Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Malcolm XML
Aug 8, 2009

I always knew it would end like this.

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

bearded sadist

mods

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Smythe
Oct 12, 2003

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

creates jobs for bearded sadists

lol

Sapozhnik
Jan 2, 2005

Nap Ghost

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

creates jobs for bearded masochists

Sapozhnik
Jan 2, 2005

Nap Ghost
also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns

http://community.arm.com/groups/arm-mali-graphics/blog/2014/08/14/mali-x11-vs-wayland-at-siggraph-2014

gnome's wayland support still isn't usable though :(

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003

by Pragmatica

Mr Dog posted:

also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns

http://community.arm.com/groups/arm-mali-graphics/blog/2014/08/14/mali-x11-vs-wayland-at-siggraph-2014

gnome's wayland support still isn't usable though :(

gnome 3 still isn't usable, so no big loss.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003

by Pragmatica
srsly suspdish, if you are privy to market research or stats or anything, which percentage of fedora users used gnome 3?

eschaton
Mar 7, 2007

Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

pram posted:

linux is a kernel my friend, a part of the GNU operating ssytem, which is comprised of many different open source components with contributions from members around the globe!!

immersion ruined, people who sperg out about GNU don't say "open source"

eschaton
Mar 7, 2007

Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?
here's Linux on my desktop



Soricidus
Oct 21, 2010
freedom-hating statist shill

Mr Dog posted:

also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns

http://community.arm.com/groups/arm-mali-graphics/blog/2014/08/14/mali-x11-vs-wayland-at-siggraph-2014

gnome's wayland support still isn't usable though :(

i don't care how much objectively superior it may be as a technology, I want nothing to do with it. if hitler handed you an amazing new video stack, would you use it? of course you wouldn't, because new things are bad.

Notorious b.s.d.
Jan 25, 2003

by Reene
wayland sounds really cool but i don't anticipate using it until like 2025

theadder
Dec 30, 2011


Sniep posted:

holy poo poo look at all those words in 28pt font that im not going to read

ya wtf is goin on there

pram
Jun 10, 2001
here u go


Shall we fork Debian™? :^| debianfork

Who are you?!
We are Veteran Unix Admins and we are concerned about what is happening to Debian GNU/Linux to the point of considering a fork of the project.
And why would you do that?
Some of us are upstream developers, some professional sysadmins: we are all concerned peers interacting with Debian and derivatives on a daily basis.
We don't want to be forced to use systemd in substitution to the traditional UNIX sysvinit init, because systemd betrays the UNIX philosophy.
We contemplate adopting more recent alternatives to sysvinit, but not those undermining the basic design principles of "do one thing and do it well" with a complex collection of dozens of tightly coupled binaries and opaque logs.
Are there better solutions than forking?
Yes: vote Ian Jackson's proposal to preserve freedom of choice of init systems.
Then make sure sysvinit stays the default for now, systemd can be optional.
Debian leaders can go on evaluating more init systems, just not impose one that ignores the needs of most of its users.
Why don't you do that yourselves?
We are excluded from voting on the issue: only few of us have the possibility to interact with Debian on a voluntary basis.
Now we do what we can, hoping our concerns will be heard by those who can cast a vote about it.

[edit/clarification]

Since this seems to be one of the most prominent critiques, we'd like
to clarify this point. With lack of possibility we refer to our
capacity to be involved in a complex bureaucratic system like the one
governing Debian. While we respect this way of working, we think that
our time may be better invested in new directions, also according to
our expertise.
Is really all this fuss necessary?
To quote Ian Jackson:
"This resolution is not only important within Debian, and not only for jessie (its next release). It is also important feedback for upstreams, and our peer distros and downstreams".
Why is this happening in your opinion?
The current leadership of the project is heavily influenced by GNOME developers and too much inclined to consider desktop needs as crucial to the project, despite the fact that the majority of Debian users are tech-savvy system administrators.
Moreover Debian today is haunted by the tendency to betray its own mandate, a base principle of the Free Software movement: put the user's rights first. What is happening now instead is that through a so called "do-ocracy" developers and package maintainers are imposing their choices on users.
Can you articulate your critique to systemd?
To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, we see systemd being very prone to mission creep and bloat and likely to turn into a nasty hairball over the longer term.
We like controlling the startup of the system with shell scripts that are readable, because readability grants a certain level of power and consciousness for those among us who are literate, and we believe that centralizing control services, sockets, devices, mounts, etc., all within one daemon is a slap in the face of the UNIX philosophy.
A timely reply by some people willing to use systemd is visible at forkfedora.org. This page is useful to highlight a fundamental difference: systemd may simplify the task of configuring init, but it does so by enforcing an increasingly opaque approach to the init procedure. In systemd sure it appears easier: one can tweak a few variables and have all the rest handled by a big binary system that is way bigger than sysvinit. It can be said that the security model of systemd relies much more on developers and package maintainers and much less on system administrators.
Again please consider that, as Debian users, we are simply asking not to be forced into this model and, taking into account the CTTE vote on the issue was almost draw, we believe its execution should be way more attentive in listening to what many users are asking: freedom of choice, starting from what we have.
How long are your beards?
This is not a beard contest, rest assured the furry ones among us are not sheep.
To sum it up?
If systemd will be substituting sysvinit in Debian, we will fork the project and create a new distro. We hope this won't be necessary, but we are well prepared for it.
If you like to follow how things evolve in Debian, here is the page about the General Resolution: init system coupling.
We need to talk.
Sure, write an email to VUA@debianfork.org.
Are you guys alone in this?
Not at all, there are more protests against the imposition of systemd on users.
This article is a good introduction to the issue at hand: Systemd: Harbinger of the Linux apocalypse.
There is the boycott systemd website providing several references.
Then there is the "systemd fork" called uselessd with some good points and lots of lulz.
An exit strategy is being elaborated at The World After Systemd
The wikipedia page lists also some critiques in its systemd reception section.
With our protest we intend to represent the discontent of Debian users, because that's who we are. We intend to keep using Debian on our servers, or a fork if necessary. Others might have other goals, but we all share a common problem: systemd being imposed on us.
Thanks for doing this. How can I help?
Cheers.
You can help by talking to fellow Debian developers and convince them of how wrong is to betray a very big and relevant userbase by listening to desktop needs.
Also it can be helpful to monitor and update the Wikipedia page about systemd (to keep it objective, not to vandalize it! we love Wikipedia <3)
If you like to support this effort financially: good to let us know, but hold your horses for now as it may not be needed.
To tip the hat please spare some change for Dyne.org the non-profit organization hosting this website.
How are people reacting to your protest?
Here below some of the messages we are receiving. If you write us please consider we may quote you anonymously, unless you specify not to.
We will keep your email private and later send you a notice about our next steps.

I'm with you guys in the way that systemd is not the way forward. But I do
not think that sysvinit is the way forward either. Maybe another init
system? Like GNU DMD? I know its still pretty immature, but I think it's a
good init system. I don't think sysvinit is ever going to make a comeback.

And forking Debian? That's a very hard feat. Debian is the biggest Linux
distro to date with hundreds of developers and at least 10 times as much
users. And you'll have to change a lot of things from upstream. Even
Ubuntu decided to use systemd instead of having to change the base init to
upstart. Perhaps going to Slackware instead? That's what I use. Its very
UNIX like. If that's what you strive for.

Thank you so much for this. I've been using Debian since Hamm and this
systemd nonsense has me ready to jump ship.

I don't know who is behind that email, but sincerely, thank you for
doing this. I'm an UNIX/Linux sysadmin for nearly 20 years, I am
nowadays dealing with a 5k servers which consists of nearny 90%
debian systems. I've been a long time opponent to systemd, first
because I read the code (thing that too few of that crap's zealots
do), and ultimately because I tried it. That thing is a desktop
toy, and even then, it has failed me on 50% of the cases. Its very
nature is an abomination to UNIX principles and me and my team,
colleagues, friends on the sysadmin field are *VERY* worried (to
say the least) on what's coming. Please keep that movement going,
make it strong, and if you want a hand, count me in.

Again, thank you.

I've been using runit as my init system on debian wheezy/jessie for a
while now and it works pretty well. glad to see the effort though on
debianfork.org . cool.

Do you realize that there's already more than 150 Debian
derivative? Instead of doing one more, you're better off helping
one of the already existing derivatives. Writing "fork" is the joke
part, since that would only be a derivative, unless every Debian
Developer follows you, which will *not* happen.

Also, instead of just writing words on the internet, wouldn't you
think that helping some of the systemd alternative be a lot more
productive?

FYI, I don't like systemd either. And I've been maintaining OpenRC
in Debian, and trying to push for it to work on as many arch as
possible. Though I currently don't have the time for it (for
professional and personal reasons), and some others are a bit
taking over the work, but it's not going as fast as it should. Some
help would be awesome, and would help a way better than writing
funny text on the net.

I will support you guys with code if the fork goes ahead. But kindly
think of another name.

Why don't you guys help out with Debian LTS? No systemd there, and
they need help at the moment.

I'm in, at least in general. "because readability grants a certain
level of power and consciousness for those among us who are literate"

I'd edit that to add that systemd is for software devs, but sysvinit
is for sysadmins. Sysadmins can debug shell scripts, but not
necessarily debug and recompile systemd, which will of course be
necessary in the course of admin duties. Excessive product tying and
complication for the sake of complication takes away the ability of
admins to administer, which is highly counter productive. The
response from the systemd astroturfers is invariably along the lines
of software, especially our software, will never have bugs (LOL)

"Pure Debian by Veteran Unix Admins." any other name has to be better
than that. At least try not to violate trademarks by putting in (tm).

You missed an excellent lack of freedom argument. There will be only
one way to do it and it will be mandatory and all else will be
forbidden and only one guy gets to decide. Intentional
incompatibility is a pretty screwed up way to go thru life. It does
not help that most of the new features and abilities of systemd appear
totally useless. If one mp3 player was useless and awful, that would
be OK, unless the inquisition extinguished all other mp3
players... that would suck. Although this is whats being done with
systemd.

And the embrace extend extinguish issue. If submarine software
patents sink apache (unlikely, but possible) then I don't really care
although the emergency conversion to nginx might be a PITA for a day.
When the one and only init system to bind them all is subverted either
by submarine patent or security holes then the temporary work around
will be to install the xyz package to switch to ... well I guess it'll
be impossible and I'd have to switch to freebsd.

There is a cost - benefit ratio issue. Most of what systemd is
capable of doing is unfortunately completely useless and irrelevant in
comparison to what is being lost WRT to ease of debugging and
reliability and security and freedom. If the costs were low/zero, the
useless features it provides would likely still not be worth it, but
at least the ratio would make it less awful. To some extent the whole
situation is a farce. You've got software devs deciding what desktop
users that don't exist want, while ignoring actual current desktop
users, and they're re-applying that "successful" (LOL) development
model to screw over sysadmins, and we're not subject to being told
what we want by non-admins. Its a very arrogant business model.

If/when you start publishing work for your fork

Can you see if it can be documented in a way those of us in the redhat
world could take advantage of it? We have the same problem and concerns,
well at least the could *nix admin in our shop. Myself included.

We are also considering looking at alternatives and we all have used
debian in the past and most use ubuntu for desktop (there is always that
one mandrake guy) so I will be keeping an eye on this project as well.

Whatever the outcome you have my support !

Using various Unices since System V on an ICL Clan 4, and as long-time
BSD, Slackware and Debian user, I just don’t want systemd imposed on
me, whatever the purpose. Whether it’s total crap, a good idea or a
mix of both, this has to be *optional* and surely not a default. I
want to keep my servers and embedded systems bloat-free with only
their intended software sets installed. Why don’t *they* fork Debian
and do whatever they want ? I like Debian the way it is (was) like a
good grilled steak with nothing superfluous added, no fancy
sauce. Thank you for your efforts !

I've been on Linux for over 15 years, I'm also a contributor in
Fedora and author of NetworkManager-ssh (SSH plugin for Network
manager). I'm a sort of a cross between a sysadmin and developer,
currently doing both.

I'm predominantly a Fedora user (and contributor) and am thinking
recently about forsaking Fedora in favour of something without
systemd (was thinking PCBSD). I've been around Linux for a while
and understand the core philosophy behind it and how systemd just
betrays all of that. I actually had an argument with Mr. Pottering
on the Fedora-dev list about having /var/log/messages having a
binary format. When log files in linux will not be plain text -
it'll be the end in my opinion. needless to say Pottering didn't
agree with me and tried to shut me up.

Pottering somehow managed to push systemd quite far in Fedora and
at the moment I'm in absorption mode trying to digest WTF happened
to my Fedora with systemd. Horrow show.

If this fork goes forward, I promise to try and do my best to
contriube as much as possible. I'm good with packaging and shell, I
believe I will be able to help. I think you guys hit the nail on
the head with your web page and you have my full support.

Lets not let our voice be silenced

As a veteran (20+ years; Solaris, HP-UX, RHEL, Debian) sysadmin who
prefers Debian over everything for use on about 40 GUIless servers,
it's either this (a fork away from systemd) or I move away from Debian
altogether.

Many thanks for the effort here, while it's not a big thing to
replace systemd on jessie/sid installation with sysvinit, it's not
easy to create an installer image which installs the OS without
systemd. I made an image which you can find on
http://without-systemd.org/debian-jessie/ The big problem is
tasksel, tasksell will install all Packages with the priorities
required, important and standard. Unfortunately systemd has the
priority importand and will be installed again, if you select
"standard system utilities" in tasksel, to fix that, i would have
to create my own Debian repository :-(

I hope for a solution without a fork. But if you need help with
forking, please contact me.

I support your idea of forking Debian to exclude systemd and its
multitude of tentacles. Please follow through. Also, please make
available means by which us mere users (though I've got kernel-hacking
and systems-architecture ambitions myself) may participate in an
effective way.

As I see it, the simplest way to fork Debian as of october 2014 would
entail taking a full-system snapshot (per package versions), available
from snapshot.d.o, from a time before systemd dependencies were
introduced, and then adding on top any updates that didn't add
such. This would re-use nearly all mainline Debian effort and require
only porting of e.g. eudev from other systemd-less distributions. Of
course GNOME would have to go; fortunately there is MATE.

Thanks for doing this. I run four Debian servers in production,
three of which are connected to an IRC network. Gnome remains the
default DE on Debian for accessibility reasons, so it's obvious
they have the monopoly of votes in favor of systemd. Large
companies like Red Hat are also backing destroying the
UNIX-philosophies.

Once I heard Debian would be making the switch to systemd, I've
been slowly migrating all Debian servers over to OpenBSD over the
impending death of Debian. There's still much that leaves me
missing Debian, most importantly the large amount of different
packages that are not available in OpenBSD and would take lots of
effort to port over.

I have been worried about systemd colonizing all the linux distros for
a long time and it's really happening. I want users to retain freedom
to use the init system they choose rather than being locked in.

The debian mailing list vote about whether to switch to systemd was
atrocious, in no way did it come to a consensus but they still forced
this upon us? This was the reason I quit using debian. If you look
around there are very few remaining distros that aren't getting taken
over by systemd!

Your project is a good idea and I wish you the best.

Should set up a page collecting signatures

I'd add mine in a heartbeat.

It would make an interesting list of people.

Does it have to come to this? I get the feeling that there is a
tsunami of opposition to systemd, and most of it seems to be from very
knowledgeable guys. What I hear about systemd is very worrying, how
is it that Debian could get to the brink of a fundamental fork over
something that so many people think is Absolutely Wrong? Who is in
charge here, and what are they thinking?

I like the idea of Debian not being tied to systemd - whether that
comes around through voting or forking seems immaterial.

That said it's too late for me; the very fact that systemd is a
likely prospect has motivated me to jump ship to FreeBSD. I'm
already using it on my personal laptop, and will be migrating all
my machines over to it shortly.

So, something to consider: some long-time (since 1995, in my case!)
Linux users have already voted with their feet. The Debian team
shouldn't necessarily take silence as consent, as the most deeply
disaffected users may already have left.

In fact, a long-term FreeBSD user I know says there's been a spike
of interest on the BSD lists since systemd was announced. I
suspect I'm far from alone in having already departed.

I’d really appreciate if you work tightly on something that
could possibly remove bad consequences of systemd’s “brute spellforce”
integration in major distros by GNOME’s and RedHat’s employees. My
only warning to you will be that I can predict much of major distros
supporters are not very educated about UNIX philosophy and related
things and that way RH and GNOME will easily convince them by great
masses splitting UNIX and GNU/Linux popularity below the edge of elite
again. You need very strong voluntary public relations supporting
anti-systemd tendencies and not only coders of strong mind.

Thanks guys for speaking up and saving the freedom to admin one of
the few fully open distros.

SysV Init ist he only reasonable thing at the moment from a
security point of view,

Systemd is a code maintainance nightmare waiting to come...

If they want to use it for a desktop-only distribution, then they
should make a flavour of it, along with all the non-X-Windows
Destop stuff (Wayland, Mir).

This is how it should be done - it's a pity the rocklinux
distribution and its fork t2-project are both on hold lacking devs.


Your website is wonderful, and exactly the message that needs to be
going out in these trying times. I've been using Debian on my servers
and intermittently on my personal machines for about 6 years now,
through thick and thin, and the troubling wind of systemd is the only
thing that has made me even consider switching away. The binary
journals are absolutely evil, to say nothing of the awful desecration
of the Unix philosophy.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Greetings, and thanks for your website and thoughts.

Systemd is one thing, but what about dbus? Some people like to
have notifications pop up, for example when a Handbrake transcoding
process is done.

A systemd-free dbus could support a lot of existing packages
without pulling in systemd. According the apt-cache showpkg, 84
packages depend on dbus There are 1520 commits in dbus since
systemd support went in in 2010.

Another approach would be to fork at the *package level familiar
apps and libraries, turning off systemd or dbus compile options, to
create e.g. audacity-lean instead of audacity.

Of course, a complete fork would involve enormous manpower, people
power

When I tried to voice my concerns on "Arch" Forums a couple years ago,
regarding my shock to what I called "the redhatization of Arch" -they
really didn't give a poo poo, to put it mildly. :) I realize Arch Forums
are rough on their Users, but I never realized just how "Peotter-ized"
they had become.

People talk about jumping the Debian ship if Debian goes full-bore
systemd, the problem is there is almost nowhere to go now. ? Redhat,
Arch, ... they and ALL their derivative distro's are now systemd, and
systemd only -with NO optional init's whatsoever. -no choice. -or
atleast, not easy ones, and definitely not without a lotta work, and
once dhcpd falls prey to systemd, well, it'll be all over -except for
the crying. If Debian goes, and it will, then there will be NO ONE
left.

So yes, I fully support you guys if you have to fork a systemd-free
Debian, then so be it. I'm on your side.

I blame IBM/Redhat for this entire systemd-controlling nightmare.
IBM/Redhat/Intel/Gnome/Wayland ..., with Intel pushing for Wayland,
..., and guess what everything will be built around ? and I ain't just
talkin 'bout pulseaudio here -lol. Systemd is an octopus with mammoth
contolling entanglements, getting more powerful with each day.

I surely hope this "fork" of Debian can become a future-proof survival
effort against the likes of this (juggernaut)-systemd-Linux ? I am
not an advanced Programmer, I'm just an ex-Sysadmin. I was there when
Solaris 10 moved to "SMF" as their "rc" scripts replacements,...
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Management_Facility However,
the way Solaris did it was the "right" way for them, whereas to me,
Systemd, as it is in Linux, is so wrong, and much much worse. SystmeD
is a basic rip-off of that.

SystemD represents the evil "Windopwsization" of Linux. I mean, for
god sakes, what was so wrong about using "OpenRC" ?!, atleast that
drat thing is "portable". And finally, that's the other reason I
support your efforts here. I use OpenBSD, and FreeBSD regularly as
well, and I believe the ease of "portability" is also very important
across Linux <-> BSD's, wherever possible.

Thank you for your intention to fork Debian when systemd becomes
mandatory and the current poll is lost.

I'm using Debian as a server system for about 15 years now and I'm
very much used to administering sysvinit-scripts and I like them
and I like the robustness of this system.

You have my support for your idea!

I am a programmer and part-time system administrator. I, too, have
been considering whether or not a fork (given enough support) would be
possible if Debian choose systemd exclusively. It is reassuring to
see that others are thinking along the same lines. If the fork does
need to go ahead, I would be very willing to assist.

I am sysadmin and I am using Debian for servers since version
2.0/Hamm. I don't like the direction of the Debian and most of my
servers at the moment are still on Squeeze and I am not planning to
upgrade them ever because of systemd crap.

I am using 'runit' at the moment for keeping services up and
running (was using daemontools before) and I want to see this
system as an option for replacing init/systemd.

My opinion -> FORK IT!

I am familiar with debian package system and I will volunteer for
package maintainer of the new fork of Debian if necesery.

Thanks for more publicity about keeping alternatives to systemd in
Debian.

There's another small group of people who collects data about running
Linux with proper init systems:

http://the-world-after-systemd.ungleich.ch/

You may be also interested in the prevent-systemd-* packages in the
APT repository at http://users.unixforge.de/~tglaser/debs/debidx.htm

I am one of those GNU/Linux users who chose to use it to avoid
software imposition from above. With systemd I am experiencing the
same blow, and it reminds me of the time, when changes in the OS
took place following a direction I disliked as it didn't cater for
the needs of someone like me. systemd will remove my freedom to
modify the system the way I want it to be. It is a blow to software
transparency and it will demotivate anyone choosing GNU/Linux to
use a different OS with a different philosophy.

Although, I am not formally qualified as a coder, I do it as a
passtime. I learnt on my own and can use C++, C and Object Pascal.
Lately, I have settled myself to using C++ although using C is a
not inaccessible to me with some extra effort.

First i would like to say that i am not against your idea.
If you want to fork, just do it.Make your own distro.

Second, you should consider to actively participate in things that
matter and not just go for publicity like a good politician.Systemd
was voted, not enforced and that procedure has a name.Democracy.

Third you are not believable when you say you want alternative init
systems. Because you don't care what is best but what touches your
personal feelings.

By the way do you have any idea what resources it needs for such a
thing? But of course you do not have the time to participate, so how
would you know?Ask Ubuntu.

Last let me say that in 2014 we need to think how to progress the
Linux ecosystem (not UNIX system} and there is no philosophy behind
it, it's not the meaning of life.There are morale issues on how
technology is used and that is why we care how it is build, that is
why we support open source.Engineering is just a skill and if you
disagree with what someone builds just do what you think is better.

Thank you for this initiative, though i've only cross-read the
counter-arguments they do appear valid and sufficiently
substantiated by personal experience when it comes to such
convoluted "one-in-all solutions" It is hard to believe an
established company such as Red Hat is actually advocating it's
use. Recently i've also learned about musl-libc which does seem to
be a viable alternative for future system growth. At least in
spirit and to some extent in proof already, not a perfect drop-in
but the potential does seem obvious.

Debian is a META-OS, i was there on fidonet when it took shape and
the idea has proven visionary in many ways. Choosing for a
mono-init-system approach would make it just another distro. Though
by now it could probably need some trimming or reorganisation in
some places, overall quality seems to have degraded a bit here and
there.

It is due time for a wiki dedicated to the design of a new init
system, a massive community influenced design of such importance
would prove significant in many ways. For non-critical systems
systemd will have it's benefits but the "feel" is "awkward" even
from an operational perspective. Let's just not fall into another
flamewar based on fear and prejudices on both sides, maybe the
authors of systemd are forthcomming in adapting to the community
criticism and a win-win can be achieved.

A wonderful idea. It would send a message that few could ignore that
systemd is a serious power grab and an unwelcome one at that. I'm not
a coder, or a sysadmin, just a happy Linux user of some 12 years. It
was the philosophy behind Linux that attracted me and I see that
philosophy now almost entirely sidelined and ridiculed, partially by
the "our convenience is more import than your stupid philosophy"
distros and also by the systemd bullies. So yes, as a user and long
time fan - please fork Debian and give us back the Linux we love so
much.

Just to say I fully support your movement. There's only so much
poo poo an innit system can do until it becomes svchost.exe.

Hi folks,

I want to thank you in the first place, for what you are doing!!
I am in the same situation like you are, and almost all the
professionals out there!!

I am a sysadmin for some time now(before I was a programmer only), and
I thought I was alone on this problem...
I run a small park of servers(more or less 400 servers), for high
availability...
I prefere debian off course, but now I am in a difficult
situation...because systemd will be banned in my systems, I DOENS`T
ALLOW SYSTEMD HERE!!!!

Systemd doesn't allow us to control our process's in the same way that
sysvinit does!!!
I want control, and a simple control, not some binaries that I don't
know exactly how they work underneath!

Systemd seem to be simple at the beginning, but when you want to adapt
some software, to automate him, or to change the way it work on the
system...ITS a NIGHTMARE!!!

Systemd is only good for desktop's ...NOT for mine, thanks!!

I doesn't care of speed in the boot process of my systems, because I
boot them ONE Time in at least 2-5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And my desktop/laptop's I boot them almost of the time, one time only
a day!!!

RUNLEVELS...what??

ABOMINATION what they have created , ABOMINATION!!!!!

RunLEVELS are one of the tons of beautiful things of Unix like systems.

Runlevels should be preserved at ANY cost!!!
When I saw it I realized that the guys beguind systemd seem's to be
kids...that's the only answer...sorry for my conclusion, but I think
that not even 1 person with a minimal knowledge an respect for the
Unix like culture, exist's there!!

How a programmer has the guts to kill Runlevels, or at least remove
from the user the chance to use them explicitly!?

yes I Agree, when a attacker gains access to root, its a problem,
because the logs are exposed...and in this I agree that are some work
to do, but what they have done is so bad that I just can't accept it!!

Well, I write this email, that ends up being a rant, but the goal is
to supportyour actions towards this degrading situation, and if the
Debian committee doesn't care, encourage you guys to continue fighting
this problem that seems to stole the, freedom and power, we have on
our beloved Debian!

If you want readable configuration, that is possible (even in
systemd), since even relational databases can be implemented in
plain text. That said, perhaps a footnote about critical
efficiencies might moot this minor point.

It's good to know that we're not alone and there are a lot more people
fighting against the cancerD infection on Debian/Linux. You have my
full support.

I'm a "desktop user"; I administrate just a single personal server and so
I don't really consider myself "a veteran unix admin".
I wholeheartedly applaud your initiative in doing this.
Thank you.

I agree with you about the importance of UNIX philosophy, I think the
GNU/Linux is taking a bad track and I fear this. Then what do you
think about replace GNU things like GCC, GDB and binutils (the
toolchain) for Clang, LLDB and LLVM? Besides, GNU is Not Unix, then we
cannot expect of them some attitude for bloated things like systemd.
Bash had a critical bug because it is bloated, luckily the Debian
default shell is dash. LLVM is more modular than GCC, so I think it
doesn't hurt UNIX philosophy and never will.
And what about GNOME? I like it and I use it, now I'm using Gnome 3.12
on my FreeBSD, could you build GNOME with no systemd?

The recent discussions surrounding 'systemd' and 'sysvinit' have
brought the "one thing done well" philosophy under renewed consideration.
I would like us to consider the value of this philosophy in another
situation -- Linux™ distributions. Each week I see new distributions,
each packaged to suit the preferences of yet another end-user community.
Someone prefers a specific Desktop Environment. Someone else wants
something different. Someone wants a specific initialization suite.
Someone else wants something different.
This diversity of preferences is a major strength of the Linux
universe.[1]

First, my humble definition of a Linux distribution. "A
distribution is a packaged collection of software components: a kernel,
drivers and modules, libraries, utilities, user interface, applications
and so on."

Why would anyone create a packaged collection of components? One motive
might be a belief that their collection has benefits not offered by
existing collections. Sadly, I don't hear much discussion about the "one
thing done well" aspects of these collections.

As a community, there is a tendency to treat a distribution as a
monolith, but that is far from the case. Consider "the kernel," "drivers"
and "modules." [I call this the kernel suite.] As a collection, it is
difficult to describe "one thing" that the suite needs to "do well." I'll
try:

The kernel suite has the task of enabling the workstation hardware such
that multiple utilities and applications can be installed, configured
and run to deliver their designed benefits to end-users.

Notice that I use very few words to describe the "one thing done well."
Such a brief statement cannot be a specification or even a statement of
requirements. However, these brief statements are crucial to any "one
thing done well" evaluation.

When I look at software suites and seek their description of "one
thing done well" I usually find large documents. What would you write as
a description for a software suite such as 'systemd' 'upstart' or
'sysvinit'? Let's consider the problem space in parts.

* Once the kernel is loaded and running with a suitable set of drivers
and modules, we are able to load and start a process-one executable to
take over the activation of utilities, applications and such. CHECK
-- We can do this and do it well.
* Process-one needs to read configuration details and activate those
utilities, applications and such. CHECK -- We can do this and do it
well.
* 'sysvinit' accomplishes the above in a handy way. This is especially
true for workstations with a mostly static complement of utilities and
applications. For workstations with a dynamic complement, there are
some difficulties. Clearly beneficial for servers ... not so much for
laptops.
* 'systemd' does the job of handling the dynamic deployment of utilities
and applications by responding to discovery events. Many of these
same events happen during a cold start and so systemd also handles the
initial deployment. Herein lies one possible source of confusion and
conflict.Clearly beneficial for laptops ... not so much for servers.

Given that "the static case" and "the dynamic case" are two things, this
appears to violate the "one thing done well" philosophy. When coupled
with a large list of dependencies on supporting libraries and utilities,
and we have a large and complex subsystem.

The Linux universe has other large, complex subsystems -- web servers,
email servers, database managers, etc. These don't generate the sort of
divisive language found in the 'systemd' discussion. I seem to remember
that they used to until enough time and effort allowed the benefits and
liabilities to shake out and sound software engineering to refactor and
otherwise address complexities of the early editions.

---
[1] I use "universe" in the astronomical and cosmological sense rather
than as an indicator of linux package availability made popular by certain
distribution publishers.

People still focus on the wrong thing with this systemd debate. All
the arguments are just minor things too me. This is what is
particularly wrong with the whole thing:

There is a debate whether to replace legacy init-systems. It is a good
debate, and imho a new init system is very due.

What should have been done (*):

1.) define interfaces/apis for a new init system by the linux
community/process
2.) standardaize these interface
3.) have somebody provide a reference implementation and
reference-test-suite (an init-system is missing critical, I cannot debug
umteenth servers when they fail initing)

what has been done:

1.) a reference implementation has been pooped into existence with
interfaces/apis 'designed' on the fly
2.) this mix of standards/implemention has then been pushed and force-fed
to the community
3.) now the community is pissed

The discussion about whether or not systemd must be used is moot. If
standards exist, systemd can be replaced. If not, like we have now, it
cannot.

So, stop the stupid debate, and really get down to solving this
problem (see *).

Hi. I'm a professional Unix and Linux systems admin. I work at
Magellan Healthcare in the operations department. My title is
Senior System Administrator. I've been doing this job at various
places of employment for 19 years. I've been involved with Unix
since 1988. I have a beard. It is quite gray. Please keep me in
the loop on the Debian fork. I will help preserve our way of life
if I can.


debianfork All information on this page is free to copy. This webpage is an independent communication promoted and managed by a group of Debian users, developers and admins and is not affiliated with the Debian project. Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

pram
Jun 10, 2001
For twelve years you've been asking "Should we fork Debian?"

theadder
Dec 30, 2011


im the accrual of veterancy

jre
Sep 2, 2011

To the cloud ?



quote:

To quote Ian Jackson:
"If you want systemd turn to page 44, if you want initv turn to page 142"


Also

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

Jesus gently caress

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE
Aug 1, 2004

whoa, what just happened here?







College Slice

theadder posted:

im the accrual of veterancy

measured in neckbeard growth rings

also lol that they lost the vote they want to have a Design Process for an init replacement

sorry

actual work > design committee, even for debian

Soricidus
Oct 21, 2010
freedom-hating statist shill

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

quote:

To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,

pram
Jun 10, 2001
lol

pram
Jun 10, 2001
My title is
Senior System Administrator. I've been doing this job at various
places of employment for 19 years. I've been involved with Unix
since 1988. I have a beard. It is quite gray.

Winkle-Daddy
Mar 10, 2007

pram posted:

here u go


Shall we fork Debian™? :^| debianfork

Who are you?!
We are Veteran Unix Admins and we are concerned about what is happening to Debian GNU/Linux to the point of considering a fork of the project.
And why would you do that?
Some of us are upstream developers, some professional sysadmins: we are all concerned peers interacting with Debian and derivatives on a daily basis.
We don't want to be forced to use systemd in substitution to the traditional UNIX sysvinit init, because systemd betrays the UNIX philosophy.
We contemplate adopting more recent alternatives to sysvinit, but not those undermining the basic design principles of "do one thing and do it well" with a complex collection of dozens of tightly coupled binaries and opaque logs.
Are there better solutions than forking?
Yes: vote Ian Jackson's proposal to preserve freedom of choice of init systems.
Then make sure sysvinit stays the default for now, systemd can be optional.
Debian leaders can go on evaluating more init systems, just not impose one that ignores the needs of most of its users.
Why don't you do that yourselves?
We are excluded from voting on the issue: only few of us have the possibility to interact with Debian on a voluntary basis.
Now we do what we can, hoping our concerns will be heard by those who can cast a vote about it.

[edit/clarification]

Since this seems to be one of the most prominent critiques, we'd like
to clarify this point. With lack of possibility we refer to our
capacity to be involved in a complex bureaucratic system like the one
governing Debian. While we respect this way of working, we think that
our time may be better invested in new directions, also according to
our expertise.
Is really all this fuss necessary?
To quote Ian Jackson:
"This resolution is not only important within Debian, and not only for jessie (its next release). It is also important feedback for upstreams, and our peer distros and downstreams".
Why is this happening in your opinion?
The current leadership of the project is heavily influenced by GNOME developers and too much inclined to consider desktop needs as crucial to the project, despite the fact that the majority of Debian users are tech-savvy system administrators.
Moreover Debian today is haunted by the tendency to betray its own mandate, a base principle of the Free Software movement: put the user's rights first. What is happening now instead is that through a so called "do-ocracy" developers and package maintainers are imposing their choices on users.
Can you articulate your critique to systemd?
To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, we see systemd being very prone to mission creep and bloat and likely to turn into a nasty hairball over the longer term.
We like controlling the startup of the system with shell scripts that are readable, because readability grants a certain level of power and consciousness for those among us who are literate, and we believe that centralizing control services, sockets, devices, mounts, etc., all within one daemon is a slap in the face of the UNIX philosophy.
A timely reply by some people willing to use systemd is visible at forkfedora.org. This page is useful to highlight a fundamental difference: systemd may simplify the task of configuring init, but it does so by enforcing an increasingly opaque approach to the init procedure. In systemd sure it appears easier: one can tweak a few variables and have all the rest handled by a big binary system that is way bigger than sysvinit. It can be said that the security model of systemd relies much more on developers and package maintainers and much less on system administrators.
Again please consider that, as Debian users, we are simply asking not to be forced into this model and, taking into account the CTTE vote on the issue was almost draw, we believe its execution should be way more attentive in listening to what many users are asking: freedom of choice, starting from what we have.
How long are your beards?
This is not a beard contest, rest assured the furry ones among us are not sheep.
To sum it up?
If systemd will be substituting sysvinit in Debian, we will fork the project and create a new distro. We hope this won't be necessary, but we are well prepared for it.
If you like to follow how things evolve in Debian, here is the page about the General Resolution: init system coupling.
We need to talk.
Sure, write an email to VUA@debianfork.org.
Are you guys alone in this?
Not at all, there are more protests against the imposition of systemd on users.
This article is a good introduction to the issue at hand: Systemd: Harbinger of the Linux apocalypse.
There is the boycott systemd website providing several references.
Then there is the "systemd fork" called uselessd with some good points and lots of lulz.
An exit strategy is being elaborated at The World After Systemd
The wikipedia page lists also some critiques in its systemd reception section.
With our protest we intend to represent the discontent of Debian users, because that's who we are. We intend to keep using Debian on our servers, or a fork if necessary. Others might have other goals, but we all share a common problem: systemd being imposed on us.
Thanks for doing this. How can I help?
Cheers.
You can help by talking to fellow Debian developers and convince them of how wrong is to betray a very big and relevant userbase by listening to desktop needs.
Also it can be helpful to monitor and update the Wikipedia page about systemd (to keep it objective, not to vandalize it! we love Wikipedia <3)
If you like to support this effort financially: good to let us know, but hold your horses for now as it may not be needed.
To tip the hat please spare some change for Dyne.org the non-profit organization hosting this website.
How are people reacting to your protest?
Here below some of the messages we are receiving. If you write us please consider we may quote you anonymously, unless you specify not to.
We will keep your email private and later send you a notice about our next steps.

I'm with you guys in the way that systemd is not the way forward. But I do
not think that sysvinit is the way forward either. Maybe another init
system? Like GNU DMD? I know its still pretty immature, but I think it's a
good init system. I don't think sysvinit is ever going to make a comeback.

And forking Debian? That's a very hard feat. Debian is the biggest Linux
distro to date with hundreds of developers and at least 10 times as much
users. And you'll have to change a lot of things from upstream. Even
Ubuntu decided to use systemd instead of having to change the base init to
upstart. Perhaps going to Slackware instead? That's what I use. Its very
UNIX like. If that's what you strive for.

Thank you so much for this. I've been using Debian since Hamm and this
systemd nonsense has me ready to jump ship.

I don't know who is behind that email, but sincerely, thank you for
doing this. I'm an UNIX/Linux sysadmin for nearly 20 years, I am
nowadays dealing with a 5k servers which consists of nearny 90%
debian systems. I've been a long time opponent to systemd, first
because I read the code (thing that too few of that crap's zealots
do), and ultimately because I tried it. That thing is a desktop
toy, and even then, it has failed me on 50% of the cases. Its very
nature is an abomination to UNIX principles and me and my team,
colleagues, friends on the sysadmin field are *VERY* worried (to
say the least) on what's coming. Please keep that movement going,
make it strong, and if you want a hand, count me in.

Again, thank you.

I've been using runit as my init system on debian wheezy/jessie for a
while now and it works pretty well. glad to see the effort though on
debianfork.org . cool.

Do you realize that there's already more than 150 Debian
derivative? Instead of doing one more, you're better off helping
one of the already existing derivatives. Writing "fork" is the joke
part, since that would only be a derivative, unless every Debian
Developer follows you, which will *not* happen.

Also, instead of just writing words on the internet, wouldn't you
think that helping some of the systemd alternative be a lot more
productive?

FYI, I don't like systemd either. And I've been maintaining OpenRC
in Debian, and trying to push for it to work on as many arch as
possible. Though I currently don't have the time for it (for
professional and personal reasons), and some others are a bit
taking over the work, but it's not going as fast as it should. Some
help would be awesome, and would help a way better than writing
funny text on the net.

I will support you guys with code if the fork goes ahead. But kindly
think of another name.

Why don't you guys help out with Debian LTS? No systemd there, and
they need help at the moment.

I'm in, at least in general. "because readability grants a certain
level of power and consciousness for those among us who are literate"

I'd edit that to add that systemd is for software devs, but sysvinit
is for sysadmins. Sysadmins can debug shell scripts, but not
necessarily debug and recompile systemd, which will of course be
necessary in the course of admin duties. Excessive product tying and
complication for the sake of complication takes away the ability of
admins to administer, which is highly counter productive. The
response from the systemd astroturfers is invariably along the lines
of software, especially our software, will never have bugs (LOL)

"Pure Debian by Veteran Unix Admins." any other name has to be better
than that. At least try not to violate trademarks by putting in (tm).

You missed an excellent lack of freedom argument. There will be only
one way to do it and it will be mandatory and all else will be
forbidden and only one guy gets to decide. Intentional
incompatibility is a pretty screwed up way to go thru life. It does
not help that most of the new features and abilities of systemd appear
totally useless. If one mp3 player was useless and awful, that would
be OK, unless the inquisition extinguished all other mp3
players... that would suck. Although this is whats being done with
systemd.

And the embrace extend extinguish issue. If submarine software
patents sink apache (unlikely, but possible) then I don't really care
although the emergency conversion to nginx might be a PITA for a day.
When the one and only init system to bind them all is subverted either
by submarine patent or security holes then the temporary work around
will be to install the xyz package to switch to ... well I guess it'll
be impossible and I'd have to switch to freebsd.

There is a cost - benefit ratio issue. Most of what systemd is
capable of doing is unfortunately completely useless and irrelevant in
comparison to what is being lost WRT to ease of debugging and
reliability and security and freedom. If the costs were low/zero, the
useless features it provides would likely still not be worth it, but
at least the ratio would make it less awful. To some extent the whole
situation is a farce. You've got software devs deciding what desktop
users that don't exist want, while ignoring actual current desktop
users, and they're re-applying that "successful" (LOL) development
model to screw over sysadmins, and we're not subject to being told
what we want by non-admins. Its a very arrogant business model.

If/when you start publishing work for your fork

Can you see if it can be documented in a way those of us in the redhat
world could take advantage of it? We have the same problem and concerns,
well at least the could *nix admin in our shop. Myself included.

We are also considering looking at alternatives and we all have used
debian in the past and most use ubuntu for desktop (there is always that
one mandrake guy) so I will be keeping an eye on this project as well.

Whatever the outcome you have my support !

Using various Unices since System V on an ICL Clan 4, and as long-time
BSD, Slackware and Debian user, I just don’t want systemd imposed on
me, whatever the purpose. Whether it’s total crap, a good idea or a
mix of both, this has to be *optional* and surely not a default. I
want to keep my servers and embedded systems bloat-free with only
their intended software sets installed. Why don’t *they* fork Debian
and do whatever they want ? I like Debian the way it is (was) like a
good grilled steak with nothing superfluous added, no fancy
sauce. Thank you for your efforts !

I've been on Linux for over 15 years, I'm also a contributor in
Fedora and author of NetworkManager-ssh (SSH plugin for Network
manager). I'm a sort of a cross between a sysadmin and developer,
currently doing both.

I'm predominantly a Fedora user (and contributor) and am thinking
recently about forsaking Fedora in favour of something without
systemd (was thinking PCBSD). I've been around Linux for a while
and understand the core philosophy behind it and how systemd just
betrays all of that. I actually had an argument with Mr. Pottering
on the Fedora-dev list about having /var/log/messages having a
binary format. When log files in linux will not be plain text -
it'll be the end in my opinion. needless to say Pottering didn't
agree with me and tried to shut me up.

Pottering somehow managed to push systemd quite far in Fedora and
at the moment I'm in absorption mode trying to digest WTF happened
to my Fedora with systemd. Horrow show.

If this fork goes forward, I promise to try and do my best to
contriube as much as possible. I'm good with packaging and shell, I
believe I will be able to help. I think you guys hit the nail on
the head with your web page and you have my full support.

Lets not let our voice be silenced

As a veteran (20+ years; Solaris, HP-UX, RHEL, Debian) sysadmin who
prefers Debian over everything for use on about 40 GUIless servers,
it's either this (a fork away from systemd) or I move away from Debian
altogether.

Many thanks for the effort here, while it's not a big thing to
replace systemd on jessie/sid installation with sysvinit, it's not
easy to create an installer image which installs the OS without
systemd. I made an image which you can find on
http://without-systemd.org/debian-jessie/ The big problem is
tasksel, tasksell will install all Packages with the priorities
required, important and standard. Unfortunately systemd has the
priority importand and will be installed again, if you select
"standard system utilities" in tasksel, to fix that, i would have
to create my own Debian repository :-(

I hope for a solution without a fork. But if you need help with
forking, please contact me.

I support your idea of forking Debian to exclude systemd and its
multitude of tentacles. Please follow through. Also, please make
available means by which us mere users (though I've got kernel-hacking
and systems-architecture ambitions myself) may participate in an
effective way.

As I see it, the simplest way to fork Debian as of october 2014 would
entail taking a full-system snapshot (per package versions), available
from snapshot.d.o, from a time before systemd dependencies were
introduced, and then adding on top any updates that didn't add
such. This would re-use nearly all mainline Debian effort and require
only porting of e.g. eudev from other systemd-less distributions. Of
course GNOME would have to go; fortunately there is MATE.

Thanks for doing this. I run four Debian servers in production,
three of which are connected to an IRC network. Gnome remains the
default DE on Debian for accessibility reasons, so it's obvious
they have the monopoly of votes in favor of systemd. Large
companies like Red Hat are also backing destroying the
UNIX-philosophies.

Once I heard Debian would be making the switch to systemd, I've
been slowly migrating all Debian servers over to OpenBSD over the
impending death of Debian. There's still much that leaves me
missing Debian, most importantly the large amount of different
packages that are not available in OpenBSD and would take lots of
effort to port over.

I have been worried about systemd colonizing all the linux distros for
a long time and it's really happening. I want users to retain freedom
to use the init system they choose rather than being locked in.

The debian mailing list vote about whether to switch to systemd was
atrocious, in no way did it come to a consensus but they still forced
this upon us? This was the reason I quit using debian. If you look
around there are very few remaining distros that aren't getting taken
over by systemd!

Your project is a good idea and I wish you the best.

Should set up a page collecting signatures

I'd add mine in a heartbeat.

It would make an interesting list of people.

Does it have to come to this? I get the feeling that there is a
tsunami of opposition to systemd, and most of it seems to be from very
knowledgeable guys. What I hear about systemd is very worrying, how
is it that Debian could get to the brink of a fundamental fork over
something that so many people think is Absolutely Wrong? Who is in
charge here, and what are they thinking?

I like the idea of Debian not being tied to systemd - whether that
comes around through voting or forking seems immaterial.

That said it's too late for me; the very fact that systemd is a
likely prospect has motivated me to jump ship to FreeBSD. I'm
already using it on my personal laptop, and will be migrating all
my machines over to it shortly.

So, something to consider: some long-time (since 1995, in my case!)
Linux users have already voted with their feet. The Debian team
shouldn't necessarily take silence as consent, as the most deeply
disaffected users may already have left.

