[Arm-netbook] systemd nonsense ad-infinitum

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Philip Hands <phil at hands.com> wrote:
> zap <calmstorm at posteo.de> writes:
>
>> Sorry but I have to challenge you on this, it isn't right for systemd to
>> be the only init that can be used on debian by default.
>>> There is no "forcing" or "requiring" involved, and people spouting this
>>> bullshit is getting _really_ old now.
>>>
>>> If any such radical change had actually been enacted then:
>>>
>>>   a) well, we'd be in a different universe, where Debian was run by some
>>>   sort of overlord who was prone to making snap decisions on a whim.
>>>
>>>   b) there would have been a mass bug filing for all these packages that
>>>   did not require systemd, to somehow add that requirement.
>>>
>>>   c) there would have then been a vast wave of new package uploads with
>>>   the new packages, encumbered with those requirements.
>>>
>>> NONE OF THIS HAPPENED.
>>
>> Incorrect sorry but I am not sure where you get your info from.
>
> I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say.
>
> I pay attention to the uploads.
>
> I've been a Debian Developer for over 2 decades.
>
> I was there since before all this started on the mailing lists.
>
> I'm vaguely aware of the extent to which things depend on things.
>
> Actually, let's try a very rough estimate on "stretch" (the new release):
>
>   for p in systemd libsystemd0 libselinux1 libc6 ; \
>     do apt-cache rdepends \
>          --no-suggests --no-conflicts --no-breaks --no-replaces $p \
>       | grep '^ ' | sort -u | wc -l ; \
>     done
> 34
> 144
> 133
> 19816
>
> Note that libselinux1 (which is pretty much equivalent to libsystemd0 in
> its purpose) is almost as widely depended upon as libsystemd0, and that
> they are both two orders of magnitude less depended upon than libc6.

 i've mentioned it a number of times: the difference between
libsystemd0 and libselinux1 (both of which remain "dormant" if not
actually utilised) is that selinux is developed under the auspices of
the NSA's guidance according to an extremely stable and trustworthy
process.  by complete contrast systemd is *literally* developed under
the complete and total opposite ethos in *every* single way
conceivable [only one aspect of which is the actual resultant "code"].

 i believe it's safe to say that the NSA can actually be trusted in
its core area of expertise: security.  they began by sponsoring a
university research initiative, which came up with the FLASK model.  a
roadmap and a series of papers were developed long before any code was
written, allowing interested people with a particular interest in high
security to comment and contribute.  the scope of the project was
well-defined right from the beginning and *has not changed*.  any
extensions that are added (such as the xorg extensions) are done so in
a non-intrusive and optional fashion.

more than that: the developers who are involved in it are sensible,
highly competent, respectful, respect-worthy and, from the evidence of
their ongoing behaviour, clearly trust-worthy people.  manoj
srivastava and stephen smalley are just two that, with my vague memory
being what it is, that i can remember their names after never having
spoken to them for over ten years should underscore how much of a
lasting impression just those two peoples' competence has made on me.

 now, for everything in that paragraph above, write something in your
own mind that takes every positive statement and replace it with the
total opposite.  then substitute "pottering" for "NSA".  i won't do it
for you, because i don't wish to be the one writing what could easily
be interpreted as utter hateful vitriol.

 *this* is why people do not wish to have code written by and being
actively developed by pottering on their systems.  i keep emphasising:
it's not actually about the code: it's about much, much more than
that.  and that's why (phil) when you say things along the lines of
"give me one good reason why..." and it involves an *actual specific
code-related issue*, i feel compelled to point out that it's the wrong
question to be asking / wrong approach to be taking.

 so this is why people - who do not have sufficient expertise to "code
their way out of the problem", and/or do not have the expertise to
package alternative init-systems and/or who do not have the
time/resources to risk converting to a totally new distro - still want
to be able to *completely* remove systemd i.e do "apt-get --purge
remove libsystemd0" and still retain a fully-functional *debian*
system [not a devuan system] because of all the advantages,
cost-savings and so on of doing so.

 this is so hard to explain succinctly.

l.