Re: Systemd files on a Raspberry Pi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 11/2/19 4:40 am, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 03:55:04AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Which, in turn, has xml, central database, socket activation and
> very rudimentary dependency resolution. I don't remember off-hand
> which one came first, launchd or SMF.
Yes, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter where it's
origins are from, nor it's inspirations. It is what it is regardless
of those.
>> If all goes to Pot, then choice will be lessened as projects make
>> it too difficult to maintain versions of their code sans
>> systemd.
>
> That's up to his IBM overlords to decide. As usual for the typical
> corporate development. So far they said nothing.
Well, I didn't mean the direct systemd related projects, but ones that
rely upon having systemd present to provide a "feature or service"
that is otherwise missing sans systemd and not coded to work around
that issue ... thus requiring a bad dependency that will lead either
to a project enforcing use of systemd when it really should be optional.
>>>> The "Unix is dead" comment was interesting.
>>>
>>> AIX and Solaris (well, AIX mostly) are begging to differ. Free
>>> software Unix (if such thing ever existed) - that's dead for
>>> sure.
>>
>> There is at least the BSD variants, are they really dead too?
>
> I specifically mention "Unix". FreeBSD, which is the parent of all
> modern BSDs, is free from AT&T code since '94, therefore is not a
> Unix. BSDs may be twitching, but they ain't Unix.
That's too literal, I think more along the lines of *nix -- the more
options, the better, so long as options don't have too many things
that are blockers for their competing OS versions. That is, not to
heavily rely upon a particular kernel (of any OS). Both btrfs and
systemd are very much reliant upon specific LINUX ONLY kernels and
even worse, the version of the kernel itself. There are enough issues
with variants of ext4 having issues with a live USB environment not
being "new" enough to pick up on all the features of the ext4 fs when
trying to do emergency rescue -- amplify that with systemd in a
similar situation.
>>>> Has it really has become Linux or nothing?
>>>
>>> No. See SCO vs IBM case. Linux is not Unix, and never has
>>> been.
Well, SCO, IBM, RH before IBM, Oracle.... they all have their issues.
>> We also have Luminos varieties... SmartOS and others.
>
> They are as stillborn as their parent, OpenSolaris. Also, see
> Netapp vs Nexenta case. That's what happens to OpenSolaris
> offsprings once they leave their crib.
Maybe so, but I don't know current status of these; they were always
(to date when last looked at), not ready for prime time or used by too
few to be relevant enough. We could relate this to VHS vs Beta, we
know that technically Beta was far better, but VHS won the market with
the same types of problems with HD video content types (HD-DVD vs
Bluray for instance).
>>>> It is a pity that Oracle has their licensing problems in
>>>> relation to ZFS
>>>
>>> Please blame Sun Microsystems for *that*. Oracle's merely
>>> keeping the status-quo.
>>
>> Yes, but Oracle could fix that if they wanted to.
>
> Why would they? For Oracle any Operating System is a big launcher
> of their database and assorted Java shovelware.
They don't want to; they want to own it all. Such greed in and of
itself is a different matter. Heck, if you wanted to reverse engineer
Oracle product to help fix it's security problems, their license
doesn't allow you to do so without risk of litigation. So, they can
keep their own bad code where it exists and be damned because those
that could help make it better are disallowed from doing so. Sadly
too, JAVA has stood in time to represent "Just Another Vulnerability
Announcement".... I was hoping (in vain) that Oracle would fix that
problem. But I suspect Java will become abandon ware like Adobe Flash
Player will be soon. Might I add that the sooner Java and Flash are
finished, the better for everyone.
>> The JAVA fiasco that Oracle hope to profit from royally from
>> Google is another box of pox.
>
> So called 'JAVA fiasco' had its share of hype, but that's it. If
> you're looking for real fiascoes (sp?), search for HP vs Oracle
> case.
Maybe, but the main point from my view is that Oracle isn't a player
whom plays nicely with our community and we should avoid giving them
further market share of anything and everything when we can reasonably
do so with alternative software.
>>>> and there are great alternative implementations now;
>>>
>>> You mean, ZFS-on-Linux? It's a fork of OpenSolaris' ZFS
>>> implementation, not something that's written from scratch.
>>
>> Maybe so, but it isn't limited to Sun (or now Oracle systems).
>> And it isn't limited to Linux as opposed to BSD variants or
>> Luminos variants.
>
> And here lies the irony. FreeBSD, OpenIndiana, Illumos - they all
> now consider ZFS-on-Linux as upstream. And, as Solaris 11.4 shows
> us, Oracle too can consider borrowing a feature or two from
> ZFS-on-Linux.
>
> The main problem is - ZFS is not native for Linux. It was (as still
> - see Solaris porting layer kernel module - spl) written with
> Solaris kernel facilities at mind.
Yes, but again, this is tangential to the issues of systemd. Still, I
have considerably more confidence in ZFS (sans Oracle) than with
btrfs. There are real options for multiple OS implementations here,
heck, Apple even toyed with ZFS, but for some reason they quit it
(possibly due to Oracle one way or another). If you get fully caught
up in the systemd world, then you are limited to Linux variants only.
Cheers
A.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEAREIAB0WIQTJAoMHtC6YydLfjUOoFmvLt+/i+wUCXGBt6wAKCRCoFmvLt+/i
+5faAQCQ7tudwfBmRYbH9SEZeA2q5SOB0RXU4RJx0na/ZtG6rgD/bGPcvp8SnqDQ
0EhlpDXCk+fu4y96z7aLPj70MrTVo4I=
=gIMO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: