Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 07:15:38PM +0100, Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:29:24PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 03:48:34PM +0100, Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:41:23PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > > > As much as I dislike systemd, I'm not sure that it's a vendor
> > > > conspiracy to "control the Linux ecosystem." Yes, redhat pays
> > > > Lennart Poettering's salary (among others). But... I'm hard pressed
> > > > to see how turning a collection of free distros into functional
> > > > equivalent's of redhat, or increasing the resources applied to free
> > > > distros, is really to their benefit. If anything, it would seem to
> > > > dilute the competitive advantage of paid RHEL.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I think it's more a matter of one, prima donna
> > > > developer, who has the advantage of a salary, who has a vision and
> > > > design philosophy that he's promoting in a very aggressive and
> > > > single minded way. And he's very overt about it. (Somebody posted
> > > > an email from Poettering last week saying, roughly, 'first we're
> > > > going to get kdbus into the kernel, then we're going to make udev
> > > > depend on it, and then everyone will have to eat systemd to get
> > > > udev.' As I recall, the message closed with 'gentoo, be warned.')
> > > >
> > > > I figure this is more a case of redhat management not wanting to
> > > > tick off valued prima donna, and maybe seeing what he's doing as a
> > > > contribution to the open source community (to date, redhat has been
> > > > pretty good about contributing to the community in lots of different
> > > > ways). Still, if I were in their shoes, I'd be trying to reign the
> > > > guys in.
> > >
> > > Why would the management of a external company care about what
> > > happen in Debian ?
> >
> > Because Debian is upstream for several critical RHEL parts, such as
> > shadow (passwd, useradd and friends).
>
> 1 ( ie shadow-utils ) is not "several".
Google is your friend. Sorry, could not resist.
> And by having a critical look at your affirmation, RH is paying a lot
> of upstreams contributors for several critical Debian part :
> - glibc
Not as of Wheezy. Wheezy uses eglibc.
And, while we're on topic of glibc - RedHat isn't writing new 'Modern'
libc to replace an old one. Yet.
Next few years we may see systemd-libc if things go as they're going
now.
> - gcc
A GNU project. Not a RedHat pet.
> - util-linux-ng
A kernel.org project. Not a RedHat pet again.
> - kernel
A joint project, controlled by Torvalds & co. RedHat is one of the few
who's playing a major role there, true. But that role was not enough to
push the most controversial features (kdbus, for example) into the
mainline.
> - udevd
Yup. You nailed that one if we consider latest udev development. It took
a merging into systemd to became that way.
Keep shooting, and you may score a couple of more hits ;)
> to name a few. I could name a few non critical stuff, from gnome, openjdk.
GNOME is can be considered to be controlled by RedHat indeed.
OpenJDK - please. Java is Oracle's turf, not a RedHat one. RedHat
invented their own Ceylon language just because of that fact.
> So I am not sure that your point is valid. Given the size of Redhat,
> I also suspect that having someone working on shadow-utils wouldn't be a problem. Judging by
> SEC fillings, public information, there is around 6900 people.
> 1 more coder is not a stretch at all.
No doubt this number includes a small army of corporate drones, janitors
and security guys.
Do you have any estimate on a number of real developers in Red Hat?
> > And, curiously enough, systemd's
> > goal is to replace those parts (see "Revisiting How We Put Together Linux
> > Systems" at http://0pointer.net/blog ).
> > Apparently, management doesn't like to be left out of control :)
>
> This is free software, there is no way to be left out of control.
For a fellow developer - sure, there's no way to be out of loop as long
as said developer plays by upstream rules.
> That's the whole point of the movement, provided you can code of course.
> A lot of people seems to totally forget that point.
But for a typical management drone - it seems we're both agree that
there's such a way. All it takes is inability to code.
So my point is simple. You mix a few really good developers and an army
of managers. That's a modern RedHat.
>
> > And of course, another distribution = testing a product for free.
>
> I wonder how, since Debian is lagging so much behind that even
> RHEL 7 is released with systemd.
By reading users' bug reports. RHEL has a limited choice of prebuilt
software, therefore a limited number of usecases.
Besides, RHEL7 is supported until 2024 (IIRC). There's plenty room for
small improvements.
> I wonder even why they
> still have jobs posting for QA people if all is needed is to have users of
> others distributions.
I haven't imply that offloading beta-testing to the community mutually
exclusive with internal testing :)
> > > People keep wanting the project to be free of corporate influence, but
> > > it seems that some wouldn't be against having a bit of corporate influence if the
> > > influence was in the way they want..
> > >
> > > > Given that RHEL's main selling points are enterprise
> > > > capabilities, quality control, and (for the government market)
> > > > security accreditation and lots of support, I'd much rather see
> > > > diversity and weak code spread across competing distributions.
> > >
> > > Canonical was criticized for keeping their code for their ( mir, unity ),
> > > and Redhat would be criticized for not keeping the code only for them.
> >
> > No. RedHat is criticized for pushing their code to everyone and their
> > dog.
>
> People keep saying that, but none show no conclusive proof. Just stating
> it doesn't make it true. And it doesn't resist simple inquiry such as:
>
> "if they wanted to push it everywhere, why would it be non portable to
> BSD ?"
Because BSD 'market share' is irrelevant at RedHat's turf. See AT&T vs
BSDi case dated '92.
And, of course, writing a non-portable code is much easier than a
portable one ;)
> We go back to criticize everything that happen, that's getting old.
> And kinda poisonous, looking at the people leaving TC or Debian or maintainership.
People leaving Debian's TC is a sad thing to me too. But I don't read
debian-devel to have my own opinion for the reasons of leaving.
All I see that DD's that actively promoted systemd in the past are
leaving now. If I had the mood I'd even came up with some kind of crazy
conspiracy theory.
>
> > And it started way before systemd (dbus, hal and pulseaudio to
> > name a few). At least Canonical keeps their 'innovations' to themselves
> > last time.
>
> So you agree with me.
> If you share, you are criticized, if you don't, you are criticized.
They say they don't judge the winners. Last few years Canonical cannot
be considered to be one.
> > > I guess there is no good way for a company to make free software that
> > > change something in the core of existing ecosystem.
> >
> > Take a look at IBM, Oracle and Novell, you may reconsider your statement.
>
> I fail to see what did they tried to change in the core ecosystem exactly.
So, judging by your next points, you have no objections against IBM.
> Oracle is attacked by everyone for the stewardship leading to forks on mysql
> and openoffice, among others. They even alienated their own community on solaris.
And every time one's using rpm-based distribution one's using
Oracle-controlled BerkleyDB.
And Oracle's own Chris Mason single-handenly wrote btrfs, now a favorite
FreeDesktop toy.
And of course, there's libaio, written by Oracle guys long time ago.
> Novell was criticized for providing Mono, and providing software written in mono
> for gnome ( thus changing part of the core of Gnome ), and was criticized for
> trying to get Microsoft working on interoperability.
And, at the same time:
Novell was THE Xen's leading distribution back in the old day.
Novell was the company designed heartbeat.
Considering mono as a 'change in the core ecosystem' is to stretching
things a bit IMO :)
> So sure, not changing anything in the core is the right way to avoid some critics. Obviously,
> haters still find their way, even when they have the choice.
There's one thing that they fail to understand at RedHat - there's
absolutely no need for the change to be disruptive.
And haters - yes, haters gonna hate.
Reco
Reply to: