Systemd violates social contract

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby goulo » 2014-09-16 18:03

dasein wrote:I should start planning migration of my servers to BSD. Speaking only for myself, the introduction of the equivalent of svchost into Linux dramatically reduces the number of reasons to prefer Linux as an OS.

For the adventurous, I just read about the release of Minix 3.3.0 and notice that it apparently can compile Firefox and many other NetBSD packages now! Intriguing...

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/14 ... compatible
goulo
 
Posts: 47
Joined: 2012-01-19 09:52

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby buntunub » 2014-09-17 00:20

This talk of moving is defeatist. Seriously. Debian is the grandfather of so much goodness in the Linux world and it has helped to carry the FOSS torch in such a huge way for 20+ years now. Are you really going to abandon it now just because of the Systemd takeover?.. Doing so will not stop its viral spread to everything else, BSD too. Then what? Run Windows?

Stay and fight the good fight. I am not leaving, and I will do whatever I can to keep freedom and choice in Debian. Ultimately, this is really not about Systemd so much as it is about user choice and the freedom to choose what software you run on your machines. We all should have the choice of INIT systems - something that is absolutely fundamental to the OS itself.
User avatar
buntunub
 
Posts: 591
Joined: 2011-02-11 05:23

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby dasein » 2014-09-17 01:50

buntunub wrote:This talk of moving is defeatist.

And talk of "fighting the good fight" is quixotic. If ranting or general user discontent were going to have an impact, I imagine it would have already happened by now.

buntunub wrote:Doing so will not stop its viral spread to everything else, BSD too.

At least thus far, the BSD community seems delightfully immune from Poettering's Reality Distortion Field. They appear to recognize that "old" is another word for "tested and proven," and that "newer" and "better" aren't synonyms. More power to them.

buntunub wrote:Then what? Run Windows?

Proprietary vendor lock-in is proprietary vendor lock-in. RedHat/Microsoft, toMAYto/toMAHto.

I don't share keithpeter's optimism about a systemd-less fork/respin, but I'd be thrilled to be wrong on that point. If he turns out to be right, I'll jump on it in a heartbeat. And it's not about "abandoning" Debian; Debian powers-that-be abandoned Debian users (along with users of ~200 "Debian-based" distros, and arguably the distro's founding principles) the day they decided on systemd. I don't see an "upside" to pretending otherwise.
User avatar
dasein
 
Posts: 7775
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby edbarx » 2014-09-17 07:15

dasein wrote:I don't share keithpeter's optimism about a systemd-less fork/respin, but I'd be thrilled to be wrong on that point. If he turns out to be right, I'll jump on it in a heartbeat. And it's not about "abandoning" Debian; Debian powers-that-be abandoned Debian users (along with users of ~200 "Debian-based" distros, and arguably the distro's founding principles) the day they decided on systemd. I don't see an "upside" to pretending otherwise.

Looking at systemd's source, immediately gives the impression that forking it is not at all straightforward. systemd is made up of many executables working together. I am slowly being convinced that systemd can only be 'replaced' by patched variants that do not contain every executable packaged in normal systemd. This would mean less overhead for those who cannot afford to overload their older computers. However, this depends on whether the current implementation of systemd allows such a setup.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby Randicus » 2014-09-17 07:35

buntunub wrote:This talk of moving is defeatist.
Recognising when a battle is lost is not defeatist. It is realism. Being smart enough to recognise when a battle is or is not still winable. Refusing to recognise reality and stubbornly clinging to hope is not the smartest thing to do. Dedian developers are moving the distribution onto a new, and different, road. Users who leave are not defeatist. They are searching for better pastures.
Seriously.


Are you really going to abandon it now just because of the Systemd takeover?.. Doing so will not stop its viral spread to everything else, BSD too. Then what? Run Windows?
It will be difficult for systemd to take over BSD when it is designed only for Linux. Poettering and crew purposefully ignore BSD.

Stay and fight the good fight. I am not leaving, and I will do whatever I can to keep freedom and choice in Debian.
I wish you the best of luck.

We all should have the choice of INIT systems - something that is absolutely fundamental to the OS itself.
The spread of systemd is greatly facilitated by how most people cannot understand that systemd is not an init system. Init is only one part of it. Systemd replaces sysVinit and one or two other core functions, and integrates everything into a Windows-style system. If it were simply a matter of init, not using it would be easy. Systemd's creators and pychophants have done a great job of propaganda. They have focused the debate on the init aspect of the disease and kept the true depth of the monster out of view. Only the few who pay attention see the whole picture. Give someone good propaganda and lots of money to disseminate it, and success is easily achieved.
Randicus
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: 2011-05-08 09:11

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby keithpeter » 2014-09-17 10:03

goulo wrote:FWIW I'm using LXDE as my desktop (with a sid/unstable system), no pulseaudio, and I don't have systemd installed and haven't had any problem being in this state (but I do have a couple libsystemd* packages installed.)

Sounds fun. Is that the lxde metapackage

https://packages.debian.org/jessie/lxde

or a selection of your own? Is dbus lurking in there somewhere? I'd imagine that network-manager-gnome and lightdm bring in a lot of stuff.

dasein wrote:I don't share keithpeter's optimism about a systemd-less fork/respin, but I'd be thrilled to be wrong on that point. If he turns out to be right, I'll jump on it in a heartbeat.

A type (5) server oriented flavour would be my bet. D-I uses systemd during installation of course so would need a different installer or an outrageously modified one.

I'm reposting the 'typology' posted in a recent debian-devel email message...

Joel Rees on Debian-Devel wrote:Should we ask Martin whether he would be satisfied if

(1) systemd runs at some pid higher than 1?
(2) systemd is loaded, but doesn't actually run at all?
(3) systemd libraries are loaded, but systemd itself is not?
(4) Some emulation layer provides the functionality and no code from the systemd project gets to touch his disks?
(5) None of the apps he needs ask the OS to do any of the sort of things that systemd uniquely does?
User avatar
keithpeter
 
Posts: 502
Joined: 2009-06-14 08:06
Location: 5230n 0155w

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby keithpeter » 2014-09-17 10:24

chaosesqueteam wrote:(they reject packages " disrespectful" of systemd).

Not challenging, I'm *really interested* in any specific examples that you can point to of a package being rejected for non-technical and non-licence related reasons.

(I have a theory about systems that depend on an accumulation of small decisions taken asynchronously where the decisions depend on the state of different parts of the system. Hows that for a Wednesday morning :twisted:)

PS: best of luck if you are involved in Egypt.
User avatar
keithpeter
 
Posts: 502
Joined: 2009-06-14 08:06
Location: 5230n 0155w

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby goulo » 2014-09-17 10:39

keithpeter wrote:
goulo wrote:FWIW I'm using LXDE as my desktop (with a sid/unstable system), no pulseaudio, and I don't have systemd installed and haven't had any problem being in this state (but I do have a couple libsystemd* packages installed.)

Sounds fun. Is that the lxde metapackage

https://packages.debian.org/jessie/lxde

or a selection of your own? Is dbus lurking in there somewhere? I'd imagine that network-manager-gnome and lightdm bring in a lot of stuff.


dbus is indeed installed. Getting rid of it looks like more radical surgery than I have time/energy for at the moment, though I see from some of Miro's posts that it is apparently possible... I have no network-manager-gnome or lightdm.

Long ago I installed sid/unstable, added LXDE, and only later started more consciously exploring / becoming aware what all was installed. From the beginning I avoided using a graphical login manager, just using startx from the console.

I see that I have some gnome stuff which apparently got dragged in when I installed Inkscape at some point, hmm. And lxde core recommended gnome keyring stuff. One day I should explore all this gnome stuff more thoroughly... seems odd to have various "gnome" packages when I'm not using gnome desktop. (If anyone else can comment on that, please do.)
goulo
 
Posts: 47
Joined: 2012-01-19 09:52

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby goulo » 2014-09-17 10:49

chaosesqueteam wrote:https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/07/msg00070.html

(First the problem is said to be the name, after the package is renamed the systemd proponent moves the goalposts (as is their tradition) and lays down the law) The purpose of the package is to simply keep sysv in and systemd from inadvertently being installed on your system, as is your choice.

I don't trust, like, or want systemd, but in fairness, in this example, the package ("systemd-must-die" with the meta-purpose to prevent installation of another package) did seem rather questionable... isn't that what pinning is for?

E.g. as one response explains concisely:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2 ... 00109.html
You have not yet explained why apt pinning is not enough. And if for some reason
it's not enough, then that's what you need to fix. Surely we don't want 50000
foo-must-die packages.
goulo
 
Posts: 47
Joined: 2012-01-19 09:52

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby pcalvert » 2014-09-18 02:23

keithpeter wrote:A type (5) server oriented flavour would be my bet. D-I uses systemd during installation of course so would need a different installer or an outrageously modified one.

Couldn't one use debootstrap or grml-debootstrap? I've never used either of them, but my understanding is that one needs to specify exactly which packages one wants to install.

Phil
“Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good
in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become
rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.”
— Abraham Lincoln
pcalvert
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 2006-04-21 11:19
Location: Sol Sector

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby mardybear » 2014-09-18 03:03

goulo wrote:
One day I should explore all this gnome stuff more thoroughly... seems odd to have various "gnome" packages when I'm not using gnome desktop. (If anyone else can comment on that, please do.)

Gnome has a tendency to get into things:
Code: Select all
apropos gnome
800mhz, 512mb ram, dCore-jessie (Tiny Core with Debian Jessie packages) with BusyBox and Fluxbox.
Most don't have computer access, reuse or pay forward an old computer.
User avatar
mardybear
 
Posts: 994
Joined: 2014-01-19 03:30

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby edbarx » 2014-09-18 09:33

pcalvert wrote:
keithpeter wrote:A type (5) server oriented flavour would be my bet. D-I uses systemd during installation of course so would need a different installer or an outrageously modified one.

Couldn't one use debootstrap or grml-debootstrap? I've never used either of them, but my understanding is that one needs to specify exactly which packages one wants to install.
Phil

I am one of those who use debootstrap instead of the installer. My experience is very positive regarding its use and its efficiency. The procedure is very simple, even with a multiple partition setup. The trick is to use gparted or equivalent before the actual installation. The installation starts by mounting the partition on which the new OS is to be installed. For multi-partition installations, one must first create a skeleton directory hierarchy and mount the respective directories on that hierarchy. After the installation, the use of chroot allows one to create the root account password, a normal user, /etc/fstab, /etc/network/interfaces, and if one chooses, a WM or a DE.


ADDED LATER:
I think, the root of all this turmoil, is in the fact that a distribution's developers and its users have no communication means, apart from users creating bug reports. If users were important in the eyes of distributions, sadly including Debian, they would have set up a system where users could give their feedback. Bug reports are proving not to be effective.

The advent of Gnome3 and KDE4 with their glorious bloat and eye candy, was a clear signal: DDs are aiming at the masses. A reason one can think of to justify such a move, is GNU/Linux is being seen as a product by some money-brandishing big corps, and the only obvious way for them is, yet another Windows.

Regarding systemd's API being continually changed, this will make it even harder for anyone to write a replacement.

A solution I see as the most logical is to have a political overhaul of how GNU/Linux is governed as users are presently completely ignored: we are sheep, and as sheep, we feed on whatever our shepherds decide to feed us.

Users are the most important part of any distribution, as without them, the distribution is dead. Therefore, it doesn't make sense that they have no say in the decision making of the distribution. If GNU/Linux wants to remain free in the total sense, it must strive to be as democratic as possible. As it is, we have an oligarchy of DDs who are convinced they are the distribution.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby buntunub » 2014-09-22 03:52

I agree with you Edbarx. There has been an alarming trend for a long time now where DDs just make decisions amongst a small cabal of other DDs without consulting thier users, and then actually feel insulted and betrayed when those users get upset about the changes. Every Distro out there now is this way. Those who write the code, call the shots. This thinking is wrong, and a new way is needed.

This systems is ultimately doomed to failure, albiet its been a slow death. Yet, here it is.

It may be time for a new system. Perhaps even a new OS, based upon a philosophy that is more inclusive of the overarching ecosystem -- DDs, Users, and Sponsors. All must have an equal seat at the table.
User avatar
buntunub
 
Posts: 591
Joined: 2011-02-11 05:23

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby edbarx » 2014-09-22 06:05

CHOICE is sacrosant. Those who opt to use Linux, do so through a deep disire to have more control over their system, in other words, they expect to have a system built with the philosophy of choice at its core. Removing choice, is the same as removing the motivation to use GNU/Linux. Unfortunately, Poettering & co are too myopic to see that. Linux users don't just use another OS to look geeky, leave that to teenagers :lol:. Linux users want to have a system the way they deem is best for them individually. Yes, they may start with the preconfigured distributions, but then, if their interest doesn't die, they will turn to pursue their fiery desire to create a system they dream of having.

Choice is our blood, without it, we would have no motivation to use another OS.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: Systemd violates social contract

Postby koanhead » 2014-09-22 18:39

Debian has a lot of problems, some of which are rather persistent ones. Many of these problems persist because there isn't enough skilled help available. There isn't enough help available because there are too few Maintainers and Developers (capitalized to indicate that I'm talking specifically about these named roles within Debian). There is no special bar between users, Maintainers and Developers, only a series of processes in place for users to become Maintainers and later Developers.

For those interested, these seem like good places to start:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer/Tutorial

I'll be doing this soon myself, and I already have a key of the requisite type. I'm willing to help anyone else undergoing this process to the extent that I can.

Becoming a Maintainer is a fair amount of work, and actually maintaining packages is even more work. The New Member process, by which a Maintainer may become a Developer, is even more involved: https://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint
There are a number of really good reasons for this, but there's no getting round the fact that this is a hell of a lot to go through in order to be allowed to do free work. I think that you have to really, really care about Debian as a project in order to go through this. I may never be able to do this due to social anxiety and other issues (including but not limited to the unfortunate fact that duh i am a stoopid.)
Developers are the only ones entitled to vote on a General Resolution (GR). To my knowledge there has not been a GR regarding the installation of systemd as default init for Debian, and there may not be. That decision was made by the 8 members of the Technical Committee https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte in open discussion on the BTS https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708 and the wiki. Users that wanted to chime in on the init discussion could have contributed to that bug report.

Apart from the BTS, it seems that users don't have a whole lot of input into policy decisions in Debian. This is by design. Debian is not a democracy but a 'do-ocracy' in which the people who do the work are the ones who make the decisions. This is probably a good thing, at least for the most part, but it does seem to lead to friction when a large number of users disagree with a policy decision.

IIRC here has been some talk on debian-devel about streamlining the New Maintainer process (but I can't find a link to back this up.) I don't know what form this would take, but I think it is a good idea to do something to increase the number of Maintainers and of Developers. The contributors to Debian are Debian, and more hands make lighter work. If we had enough hands available to support all the things everyone wants, then this debate would be unneccessary, and Debian would be truly a Universal Operating System.
User avatar
koanhead
 
Posts: 110
Joined: 2013-06-20 16:54

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

fashionable