Re: Avoiding system d
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 05/13/2014 05:44 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez:
>
>> "[...] they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their
>> stuff. """ http://www.landley.net/notes.html#23-04-2014
>>
> IMHO this is a gross mis-characterization.
<snip - I don't have the time for the trouble it would take to address
this>
> It's also demonstrably false. Otherwise systemd would not be
> compatible with existing SysV init scripts (to the point that I can
> run them manually and, if they happen to load the LSB stuff, they
> transparently redirect themselves through systemd), systemd would not
> forward to rsyslog, …
systemd being compatible with existing infrastructure is not a point in
contradiction of "they don't want you to have the option of NOT using
their stuff", since that compatibility only comes into play if you are,
in fact, using systemd.
The practice of tying different things together in such a way that you
can't use one of them without using the others, particularly when the
"one" in question may be depended on or required by something not
actually related to any of the others at all, might be closer to the
point being raised.
I understand that, and potentially why, it may make sense internally to
have different components of "the systemd project" (is there a better
name for this? systemd, journald, logind, possibly polkit / consolekit
if I'm reading parts of the discussion correctly, the list apparently
goes on) interdepend on one another, to package (some of) them together
rather than separately, to have dbus services used outside of systemd be
implemented (only) in (a way which depends on) systemd, et cetera.
I do, however, still think that this sort of design is bad from a
perspective of interacting with outside software, unless your goal is in
fact for your software to become unavoidable (or avoidable only with
considerable effort) - i.e., as quoted above, to take away the option of
not using your software.
Which isn't to say that the systemd developers and/or advocates
necessarily think of things that way; it's entirely possible that any
given one of them, or even all of them, may be operating entirely in
good faith at all times. That doesn't change what it looks like from
outside, though, which is what leads to views and comments like the one
quoted above.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTcitwAAoJEASpNY00KDJrEyYQAKB4spfqDA6IvP1J1+EWf9Qr
Snd1R4gPvJPtKr9MM3MOZfhJpEmLO8vygJH3qL3rrO+BMB8O7ASsbrL2XZArPG4T
20vNs3cf2vje2MJkrkh8EDGEBroahK/BkEkJeNxyM9DK3UHdigERu3SbmthUY05I
Z8hTB+BNMHzqKR/Ot7mlNs6Af69wy5JPyD9VeLgdFy9PP5dWg26lXN9jrRQW+9/9
vYdoHjmGYLU9/DgAZ7y6NRD/lX60/IEjzQ8IbIlnITRz+C1h628MGhAs6Wf6iPqk
Mc3Bxxq5P4o/0+2HbpX7nImC4mvVkDyLKmY7mqM1xWnxCY6Wy/dtbHqlFcbyNf7y
fXWwJZFOejc+uSvtAphFmE+LDNvbl9u1dTa7rX++qQtFneNFev7BzPRFQfiPBXNh
NP99uqrlvp+dGMX67NH/veVbnwEOgYUwPVIziKg8sCcwOAzhKS9dWmn6El9IeECb
XgUCT/boWO3zVVGVUfeXbR8JAQtWR3xsKevf96rY7mbcgw+Ooq6I3OiZtnkuVTY4
mD7Gwgu7JmQKbrnCZgdvowhgMPhRADB/DzhbsLKw0jQDWAoS6cdqNLCJOSY1JtAG
pqzXHXYOSbutoAH22yhpVEE80gf9x0uIs88eh11jZBcdXluiVuKJI/ZpW6yEwIoo
NIF7XiKNm2dulEJY+PoB
=yuai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: