On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Frank Peters <frank.pet...@comcast.net> > wrote: > [ snip ] > > Check out page 18 of the 2014 GNOME Asia talk: > > http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf > > > > "Our objectives: > > > > Turing Linux from a bag of bits into a competitive General Purpose > > Operating System. > > > > Building the Internet's Next Generation OS. > > > > Unifying pointless differences between distributions." > > > > Can it be any clearer that the Gnome (RedHat) folks desire to > > usurp total control of the Linux ecosystem to serve their own > > ends? RedHat needs Linux to make a profit and it will mold > > Linux to better attain this end. > > Whoa. How did you jumped from "Turing Linux from a bag of bits into a > competitive General Purpose Operating System" to "usurp total control > of the Linux ecosystem to serve their own ends"? There is literally no > way you can start from the first and logically arrive to the second. > Actually, it seems like a pretty clear synonymous interpretation to me. Also, I think you are using "literally" wrong in this context, as Frank clearly "literally" just did so. > > With Free Software you *cannot* usurp *anything*. The code is free and > is out there. Any large group of sufficiently talented developers can > take that code and do *anything* with it. Why it hasn't happened I > explain down below, but let me be very clear: that kind of talking is > nonsense. > > > Is Linux currently just a "bag of bits." A lot of people > > would take serious issue with this inane comment, but according > > to the Gnome (RedHat) folks they are here to save us all > > from the terrible shortcomings of Linux (whether we want it or > > not). > > Linux *is* a bag of bits, meaning a lot of loose coupled components; > that's why when a third party developer wants to build something for > Linux they end up creating a whole distribution (SteamOS), or bundling > everything and the kitchen sink (Google Chrome). It is not demeaning, > is a statement of fact. > SteamOS and Google Chrome are both created by companies that want to have THEIR pieces of top-down control over YOUR computer. They may have legitimate (read: "Intellectual Property") reasons for doing so, but that *is* nevertheless their goal, so if you're okay with ceding control to these for-profit corporations, and paying in tangibles and intangibles to do so, then fine. If not, do not use their products. > > Notice the remark about the "pointless differences between > > distributions." This is nothing more than a disguised condemnation > > of the diversity, variety, and choice which has always been the > > strongest feature of the Linux world. > > That diversity, variety, and choice is very well, but *someone* (in > fact, many "someones") needs to work maintaining that diversity, > variety, and choice. If there is a single tool that solves the > problems of many developers, they *will* rely on that tool, and stop > supporting any inferior/less featureful tool. You would like to keep > using the less featureful tool? Then help the developers of different > projects to keep using it. > > > Now check out page 5: > > > > "What's systemd again? ... The glue between the applications and > > the kernel." > > > > IOW, the kernel and the applications, once sufficient in themselves, > > will now require the product that they (RedHat/Gnome) make and control > > in order to function at all. Don't like it? Tough. Try and find a > > distribution without it, and good luck re-writing all this stuff from > > scratch all by your lonesome. > > As I stated in my previous mail to you, you are spreading FUD. GNOME, > systemd, *and* the kernel have developers from many companies and > projects. There is no Illuminati inside RedHat deciding the future of > no one but that company itself. > > That's first of all; second of all, Gentoo doesn't require systemd. > You want to keep it that way? Help OpenRC, and eudev, and all the > alternative projects that don't want to rely on systemd. If you (and > all the others that don't want to use systemd) don't, then (I repeat) > don't act surprised when systemd is the only option in Linux. > > > But why stop here? All they need to do is get rid of Linus Torvalds > > himself. After all, he's just a nuisance from a previous and obsolescent > > generation. Let's have the truly progressive folks, like RedHat/Gnome, > > assume command of it all. > > Actually, Linus seems to be OK with systemd[1]. It's probably not his > favorite project, but in that interview it ends up giving many of the > best pro-systemd arguments I've heard. > > If you want to believe (or fabricate) conspiracy theories, that's > fine; I (and most Linux users) don't care about that. We care about > Linux and technological sound solutions and arguments. And that's the > crux of the matter: as I have previously stated, *any* large group of > talented developers can take the free software in all the Linux stack > (from kernel to userspace), and do *whatever* the hell they want with > it, as long as they continue to return the modified code to the > community. That's how Free Software works; that's *exactly* what > Google has done with Android. > > Then why the alternatives are not attracting *huge* amount of > developers? Why uselessd is one guy, and OpenRC three or four, and > udev has a handful of developers trying to keep up with systemd-udev? > > Some people will tell you that it's because of RedHat's money. And > that is so obviously wrong that is even laughable. In the kernel, > systemd, and all the other parts of the stack (including GNOME) there > are *many* companies involved. And not only small companies like > Collabora and Igalia; but *HUGE* ones like IBM and Intel. Why would > those companies let another one (RedHat) take "control" of Linux? > > They don't. They *support* the idea of systemd, because (pardon me for > raising my voice) IS TECHNOLOGICALLY BETTER. > > And that's what most systemd-haters don't understand. They scream and > throw tantrums about systemd, while most developers (the people that > *actually* gives us Linux, the whole stack) quietly check out the > benefits and downsides of using systemd, and in a large majority > decide that the right thing to do is using it. > > That's why Arch, Suse, Gentoo-based Sabayon, Debian and even *Ubuntu* > switched (or are about to switch) to systemd. Why would Canonical > start using systemd in its distribution if it would help its rival, > RedHat, to take "control"? They would not; they switched because a > large majority of developers agree that systemd is the superior > option. > > Rich Freeman (Gentoo developer, member of the Council) said better than > I[2]: > > "The argument about whether systemd is better/worse than sysvinit was > a debate back in 2012-2013. Just about anybody actually contributing > to distros has moved on since then. That doesn't mean that there is > 100% agreement on anything, just that at this point it seems unlikely > that things are going to change much either way on that front. A few > distros are likely to avoid systemd, and the vast majority are in the > process of adopting it. > > "With Gentoo you can run whatever you want for PID 1, just as you can > use whatever bootloader, kernel, syslog, etc you want. Not all the > init options have equal support - upstart isn't even in the tree and > few packages supply scripts for runit. But, nobody is going to get in > anybody's way if they want to introduce upstart, etc. > > "The fact is among those actually contributing to projects like > openrc, udev, eudev, and systemd everybody tends to get along just > fine. There is plenty of interest in finding common ground and > collaborating so that anybody switching from one to another can do so > easily, and so that these projects don't diverge where it isn't > intended. It seems like the heaviest fighting seems to involve folks > who don't contribute to any of these." > > I will repeat the last sentence: > > "It seems like the heaviest fighting seems to involve folks who don't > contribute to any of these." > > You don't *have* to use systemd; but if you *want* something > different, then you *should* contribute to the alternatives. Otherwise > people (starting with me, for what it matters) will start ignoring > you. "Oh, another one that critiques systemd without contributing to > any alternative. Most likely, he doesn't know what he's talking about. > Next." > > Regards. > > [1] > http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd > [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/277512 > -- > Canek Peláez Valdés > Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México > >
