Re: Another system management tool to disappear.
Sorry had an issue that caused a premature post before I could
finish it.
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:11:51 +0900
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is a difference between what I asked and what you're telling me.
>
> Simply tweaking and recompiling debian or redhat is not what I'm
> asking about, although it can be tedious enough. Nor is building a
> functioning gentoo really.
>
> I'm asking if you have built an OS from scratch, including the
> userland tools and apps, for a specific, non-trivial purpose.
That depends. If you consider using LFS to be the only answer you will
accept, then "No", since as I said, I have never used it. If you
consider that I have taken existing code, compiled, rearranged, or
added to it to save time, then the answer might be "Yes."
It really depends on if you accept that I have rebuilt most of Linux
over multiple occasions, but never all at once.
I suspect that anyone who has done so is a tiny minority on this list.
I do not think that it is fair to judge what a person is saying based
on that.
>
> Should I believe you when you say that?
Whether or not you believe anything I say is entirely up to you.
Personally, I would like to think that you would at least consider it,
but ultimately what we discuss here has very little to do with the
"price of tea in China."
> I know it seems to be picky of me, but I've often found that this
> particular expression is used more in the ironic mood.
You don't know me, and that's fine. If you did, when I say I am
offering you respect, you'd know that I mean exactly that. I might not
always agree with you, but we can have a civilized discussion.
>
> Perhaps it is to you. But if I needed only adaptation, the Macintosh
> is a much more comfortable environment to do the adaptation thing in.
If open source means something different to you that is certainly your
prerogative and I have nothing to say about it. For myself, the whole
point of open code is to improve it and find new uses.
>
> I have other needs. Unfortunately, there is no current OS/community
> that can provide me those needs. The nice, though uncomfortable, thing
> about the systemd business is that it brought my attention to that
> fact.
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. =(
I find the systemd issue to be less important because at any point
anyone who can reasonably compile code can assemble something that they
can use - with or without systemd. For me personally, the important
thing is FOSS: free open source software, not Linux specifically.
Generally speaking, I do not give a damn what certain factions within
Linux does, because if I am motivated, I can and will always be able to
ignore them. I can take the code and use it as I see fit.
You could respond that that is impossible for the non-programmer.
Truthfully, I do not think that is entirely the case anymore. Using
the right setup anyone can compile or assemble a working Linux with a
modicum of personal skill. I say this because after I showed a few
people how to use configure and make, they were able to take over from
there as long as they were using a stable codebase. That is not to say
that there can't be issues, but with tools, anyone can follow
directions.
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth.
Fair enough. That was never my intent, and if you are offended, I
apologize. One of the problems with the written word is that it is not
always possible to arrive at the same meaning, and we have different
cultures, which sometimes lead to misunderstandings in non-technical
conversation.
>
>
> Now, you see, you and I have a very different perspective on things
> here. I don't want to even put Doug into the position of having to
> wonder whether he should learn how to build his own OS from scratch.
> At least, not now, when it would not be very meaningful to do so.
I think that we are less far apart then you do, but in the end it does
not really make much difference to others.
I would ask "Why is someone using Debian or a Linux in the first
place?" If the answer is only because I do not want Windows, then I
believe that Debian is the wrong place for them.
Once, I felt as you do, but I realized Debian has at its heart a DIY
philosophy concerned primarily with FOSS. It has too many rough edges
and usability issues to be a user operating system. That is why Linux
never really succeeded in the consumer world until Android came
along.
>
> > I also prefer that in discussions of this nature, that people
> > maintain some logical distance - separating the person from the
> > code.
>
> No self-respecting engineer will claim that the code he produces can
> be separated from the context he operates in, including his
> personality.
>
> Sorry if I'm being too blunt with that.
That's fine. You're welcome to think what you like.
For myself, code is just code. It either works or it does not. It is
literally a mathematical expression that has absolutely nothing to do
with a person's ego. That's why I have virtually no tolerance for the
whole "Lennart" argument.
Systemd works.
Whether it works for you, works well, or is even appropriate in your
situation is entirely another matter that only you as Joel Rees, the
human being, can decide.
>
> Which, I am afraid, puts you in the pattern of those who defend the
> approach the cabal has taken.
You can go your own way as you see fit. That is whole point of the GPL
in my opinion. The code is FOSS. You can add or subtract whatever you
want. You can reject systemd as you see fit.
Systemd is just one approach. The Linux community seems to like it, and
so the majority are using it. If I might say so, this is nothing
new. Linux tends to snatch up whatever is considered "fashionable" at
the time. I've seen it before. Systemd and Docker are just the
latest in a long line of obsessions.
>
> The issue is not whether they should be leading their projects or not,
> the issue is whether what they build is really appropriate for
> becoming a necessary part of all major distributions of Linux kernel
> OSses.
If you will excuse me, that's not our decision to make.
FOSS is not about making everyone happy or whether something is "really
appropriate". It is about empowering you to make your own decisions.
Should you desire, you have the ability to fork code, and part
company with the herd.
Distributors have every right to build their Linux as they see fit.
You have the right to reject that and build your own. That's your
freedom, and that is all that was ever promised - nothing more.
If you ask me, Linux users are far too dependent on binary
distributions to start with. They fill a need for those who have time
constraints, but that's all. You are willingly allowing others to
make decisions for you, in return for using the fruits of their labor.
As such, IMHO, binary distro users have no standing to complain.
>
> > 2. GCC is also a finicky beast, and is hardly bug free. It
> > matters what compiler is used, even when compiling the kernel, much
> > less anything else. You can introduce bugs into software just by
> > using a different version of GCC than what the developers are using.
> What relevance does that have?
Quite a bit of relevance when I have seen people seize on bugs as an
excuse to proclaim something "bad." The drama in the Linux
mailing-list community never ends.
Generally, most Linux distros are a hodge-podge, and a number of bugs
are not necessarily caused by the software, but the manner in which it
was compiled.
IMHO, the first thing anyone should do is find the bug, and the reason
for it, then they might have reason to say someone else is at fault.
T.J.
Reply to: