Re: A few observations about systemd
Guillem Jover wrote:
> On the "other kernels lack of features" I'll just point to the
> “Functionality Equivalence” section in the Porting Guidelines draft I've
> been preparing at <http://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian/ports/porting>.
> Most of the features listed as required for systemd are either already
> present on other systems or have been long before they even appeared
> on GNU/Linux. Some are not even GNU/Linux specific but GNU/* generic by
That page claims the equivalent of cgroups would be "On FreeBSD,
jail(2)". AFAIK jails do not support the same functionality.
> While upstreams are obviously entitled to not care at *all* about
> portability for their pet projects (at the risk of being either ignored
> or forked, I guess), trying to push so hard for the adoption of those
> projects as either foundation blocks or hard dependencies on other
> upstream projects seems quite arrogant and irrespectful to all the
> people interested in portability or to members and users of other
> operating systems or other implementations of the functionality such
> new projects are trying to displace.
I think it's quite arrogant of BSD users to expect others to work to
support their systems. The BSD userbase is small enough that most
projects have alternative things to work on that help a lot more people
than BSD support would. Trying to support extra platforms the
maintainers themselves never use does have a real negative effect on the
rest of a project.
It's definitely arrogant for users of other operating systems to try to
obstruct people from using better technology on Linux. It's not like
there would be anything equaling the quality of systemd that would run
on BSD. It's not your place to say that people shouldn't get to use it
on Linux, or that Linux users should have to work on BSD support to be
allowed to use it now.
> Something to remember is that
> GNU/Linux has not always been as dominant as today, and these things
> always change, given time.
Yes, but that is no argument to support other platforms now. I've worked
on software that had code and modifications to allow it to run on some
obsolete systems (like Apollo). That was worth nothing when porting it
to more modern systems. If the time comes to move from Linux to
something else, I expect BSD support to be worth equally much. The best
way to ensure your project is in good health and ready to move to
another platform if necessary is to concentrate on making it run as well
as possible on Linux.
> I guess one of the problems with this kind of upstream attitude is that
> it polarizes people's positions, in really non productive ways, due to
I think the fundamental problem is having kFreeBSD in Debian. It's too
much extra work and problems for limited benefit to a small number of
people. Holding things hostage with "you have to make this work on
kFreeBSD too or it won't be allowed at all" arguments will have negative
effects beyond just init systems.