Thoughts on Ubuntu maintaining Jessie's kernel ~ discuss

[Gyokuro]

The title is about Jessie's kernel not the Init system but in case that much users are against systemd what should be used instead so that the same people which are whining about systemd are happy again? The problem is the alternatives are not better as the elected one.

[vbrummond]

While this is not a scientific evidence but it is still good enough to judge the mood of the users.

That does not make it a wrong decision. People will always complain about everything, no matter what, whether they understand it or not. The developers voted on the issue.

[confuseling]

Further, it really isn't enough to judge the mood of anything other than a noisy minority, as you tacitly acknowledge by pointing out that it's not scientific. What proportion of users ever post on forums? Of those, what proportion engage in arguments, instead of just posting the occasional question? These people are anything but representative.

I strongly suspect if you did an actual poll, the winning answer would be something along the lines of "I don't really care, as long as my server works and is easy to administrate"...

[dasein]

It's impossible to argue with the clinically delusional.

(Just sayin')

[Linadian]

Ima gunna chime in on systemd, I really don't care what they use, as long as;
1) it's not buggy
2) it's not insecure
3) it's not annoying (as in goofy or stupid to use, I know, poor choice of words but let's face it, some things are)
4) It's COMPATIBLE, I tend to like cross-platform, I consider that a good thing for the Linux world
5) Although I'm not a maintainer, easy to maintain would be good, who needs more headaches?

Wikipedia always has some interesting takes, check out the chart below the 'Controversy' section.

Here is freedesktop.org's systemd page.

Edit: Another nifty chart, scroll down a bit.

[hakerdefo]

It's impossible to argue with the clinically delusional.

(Just sayin')

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.
My beliefs related to this thread,
1) Involvement of commercial corporations like Canonical and Red Hat with the vital operating system components like kernel and init system is a bad idea especially since those corporations will be direct gainers from Debian's decline. Links with the relevant data are in my previous post.
2) Discussions and polls in the various forums frequented by Debian users suggest that majority of the Debian users are not happy with systemd as default init. Again see my previous post for the relevant data.
3) Distributions with far less manpower and monetary resources compared to Debian can develope their own init system (OpenRC), forked bleeding OpenSSL (LibreSSL) and Debian with it's huge resources can't even maintain the kernel of the next stable release?!? This is for sure not because of lack of skilled manpower. There are plenty of Debian developers who are willing and qualified to maintain the kernel but they were not given the opportunity by the Debian leadership for reasons unknown.
Now if and when someone provides superior evidence against the above stated beliefs, I'll be on my way to the nearest psychologist.
Cheers!!!

[dilberts_left_nut]

1. Already covered previously - "the evil corporations" have had their **** in your pie for a very long time, and it probably wouldn't exist as anything quite as usable (is 'tasty' pushing that metaphor too far?) without "them".

2. The number of uninformed users whining on forums because they read a blog telling them that the sky is falling is hardly a measure of the suitability of an init system.
There are indeed valid arguments both for and against adopting systemd as the default init for Jessie, and the people who get to decide - the devs - did.

3. Those distro's also support nowhere near the volume of software that Debian does, or in the integrated and usable manner of Debian's stable release.

If you think that there are queues of idle devs sitting around just waiting to be "allowed" to maintain a kernel that is unsupported by upstream, or to support yet another init system, then you should definitely be booking that appointment.

[Randicus]

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

I am not attacking your ideas. In fact I agree with some of them. Like disagreeing with the rush to adopt systemd and contemplating out-sourcing kernel maintenance. However:

1) Involvement of commercial corporations

In itself is not bad. Each case must be examined before a conclusion can be made about a corporation's good or bad behaviour.

2) Discussions and polls in the various forums frequented by Debian users suggest that majority of the Debian users are not happy with systemd as default init.

It definitely shows that many users are (myself among them), but it does not indicate how big or small the proportion is.

3)Distributions with far less manpower and monetary resources compared to Debian can develope their own init system (OpenRC), forked bleeding OpenSSL (LibreSSL) and Debian with it's huge resources can't even maintain the kernel of the next stable release?!? This is for sure not because of lack of skilled manpower. There are plenty of Debian developers who are willing and qualified to maintain the kernel but they were not given the opportunity by the Debian leadership for reasons unknown.

Although I agree with the first part, I even mentioned at the beginning of the thread how amazing it is that a distro with the large resources Debian has does not have enough manpower for kernel maintenance , where do you get the idea from that there is an untapped pool of kernel maintainers? And that they are not being allowed to help? I doubt there are hordes of people capable of doing kernel maintenance.

[hakerdefo]

@dilberts_left_nut
Those are your beliefs and I respect them but they can hardly be classified as superior evidence.

[hakerdefo]

Although I agree with the first part, I even mentioned at the beginning of the thread how amazing it is that a distro with the large resources Debian has does not have enough manpower for kernel maintenance , where do you get the idea from that there is an untapped pool of kernel maintainers? And that they are not being allowed to help? I doubt there are hordes of people capable of doing kernel maintenance.

I'm not saying that there are hordes of developers capable of maintaining the kernel, I'm saying there are enough capable developers in Debian with skills and willingness to maintain the kernel.
Cheers!!!

[Randicus]

I'm saying there are enough capable developers in Debian with skills and willingness to maintain the kernel.

Given the size of the Debian project, there should be enough developers. That does not mean there are. (If not, that would be indicative of different problem.) In other words, you are assuming.

[hakerdefo]

The “New Maintainer process” is a strange way to discourage people to contribute to Debian. It is particularly bureaucratic and a huge waste of time both for the applicant and his manager. It should be completely thrown overboard.
One needs a more scalable approach for trust and credibility that also enhances the technical knowledge for coding and packaging of the applicant.
NM is currently set in stone as any outside critics is automatically rejected. Young and energetic people are crucial for Debian and the long-term viability of the project, this is the reason why I’d consider the “New Maintainer process” as Debian’s biggest problem.

This one comes from Maximilian Attems. Who is Maximilian Attems? He has been the top contributor in Debian kernel team since the departure of Herbert Xu.
Judging from this it is no wonder that Ubuntu will be maintaining Jessie's kernel!
Cheers!!!

[Randicus]

But that is not evidence that

there are enough capable developers in Debian with skills and willingness to maintain the kernel.

if they were allowed to. That is a (former?) developer's opinion of the general state of the distribution's development model. It would support (a little) an argument for a lack of maintainers overall, but is not evidence supporting a claim of a lack of kernel maintainers specifically. Although it does add a little weight to the argument, albeit more from extrapolation than proof.

[Linadian]

Holy wowzers Batman! And I thought I had a flammable tinfoil hat problem, lol...

Everybody seems to be forgetting Debian has an actual 'structure';

Debian copyright/software policies (see section 2.3 specifically), so license lockdown anything shouldn't make it in to any part of Debian. Anything new (software), being GPL, can and would be scrutinized, tweaked or rejected, etc.

Debian Constitution, it's not like there's a Darth Vader evil overlord, mind you, like any governing body there will be differences of opinion but when the smoke clears, nothing gets done without input or votes.

Now take a deep breath, go make a coffee and do some reading (see above links). If the sky does fall, my already ignited tinfoil hat will protect me.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as there's no 'deals with the devil' and corporations want to blow money developing, then release software in to the wild as GPL, good, let 'em! Branding can be removed, so can glitches and spyware. People that work on Debian chose to because it's not corp license lockdown and profit/monopoly driven, I'm pretty sure if Debian's carcass started to rot, Debian developers would flee in droves, I'm hoping that's not the case, that would really suck for millions of people, me included.

I'm kinda sorry I started this thread now. On the other hand, better to hash things out than keep 'em bottled up (see Postal Worker Syndrome, lol ).

Edited for grammar and spelling.

[golinux]

2) Discussions and polls in the various forums frequented by Debian users suggest that majority of the Debian users are not happy with systemd as default init.

Commercial users of Debian (or any other Linux system) far outnumber denizens of various Linux forums. It is commercial interests that are driving development. Sure they allow us to use their OS but they are not doing it for our benefit. We get what they decide to give us whether we like it or not.

[hakerdefo]

...Although it does add a little weight to the argument, albeit more from extrapolation than proof.

Yeah you are right! It doesn't provide the proof but proofs and evidences are hard to come-up with when we are discussing about actions and intentions. why did Debian leadership take the decision (action) to turn to Canonical to help maintain the kernel and why did Canonical agreed to provide the help (intention)?
Only the Debian leadership and Canonical have the answers. The rest of us only can extrapolate
Cheers!!!

[hakerdefo]

I'm kinda sorry I started this thread now. On the other hand, better to hash things out than keep 'em bottled up (see Postal Worker Syndrome, lol ).

You shouldn't be sorry! It's a good thing you did!
Postal Worker Syndrome is dangerous
Cheers!!!

[confuseling]

...Although it does add a little weight to the argument, albeit more from extrapolation than proof.

Yeah you are right! It doesn't provide the proof but proofs and evidences are hard to come-up with when we are discussing about actions and intentions. why did Debian leadership take the decision (action) to turn to Canonical to help maintain the kernel and why did Canonical agreed to provide the help (intention)?
Only the Debian leadership and Canonical have the answers. The rest of us only can extrapolate
Cheers!!!

Have you actually checked the mailing lists? I doubt this was done privately, and Debian doesn't need Ubuntu's permission to use their patches to GPL software.

I think the scenario is something like:

DD1: Well, the LTS kernel comes out a month after the freeze, so that's no good. And the one RHEL are using will be three months behind, missing drivers for hardware X and Y. I suppose we'll have to maintain our own.
DD2: Ubuntu support will overlap for a year, we could use theirs.
DD1: Good idea.

Not quite as exciting as all these insinuations about scheming in smoke filled rooms, but hey.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[hakerdefo]

Okay here is the story (real) behind Ubuntu maintaining Jessie kernel,
Ben Hutchings who is maintaining 3.2 kernel felt that he won't have time to maintain another longterm stable branch. He proposed to Greg Kroah-Hartman that his next longterm kernel branch be based on 3.16 but due to earlier freeze dates of consumer electronics companies Greg K-H selected 3.14 as the longterm stable branch. By this point Ubuntu has selected 3.16 kernel for their 14.10 release. Ubuntu 14.10 will be released in October 2014 and Ubuntu kernel team will be supporting the 3.16 kernel for about 15-18 months after 14.10 release and by that time the 3.2 kernel will reach EOL and from then on Ben Hutchins will be free to take over maintainership of 3.16 kernel.
Moral of this story? Something is wrong with Debian's development model. Why is there no one beside Ben Hutchings to take over the maintainership or to help him? Maximilian Attems summed it up when he said,

The “New Maintainer process” is a strange way to discourage people to contribute to Debian. It is particularly bureaucratic and a huge waste of time both for the applicant and his manager. It should be completely thrown overboard.
One needs a more scalable approach for trust and credibility that also enhances the technical knowledge for coding and packaging of the applicant.
NM is currently set in stone as any outside critics is automatically rejected. Young and energetic people are crucial for Debian and the long-term viability of the project, this is the reason why I’d consider the “New Maintainer process” as Debian’s biggest problem.

Cheers!!!

[buntunub]

Okay here is the story (real) behind Ubuntu maintaining Jessie kernel,
Ben Hutchings who is maintaining 3.2 kernel felt that he won't have time to maintain another longterm stable branch. He proposed to Greg Kroah-Hartman that his next longterm kernel branch be based on 3.16 but due to earlier freeze dates of consumer electronics companies Greg K-H selected 3.14 as the longterm stable branch. By this point Ubuntu has selected 3.16 kernel for their 14.10 release. Ubuntu 14.10 will be released in October 2014 and Ubuntu kernel team will be supporting the 3.16 kernel for about 15-18 months after 14.10 release and by that time the 3.2 kernel will reach EOL and from then on Ben Hutchins will be free to take over maintainership of 3.16 kernel.
Moral of this story? Something is wrong with Debian's development model. Why is there no one beside Ben Hutchings to take over the maintainership or to help him? Maximilian Attems summed it up when he said,

The “New Maintainer process” is a strange way to discourage people to contribute to Debian. It is particularly bureaucratic and a huge waste of time both for the applicant and his manager. It should be completely thrown overboard.
One needs a more scalable approach for trust and credibility that also enhances the technical knowledge for coding and packaging of the applicant.
NM is currently set in stone as any outside critics is automatically rejected. Young and energetic people are crucial for Debian and the long-term viability of the project, this is the reason why I’d consider the “New Maintainer process” as Debian’s biggest problem.

Cheers!!!

So you are suggesting that a new MP be discussed and hashed out? That's probably a wise idea if Debian is to survive and thrive long term, but a new thread should be started about that so that it can be hashed out properly.