choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
> area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
> stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
> that occasionally.
>
Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
just because it *seem* to look better *now*, knowing that we have
a quite hostile upstream, *and* dismissing any other alternative,
is a very dangerous bet which I don't think Debian should do. That
is, I believe, the most important point of all this thread.

Let's welcome OpenRC and see how it goes... This doesn't mean that
we are choosing *now* what will be the *default* init system. Just
that we are open to a new alternative.

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5025E9AA.7000506@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/5025E9AA.7000506@debian.org

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:

> Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
> using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
> just because it *seem* to look better *now*, knowing that we have
> a quite hostile upstream, *and* dismissing any other alternative,
We are not dismissing any other alternative, upstart still looks like
an option.
We are dismissing just openrc because its incremental benefits are
trivial.

--
ciao,
Marco

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On 08/11/2012 05:14 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote
>> Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
>> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
>> using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
>> just because it *seem* to look better *now*, knowing that we have
>> a quite hostile upstream, *and* dismissing any other alternative,
>>
> We are not dismissing any other alternative, upstart still looks like
> an option.
> We are dismissing just openrc because its incremental benefits are
> trivial.
>
Please stop saying "we". *You* are not Debian. Thanks.

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 502651B4.9030905@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/502651B4.9030905@debian.org

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:

> >> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
^^

> Please stop saying "we". *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

--
ciao,
Marco

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On 08/11/2012 10:29 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 11, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
>>>>
> ^^
>
>
>> Please stop saying "we". *You* are not Debian. Thanks.
>>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>

It would be nice if you could explain to the readers
in what way I have spoken in the name of Debian by
writing "If we can have alternatives". Or maybe you
totally missed the "if" in my sentence, showing an
hypothesis? What if I write "If there was" instead of
"if we can have"?

No, I'm not at all guilty of the very thing that I accused
you, contrary to what you are trying to demonstrate here.

Also, this long thread has started because you started
writing on the name of everyone else. If you don't want
to make a fool of yourself, I would suggest you to stop
doing so. I don't think I'm the only one to think this way
also (this huge thread also demonstrates it).

Thanks,

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5026B391.8050206@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/5026B391.8050206@debian.org

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 01:12:10, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
> > area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
> > stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
> > that occasionally.
>
> Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
> using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
> just because it *seem* to look better *now*, knowing that we have
> a quite hostile upstream, *and* dismissing any other alternative,
> is a very dangerous bet which I don't think Debian should do. That
> is, I believe, the most important point of all this thread.

systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't allow
shutdown/reboot from within KDE4, which in the end made it more annoying than
helpful for me so I ended up switching back to file-rc.

> Let's welcome OpenRC and see how it goes... This doesn't mean that
> we are choosing *now* what will be the *default* init system. Just
> that we are open to a new alternative.

If and when there are Debian packages available for OpenRC I'd like to try it.

-- Chris

--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
GPG Key: 4096R/0x1E759A726A9FDD74

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:38:25PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> systemd may seem better in /most/ cases because it does have some nice
> features, but I don't think it's better in *all* cases. systemd doesn't allow
> shutdown/reboot from within KDE4
That doesn't sound like an inherent systemd problem.

--
WBR, wRAR

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
>> area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
>> stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
>> that occasionally.
>>
> Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
> the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
> using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
> just because it *seem* to look better *now*, knowing that we have
> a quite hostile upstream, *and* dismissing any other alternative,
> is a very dangerous bet which I don't think Debian should do. That
> is, I believe, the most important point of all this thread.
>
> Let's welcome OpenRC and see how it goes... This doesn't mean that
> we are choosing *now* what will be the *default* init system. Just
> that we are open to a new alternative.
>

FYI, I just saw this:

"Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely" - Lennart Poettering (lists.freedesktop.org)


http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/y3ao1/yes_udev_on_nonsystemd_systems_is_in_our_eyes_a/

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On Aug 12, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> wrote:

> "Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
> haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
> that support entirely" - Lennart Poettering (lists.freedesktop.org)
If this will become true, I am sure that in the event that Debian will
choose to not adopt systemd then we, Ubuntu and the other interested
distributions will work out something. :-)

This is annoying on many levels, but like most Linux core infrastructure
udev is a Red Hat project and they decide which direction it takes.
You do not like this? Then start being upstream for something relevant.

--
ciao,
Marco

choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)
 

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 11/08/12 07:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 08/11/2012 05:53 AM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> >> Declaring "one area -- one chosen tool" is declaring the monopoly in the
> >> area. As with other monopolies, this often leads to "vendor" lock-in,
> >> stagnation, stopping developing the standards. Have seen examples of all
> >> that occasionally.
> >>
> > Exactly! And in this particular case, the "vendor" is RedHat, and
> > the programs are systemd and udev. If we can have an alternative,
> > using OpenRC and mdev, then I really welcome it! Choosing systemd
> > just because it *seem* to look better *now*, knowing that we have
> > a quite hostile upstream, *and* dismissing any other alternative,
> > is a very dangerous bet which I don't think Debian should do. That
> > is, I believe, the most important point of all this thread.
> >
> > Let's welcome OpenRC and see how it goes... This doesn't mean that
> > we are choosing *now* what will be the *default* init system. Just
> > that we are open to a new alternative.
> >
>
> FYI, I just saw this:
>
> "Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
> haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
> that support entirely" - Lennart Poettering (lists.freedesktop.org)

Not good. Time to look a bit more seriously at mdev then?

The Gentoo folks have mdev support; it works with OpenRC. However,
it looks like there would be some regressions. It looks like at the
moment, xserver-xorg can't get device info from mdev, so needs
manual configuration, and you have to use dmsetup to create LVM
device nodes. So it's not /yet/ a direct drop-in replacement for
udev, but with a bit more work it could be.


Regards,
Roger

--
.'`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120812195440.GL25141@codelibre.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120812195440.GL25141@codelibre.net