"Lennart Poettering Linux" -- some real eye openers here ... don't be blindsided!
Forwarding a message "as is" from another mailing list ... very relevant
to Linux and the systemd dilemma.
begin forward...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
On Fri, 30.05.14 04:32, Michael Biebl (mbiebl at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2014-05-30 4:26 GMT+02:00 Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>:
>
> > You update systemd but you don't update the kernel? How does that make
> > any sense?
>
> There might be very valid reasons why you need to stick with the old
> kernel. As said, one example could be that the new one simply doesn't
> boot. Requiring lock-step upgrades makes the system less
> fault-tolerant.
> So where possible this should be avoided.
To make this clear, we expect that systemd and kernels are updated in
lockstep. We explicitly do not support really old kernels with really
new systemd. So far we had the focus to support up to 2y old kernels
(which means 3.4 right now), but even that should be taken with a grain
of salt, as we already made clear that soon after kdbus is merged into
the kernel we'll probably make a hard requirement on it from the systemd
side.
I am tempted to say that we should merge the firmware loader removal
patch at the same time as the kdbus requirement is made. As that would
be a clean cut anyway...
Also note that at that point we intend to move udev onto kdbus as
transport, and get rid of the userspace-to-userspace netlink-based
tranport udev used so far. Unless the systemd-haters prepare another
kdbus userspace until then this will effectively also mean that we will
not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that
point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call.
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
---
According to that logic, Linux is Linux+udev+kdbus+systemd ..
In tone it is pure bullying. "I have taken udev and it will not work
without systemd and I don't care about anything else".
I don't think it fits in a GNU/Linux community project like Debian. It is
not collaborative at all.
It is good for a company like Red Hat to have "our ecosystem everywhere"
but not for the rest.
Lock-step is good for attackers. If I update X I better update Y and
update Z too. oh, I don't know. Maybe don't update. And I do not need Z's
functionality but I better do it all..
It is not good for embedded systems if the dependencies are many, become
circular and hard to understand.
The NSA will love it.
Linux will work as long as you use it the way Poettering and Red Hat wants
you to use it.
Well, I have as much interest in it as using Windows or Mac OS X;-)
BTW: People are mangling init(8) and sysV init in the discussion. You can
run init and then comes inittab, rc.conf, /etc/rc to change between run
levels and than /etc/init.d/*.
You can change all that and it does not hurt a bit;-)
Regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Reply to: