Re: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system
It's not the fact that you wrote such a long email that is necessarily
the problem; it's that you've shown no signs of either reading or
comprehending most of what people have actually said to you. Instead,
you launched into a new set of diatribes that show very little sign of
having actually learned anything from anyone in the thread, including
the people you're quoting.
You seem to be complaining that people have failed to educate you. Bear
in mind that many developers have spent so much time attempting to
educate systemd opponents (a rather thankless task), and at this point
have the very reasonable expectation that people will spend at least a
little time educating themselves. This might be the first time *you're*
demanding such explanations, but it might be the four-hundredth time
that the person responding to has given such explanations, hence the
lack of remaining patience. Tone down your sense of entitlement, as
well as your claim to be speaking for people other than yourself.
All that said, the much bigger concern is that you seem to be resistant
to *actually being educated* after demanding such from other people.
Such clue-resistance, together with your writing style (optimized for
your own writing rather than others reading), rants, entitlement,
condescension, taking Slashdot seriously, posting links to dictionary
entries you clearly haven't read, and various other factors, leads you
to being dismissed as a crank. If you want to be taken seriously, fix
those things before you come back. And if you *don't* want to be taken
seriously, then please don't come back at all.
For instance:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> understanding or otherwise how systemd works is not the point:
> the point is that there has been a unilateral decision across
> virtually every single GNU/Linux distro to abandon and remove *any*
> alternative to having libsystemd0 installed.
[...]
> i'm asking "why does *only* having libsystemd0 as the
> sole exclusive startup method
First, that you consider libsystemd0 a problem, or a "startup method",
shows that you *do* need to take more time understanding how systemd
works. libsystemd0 exists largely to talk to systemd components if
present; linking to it does not mandate the use of systemd as PID 1, nor
does libsystemd0 actually start other processes. Go read the (very well
documented) headers in /usr/include/systemd/sd-*.h . Among other
things, libsystemd0 contains a function sd_booted() to check if the
system actually runs systemd, so that applications don't have to
reinvent such logic themselves.
So, please go educate yourself on what libsystemd0 actually does, and if
for some reason you still consider it a problem after doing so, you'll
need to explain why, because as demonstrated in this thread, even those
developers in Debian who still do care about non-systemd systems do not
agree with you that it's a problem. See, for instance, Russ's response,
which you lauded while failing to actually comprehend, since you seem to
believe that his response described something that needed changing
rather than describing the current state.
We used to build a half-dozen versions of libsdl, with support for
various libraries, just so that people could avoid installing unused
libraries on their systems. We don't do that anymore; if you install a
program based on libsdl, you'll get libsdl1.2debian, which depends on
libasound2 and libpulse0 and libdirectfb-1.2-9 and libx11-6 and other
libraries. If you always run against X with ALSA, and never run with
DirectFB or PulseAudio, then you get a couple of extra libraries on your
system. Worth it so that libsdl doesn't have to build a half-dozen
conflicting binary packages.
You should also learn what the word "unilateral" means; for someone
willing to pedantically post a link to a dictionary, you seem to have
failed to read it. Distributions and projects have independently (or,
if you like, *multilaterally*) started using systemd because it works
well for them. And yes, that means they use libsystemd0, whether or not
they depend on PID 1 at runtime. Your incredulity at how that managed
to happen does not actually refute that it did.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: