On Thursday 16 Aug 2012 20:54:21 Ionut Biru wrote:
> with or without this poll, we are continuing with our plan.

+1

--
Cheers and Regards
Jayesh Badwaik
stop html mail | always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Jérôme Bartand <moijerob@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Yesterday I read on Phoronix that Arch devs are planning to switch to
> SystemD, but many users are unhappy with this move.
>


It's systemd -- not SystemD. Learn more about it, please:

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/

Starting with the name, those strongly against it are mostly talking about
something else...

b.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Jérôme Bartand <moijerob@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Yesterday I read on Phoronix that Arch devs are planning to switch to
> SystemD, but many users are unhappy with this move. You can see a lot of
> controversy discussion on this list. I have created an online poll to
> determine the will of the community:
> http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=502d2113e4b02c3adb09a939
>
> Please vote and spread!

Isn't it interesting that the vote is currently 81% support for arch
to switch to systemd (even with the misspelling in the poll), and only
19% against! Looks like at least from the perspective of this poll
(even with only 237 votes in total which just shows the low level of
interest in the poll given that the arch community must be many times
that number of users) that the proposal that the devs made is
overwhelmingly being supported by the community despite all the fuss
that appeared in this mailing list!


--
mike c

Am Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:20:47 +0100
schrieb mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com>:

> Isn't it interesting that the vote is currently 81% support for arch
> to switch to systemd (even with the misspelling in the poll), and only
> 19% against! Looks like at least from the perspective of this poll
> (even with only 237 votes in total which just shows the low level of
> interest in the poll given that the arch community must be many times
> that number of users) that the proposal that the devs made is
> overwhelmingly being supported by the community despite all the fuss
> that appeared in this mailing list!

And what does this poll say? Exactly nothing. Do you know how many
people have voted how many times? You only need one systemd fanboy with
a few minutes spare time to get such a result.

A poll would only make sense if it's ensured that everybody can vote
exactly once.

Heiko

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> Am Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:20:47 +0100
> schrieb mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com>:
>
>> Isn't it interesting that the vote is currently 81% support for arch
>> to switch to systemd (even with the misspelling in the poll), and only
>> 19% against! Looks like at least from the perspective of this poll
>> (even with only 237 votes in total which just shows the low level of
>> interest in the poll given that the arch community must be many times
>> that number of users) that the proposal that the devs made is
>> overwhelmingly being supported by the community despite all the fuss
>> that appeared in this mailing list!
>
> And what does this poll say? Exactly nothing. Do you know how many
> people have voted how many times? You only need one systemd fanboy with
> a few minutes spare time to get such a result.
>
> A poll would only make sense if it's ensured that everybody can vote
> exactly once.
>

True but see my posting in another thread in this mailing list today
pointing to some rather more useful stats.

--
mike c

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM, mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com> wrote:

> True but see my posting in another thread in this mailing list today
> pointing to some rather more useful stats.
>

Actually better than a poll are the comments that appear in:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=145943

--
mike c

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:05:27PM -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
>
> In all of the discussion about systemd, all anyone should care about is:
>
> (1) Does systemd provide *needed* additional capabilities that are not
> currently available;
>
> (2) What are they?
>
> (3) What are the disadvantages of the switch?
>
> (4) Do the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages, taking into
> consideration the time, talent and energy required to implement the change (for
> both the developers and end-users)?
>
> If it is justified -- do it. If it is just being pushed because it is somebody
> pet project, then seriously consider impacting all end-users before foisting the
> change on them.
>

My personal experiences with systemd:

My interest was piqued when it was first mentioned in the lists so I read
all the blogs, man pages and other wide ranging discussions about it on the
Internet.

Utterly confused I decided to tentatively try it on one of my boxes. Since
then the software in the Arch Repositories has slowly matured and I
personally do not find, as a user, much difference from the original Arch
init scripts.
Pros:
Faster boot times
Cleaner boot screens, -quiet option enabled
Cons:
udev is now tightly integrated with systemd.
Systemd is not KISS.

IMHO systemd is unnecessarily complex in trying to do too many separate
tasks.
One of the big reasons I embraced GNU/Linux over 18 yrs ago is because of its
KISS principle. At that time I was disolusioned with both MS Windows and
IBM OS/2. GNU/Linux's policy then was KISS and one program for each needed
task compared to IBM and MS policies of monolythic operating systems.
Since that time I have watched GNU/Linux slowly degenerate from simplicity to
complexity and IMHO systemd is just another step along this road of
progress.

IMHO the cost of Linux embracing complexity is a loss of freedom. We must
all decide personally if we are willing to pay this price or we remain true
to the principles of GNU/Linux and abandon this type of software.
At this time we as Arch users do not have to make this decision but we will
shortly.

Please no flame wars

Regards

John

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:11:58 +1000
John Briggs <johneb47@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

<snipped wisdom>

As I have said in a previous post, I arrived in linux a little later than you,
but for much the same reasons. On "KISS" / "The Arch Way" / "Unix philosophy"
etc, it seems to me that here as in my own field (law), maxims make good
servants but poor masters. Ultimately, every decision has to be evaluated as
good or bad in its own right. In most cases the answer will be in terms of the
quality of the software engineering and I am more than happy to accept the
judgment of people much better qualified than I am to make it. On the other
hand, at the highest level, engineering decisions in all fields, sadly and
inevitably, have a "political" dimension. Is the supplier of this solution
trustworthy over the long term? Where does this leave us if x happens? What are
the implications of this choice for future choices? Engineers are not
necessarily any better qualified than the rest of us to get those calls right.

Geoff

On 2012/8/18 John Briggs <johneb47@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> IMHO systemd is unnecessarily complex in trying to do too many separate
> tasks.

I don't understand why you are saying that. The systemd project may be
larger than a small utility, but it is composed of:
* multiple, small utilities that do well knwon and well defined tasks
(we package that in systemd-tools),
* a core daemon (systemd) which is hardly larger than bash wrt lines of code
* udev

These things are separate and each one of them does not look complex to me.
What complexity do you think it has ?

Rémy.

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 08:11:58PM +1000, John Briggs wrote:
> IMHO the cost of Linux embracing complexity is a loss of freedom. We must
> all decide personally if we are willing to pay this price or we remain true
> to the principles of GNU/Linux and abandon this type of software.
> At this time we as Arch users do not have to make this decision but we will
> shortly.

Well said.

Arch devs are making he right decision to follow upstream.

But LInux as a whole is going to suffer from this trend.

Tying stuff tightly to the startup system will undoubtedly
harm the high disposability principle spoken of in ESR's
Art Of Unix Programming. When software loses this kind of
orthogonality, rot sets in and it becomes harder to move to
new technologes without breaking everything else.

Yes, I imagine it is easier for folks in Red Hat to control
things thru' a central authority of their own desgn. I
feel the same way about my own systems.

I do believe that there are real engineering consequences
that we will suffer (not just in Arch but in other Linux
distros as well) as a result of this highly coupled,
overzealous aproach to startup and daemon management.

It is true that linux is more unified and possibly more
accessible to other corporate users and developers as a
result of this. But at what technical cost?