[ale] [Fwd: Advertising on ale.org] - OT MS vs Apple vs Linux/UNIX

Tue Sep 15 10:47:24 EDT 2015

Or when "9/11 Truthers" would argue that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel girders in the towers, I'd ask, "but what about those tanks of chemicals they use to make the chemtrails? Who knows how hot that stuff burns?" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Charles Shapiro" <hooterpincher at gmail.com> 
To: "Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts" <ale at ale.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:31:15 AM 
Subject: Re: [ale] [Fwd: Advertising on ale.org] - OT MS vs Apple vs Linux/UNIX 

I chalk it all up to the Moon Landing Conspiracy. The moon landings were all faked, in a studio ON THE MOON. 

-- CHS 

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Damon L. Chesser < damon at damtek.com > wrote: 

On 09/12/2015 04:21 PM, Steve Litt wrote: 

<blockquote>
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:17:46 +0300 
damon at damtek.com wrote: 

<blockquote>
Ahhh. No 
It is in response to the long thread and the strong opinions in the 
thread and in fact was not directed at you or anybody else 
specifically. And IAW Godwin's law, I have now lost the debate. 

Yes, you have. Godwin's law doesn't work anymore, and it was always in 
bad taste. 

<blockquote>
Seriously, it was merely meant in jest. Don't like systemd, don't use 
it. Like systemd, use it. 

</blockquote>
The preceding two sentences encapsulate the entire issue. 

If systemd were just another modular, replaceable init, everyone you 
hear cursing it would be dancing in the streets. And truth be told, a 
lot of us might then choose to use systemd in certain use cases. 

The problem is, systemd has been engineered from the ground up to 
exchange dependencies with every part of the Linux system. The 
motivations for doing this are up for debate, but most folks who have 
every alt-initted a system will vouch for this: Once you're using a 
distro that has incorporated systemd as PID1, replacing systemd or any 
part of it is very, very difficult. 

For instance, if you currently have sysvinit, OpenRC, runit, s6 or 
Epoch, switching to runit, s6 or Epoch involves installing the new 
init, making a new run script (runit or s6) or config section (Epoch) 
for each *real* process (not the tens of no-reason processes and 
one-shots run by systemd). Not trivial, but not difficult for a Linux 
knowledgeable person. You also have to make a shutdown script, and you 
can find a lot of boilerplate for that on the Internet. It's also 
possible that you'll need to make minor alterations to your initramfs, 
but that's actually doubtful. 

Same thing with a systemd computer: Replace it with runit, s6 or Epoch. 
Now you need to find a udev equivalent, compile it, get it working. Or 
else you need to do a lot of workarounds with systemd's udev. You need 
to take dracut, and use it to create an initramfs that does *nothing 
but* mount the root partition, and then hand control to the on-disk 
init. As you do this, contemplate the trouble you'll be in if the 
systemd industry ever conquers dracut, the way it conquered udev. If 
so, you'll be back to hand-creating initramfs. And of course you'll 
need to do all the same things I mentioned when describing alt-initting 
a non-systemd box. 

Consider that if sysvinit had been as monolithically entangled with the 
user portion of the OS (and the kernel if they get their way with 
kdbus) as systemd is, Red Hat would have had to spend triple what they 
did to create a replacement init. But like all the other inits except 
systemd, sysvinit is an encapsulated PID1 plus service manager, so it 
was easy to replace. The systemd industry climbed the ladder of 
modularity, and then pulled the ladder up after them. 

I understand you're probably init agnostic, and that's fine. But you 
need to be thankful for the people working hard to provide alternatives 
to the Redhat funded juggernaut, because if Redhat ever succeeds in 
eliminating alternatives to systemd, they'll have a monopoly on Linux. 
Most entities who gain a monopoly do not behave well, and the user pays 
the price. 

</blockquote>

I am with Michael on this point. I am init agnostic and just don't care, but to claim the evil empire of Red Hat is behind this? Seems a bit bombastic? We all know the freedom haters of Debian remove choice at every turn, and that is why they are backing the init choice of systemd. Once Red Hat controls everything, then Debian can finally close down. Who needs those pesky Debian dev meetings anyway? Always yammering about some social contract this and social contract that. 

Gento wanted to give it's users only one choice, most like due to Red Hat financial interests, but the user base needed to be appeased, so they gave you a "choice" of which system to use when you installed it. Some choice. Systemd or the old system! Ha! Only two choices! Proof they are in league! 

<blockquote>

SteveT 

Steve Litt 
August 2015 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts 
http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust 

_______________________________________________ 
Ale mailing list 
Ale at ale.org 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale 
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo 

</blockquote>

-- 
Damon at damtek.com 
404-271-8699 

_______________________________________________ 
Ale mailing list 
Ale at ale.org 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale 
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo 

</blockquote>

_______________________________________________ 
Ale mailing list 
Ale at ale.org 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale 
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20150915/55fb63a0/attachment.html>