[Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

[mike.valk at gmail.com]

2017-02-15 7:30 GMT+01:00 John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly at gmail.com>:

> Perhaps it is the idea that a linux machine should be wholly modular
> and attaching a library to a critical component of the system,
> shouldn't be a viable strategy for popularizing one's work.
>
True


>
> When a distro is forced to carry a package due to a dependency of a
> dependency, or any magnitude there of, it breaks a core separation of
> power there. The users depend on distro's to provide reliable
> packages, however if a package is intentionally interweaving files to
> make these dependencies simply a part of the file and therefore
> robbing the distro's the ability to choose a different dependency
> should another developer or team thereof prove more reliable or more
> suited for their distro.
>

It's not really about "files". It's about functionality.

The reason for an "init" system is automation. In order to have a
"functional " desktop a log of services need to be running.

Different functionality requirements require different "init" systems. So
in order for software to support all different "init" systems you need to
go an extra mile which not  every maintainers is willing to do.

So for distro's to support multiple "init" systems they need to
modify/enhance software from others. And they need to test all possible
configurations. Which is extra effort not everyone is willing to do.


>
> Systemd in this sense would be like microsoft robbing those wishing to
> distinguish themselves of the ability by increasing the magnitude of
> difficulty in doing so.
>

If I read the discomfort correctly the systemd maintainers are too focused
on their own use case and seek to little collaboration with the rest of the
community during development.

This results in issues for people with "corner" cases, which don't get
resolved. And massive code dumps which result in massive rewrites too get
support from the rest of the community.

This is indeed quite similar to a closed source business like Microsoft.
The company sets their goals and developers need to follow the goals set by
the company. Not the goals set by others or what might even be a beter goal
for the user.

I think in the end, the one that pays decides. To change code you need
time. That time needs to be paid. Individual developers can donate time
they have left after earning that by other work. Company's can donate time
of employees. But the time spent must be paid, either by other work or by
the result of the donated time. Usually it is the latter so that's why
company's decide where time is spent within a project.

But for a OS project to be successful you need to consider the needs of
others so it's a balancing act.


>
> Now, keep in mind, I am not fluent in any programming language and
> have not audited Systemd, nor do I know anyone who has. This is based
> on a compiled understanding of observations expressed in arguments
> both infavor and against Systemd.
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20170215/1a412b4b/attachment.html>