be appreciated
there.  However, I feel that perhaps the community image may need some
clarity for that.  Looking at everything in The Arch Way wiki page (except
the user centric portion), as well as most other things I can easily see it
being taken either way.  And most of us may not be concerned with that dev
central focus being the philosophy applied as the developer's desires line
up with our use cases.

I believe though one of the biggest strengths of the free/open software
community is being able to make the decision to deal with something or not
after gathering the necessary information.  In this case, the presentation
of that information may require some clarity.  Heck, it's entirely possible
it is perfectly clear somewhere but just being missed by users.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Eduardo Machado <eduardo.machado at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2015-07-02 10:24 GMT-03:00 Daniel Micay <danielmicay at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 01/07/15 02:36 PM, João Miguel wrote:
> > > First of all, thank you for such a quick reply.
> > >
> > > Now, I don't want to preach. But I will not pretend I chose Arch Linux
> at
> > > random. I chose it for many reasons, an important one of them being
> that
> > > I liked the Arch Way, it made sense to me, and it seemed you were
> > > following it. Now it seems to belong to a forgotten past.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:34:01AM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > >> Arch is as much a systemd-based distribution as it is a Pacman-based
> > >> distribution at this point. (...)
> > > Is it now? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
> >
> > That's an unprotected page on the wiki, not an authoritative source on
> > anything to do with the distribution.
> >
> > Arch has always been a simple distribution in terms of the developer
> > perspective, not the user one. Using systemd made it simpler than ever
> > in that regard because much more work is taken care of by both the
> > systemd developers and all of the projects shipping unit files.
> >
> > It has never been a minimalist distribution. Splitting packages is rare
> > compared to other distributions, and dependencies aren't made optional
> > whenever possible.
> >
>
> I disagree, it is indeed a minimalist, i only install what i want. ok, it
> can be not the most minimalist, but it is, in a good deal.
>
>
> >
> > It has also never been a distribution offering much user freedom /
> > choice compared to Gentoo and even Debian. There are very few cases
> > where there are multiple packages offering different configurations of
> > the same project. There's no equivalent to update-alternatives or the
> > comparable uses of USE flags. Changing /bin/sh from Bash will be broken,
> > as will changing the python symlink to point to python2 instead of
> > python3 even though this works on some other distributions. It doesn't
> > strive to offer choices like this, and never has. It would mean a *lot*
> > more complexity on the development side of things along with major
> > deviations from upstream.
> >
> > Arch is the *opposite* of a user-centric freedom. The opinion of users
> > has no weight here. Only the developers have an opinion, and there
> > aren't voting systems as there are in Debian. Technical decisions are
> > made based on merit via consensus among the developers, not popularity.
> >
>
> WHAT? The opinion of users has no weight here ?!?!?!
> I came to Arch because th way it is built and "marketed" looked like a real
> community and user centric, user centric not to be as easy as pushing a
> button, but in the way that i can install, configure, and use it the way i
> want to.
> Is that real?
>
> If Arch is becoming a personal distribution to attend the developers, so
> let it clrealy in the website, so we consider choosing a new way.
> But to realize such an affirmation is a little bit dismotivating at
> minimum.
>
> Although this subject, i wanna thanks the devs; because everyone knows it a
> hard work and Arch devs always did a great work.
>
> The real POINT here is that, ANY decision made (not only systemd) have its
> pros and cons, but when someone ask for something different or question
> that, it is wise to listen, think, and answer in an polite way.
> Recently i am seeing much rage in talks, i think i will be better, and
> constructive, to filter better the words so that we can have a kind of a
> talk.
>
>
>
> > > it is not simple, not minimalist, and not user-centric.
> >
> > Certainly not minimalist, but those other two claims are questionable.
> >
> > Arch has *never* been minimalist... a Linux kernel with every module
> > available and every feature enabled at least when there's no non-bloat
> > related cost, feature-packed/complex GNU tools, nearly all optional
> > features enabled across all the packages, etc.
> >
> > > However, making so many packages depend on it so that any basic desktop
> > > usage (in the case of the util-linux dependency, even non-graphical
> > usage)
> > > does break one principle listed in the aforementioned page: freedom. In
> > > fact, I ought to quote it:
> >
> > Arch is the opposite of a distribution with lots of user freedom. Users
> > will come and go based on whether they like the technical decisions made
> > by the developers. The popularily of those decisions has no impact on
> > how things are done, regardless of how vocal users are about it.
> >
> > > Nonetheless, respecting the quoted principle, I could easily replace
> > > systemd by OpenRC when I chose to. Note that just last month, over 3
> > > years had passed after systemd was adopted, and I could still use
> > > OpenRC. Now, for whatever reason, the principle was broken without
> > > notice. I'd expect news or an email in this mailing list, to which I've
> > > been paying close attention (though I knew less than the authors about
> > > most problems...).
> >
> > You can still use it, it's just becoming increasing more difficult at a
> > pretty steady pace. Those packages didn't suddenly pick up systemd
> > dependencies in the past few weeks / months anyway. The version control
> > logs disprove the claim that there are many recent changes.
> >
> > >> Upstreams are integrating support for systemd features and Arch is
> going
> > >> to be enabling them, whether it's sd_notify support or something else.
> > > Upstream? Then why is it that for the same versions of the same
> > > packages, say, in Gentoo they are not dependencies? Example, compare
> > > these two:
> >
> > Gentoo has USE flags so features can be optional at compile-time. Many
> > of the packages with dependencies on systemd in Arch link against
> > libsystemd, and we don't split up the package as is the norm here. If
> > there's a package with an *unnecessary* dependency on systemd, you can
> > and should file a bug. I don't think there are many that depend on it
> > and don't use it.
> >
> > > That doesn't mean I want to compile everything. Or that you should have
> > > packages for, say, OpenRC. The packages in the repos are not my choice,
> > > I'm not asking to choose which ones should be on the official repos,
> > > that's what the unofficial repos and the AUR are for. It just means you
> > > shouldn't suppose people have these or those packages installed, but
> > > that instead, and as you did before, even years after systemd being
> > > default, you should provide whatever you want, open the doors you want,
> > > not closing any others. Minimalism means minimal dependencies too.
> >
> >
> > > If I wanted systemd bloat and a dash of hypocrisy
> >
> > What hypocrisy? When have you seen the developers state that they care
> > about user freedom, or that the distribution is based on minimalism?
> >
> > Community memes don't define the distribution, technical choices by the
> > developers do. It's clearly not based on what you say it is, and *never*
> > has been. It has always used significantly more disk space and a
> > measurable amount of additional memory than Debian and especially Gentoo
> > as a consequence of keeping things simple (again, from a development
> > perspective).
> >
> >
> >  I'd stay in Windows
> > > installing Internet Explorer... I worry the suggestions to change
> distro
> > > The point is not one of telling what the devs should
> > > or shouldn't do
> >
> > That's what you're doing.
> >
> > > but of remembering the principles upon which the community is based.
> >
> > You can claim that the community is based on a set of principles, but it
> > has nothing to do with technical decisions by the developers. Memes
> > about minimalism and user freedom != actual distribution policy /
> > principles / history.
> >
> >
>



-- 
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system
and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world.
-- seen on the net