In fact, a long-term FreeBSD user I know says there's been a spike
of interest on the BSD lists since systemd was announced. I
suspect I'm far from alone in having already departed.

I’d really appreciate if you work tightly on something that
could possibly remove bad consequences of systemd’s “brute spellforce”
integration in major distros by GNOME’s and RedHat’s employees. My
only warning to you will be that I can predict much of major distros
supporters are not very educated about UNIX philosophy and related
things and that way RH and GNOME will easily convince them by great
masses splitting UNIX and GNU/Linux popularity below the edge of elite
again. You need very strong voluntary public relations supporting
anti-systemd tendencies and not only coders of strong mind.

Thanks guys for speaking up and saving the freedom to admin one of
the few fully open distros.

SysV Init ist he only reasonable thing at the moment from a
security point of view,

Systemd is a code maintainance nightmare waiting to come...

If they want to use it for a desktop-only distribution, then they
should make a flavour of it, along with all the non-X-Windows
Destop stuff (Wayland, Mir).

This is how it should be done - it's a pity the rocklinux
distribution and its fork t2-project are both on hold lacking devs.


Your website is wonderful, and exactly the message that needs to be
going out in these trying times. I've been using Debian on my servers
and intermittently on my personal machines for about 6 years now,
through thick and thin, and the troubling wind of systemd is the only
thing that has made me even consider switching away. The binary
journals are absolutely evil, to say nothing of the awful desecration
of the Unix philosophy.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Greetings, and thanks for your website and thoughts.

Systemd is one thing, but what about dbus? Some people like to
have notifications pop up, for example when a Handbrake transcoding
process is done.

A systemd-free dbus could support a lot of existing packages
without pulling in systemd. According the apt-cache showpkg, 84
packages depend on dbus There are 1520 commits in dbus since
systemd support went in in 2010.

Another approach would be to fork at the *package level familiar
apps and libraries, turning off systemd or dbus compile options, to
create e.g. audacity-lean instead of audacity.

Of course, a complete fork would involve enormous manpower, people
power

When I tried to voice my concerns on "Arch" Forums a couple years ago,
regarding my shock to what I called "the redhatization of Arch" -they
really didn't give a poo poo, to put it mildly. :) I realize Arch Forums
are rough on their Users, but I never realized just how "Peotter-ized"
they had become.

People talk about jumping the Debian ship if Debian goes full-bore
systemd, the problem is there is almost nowhere to go now. ? Redhat,
Arch, ... they and ALL their derivative distro's are now systemd, and
systemd only -with NO optional init's whatsoever. -no choice. -or
atleast, not easy ones, and definitely not without a lotta work, and
once dhcpd falls prey to systemd, well, it'll be all over -except for
the crying. If Debian goes, and it will, then there will be NO ONE
left.

So yes, I fully support you guys if you have to fork a systemd-free
Debian, then so be it. I'm on your side.

I blame IBM/Redhat for this entire systemd-controlling nightmare.
IBM/Redhat/Intel/Gnome/Wayland ..., with Intel pushing for Wayland,
..., and guess what everything will be built around ? and I ain't just
talkin 'bout pulseaudio here -lol. Systemd is an octopus with mammoth
contolling entanglements, getting more powerful with each day.

I surely hope this "fork" of Debian can become a future-proof survival
effort against the likes of this (juggernaut)-systemd-Linux ? I am
not an advanced Programmer, I'm just an ex-Sysadmin. I was there when
Solaris 10 moved to "SMF" as their "rc" scripts replacements,...
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Management_Facility However,
the way Solaris did it was the "right" way for them, whereas to me,
Systemd, as it is in Linux, is so wrong, and much much worse. SystmeD
is a basic rip-off of that.

SystemD represents the evil "Windopwsization" of Linux. I mean, for
god sakes, what was so wrong about using "OpenRC" ?!, atleast that
drat thing is "portable". And finally, that's the other reason I
support your efforts here. I use OpenBSD, and FreeBSD regularly as
well, and I believe the ease of "portability" is also very important
across Linux <-> BSD's, wherever possible.

Thank you for your intention to fork Debian when systemd becomes
mandatory and the current poll is lost.

I'm using Debian as a server system for about 15 years now and I'm
very much used to administering sysvinit-scripts and I like them
and I like the robustness of this system.

You have my support for your idea!

I am a programmer and part-time system administrator. I, too, have
been considering whether or not a fork (given enough support) would be
possible if Debian choose systemd exclusively. It is reassuring to
see that others are thinking along the same lines. If the fork does
need to go ahead, I would be very willing to assist.

I am sysadmin and I am using Debian for servers since version
2.0/Hamm. I don't like the direction of the Debian and most of my
servers at the moment are still on Squeeze and I am not planning to
upgrade them ever because of systemd crap.

I am using 'runit' at the moment for keeping services up and
running (was using daemontools before) and I want to see this
system as an option for replacing init/systemd.

My opinion -> FORK IT!

I am familiar with debian package system and I will volunteer for
package maintainer of the new fork of Debian if necesery.

Thanks for more publicity about keeping alternatives to systemd in
Debian.

There's another small group of people who collects data about running
Linux with proper init systems:

http://the-world-after-systemd.ungleich.ch/

You may be also interested in the prevent-systemd-* packages in the
APT repository at http://users.unixforge.de/~tglaser/debs/debidx.htm

I am one of those GNU/Linux users who chose to use it to avoid
software imposition from above. With systemd I am experiencing the
same blow, and it reminds me of the time, when changes in the OS
took place following a direction I disliked as it didn't cater for
the needs of someone like me. systemd will remove my freedom to
modify the system the way I want it to be. It is a blow to software
transparency and it will demotivate anyone choosing GNU/Linux to
use a different OS with a different philosophy.

Although, I am not formally qualified as a coder, I do it as a
passtime. I learnt on my own and can use C++, C and Object Pascal.
Lately, I have settled myself to using C++ although using C is a
not inaccessible to me with some extra effort.

First i would like to say that i am not against your idea.
If you want to fork, just do it.Make your own distro.

Second, you should consider to actively participate in things that
matter and not just go for publicity like a good politician.Systemd
was voted, not enforced and that procedure has a name.Democracy.

Third you are not believable when you say you want alternative init
systems. Because you don't care what is best but what touches your
personal feelings.

By the way do you have any idea what resources it needs for such a
thing? But of course you do not have the time to participate, so how
would you know?Ask Ubuntu.

Last let me say that in 2014 we need to think how to progress the
Linux ecosystem (not UNIX system} and there is no philosophy behind
it, it's not the meaning of life.There are morale issues on how
technology is used and that is why we care how it is build, that is
why we support open source.Engineering is just a skill and if you
disagree with what someone builds just do what you think is better.

Thank you for this initiative, though i've only cross-read the
counter-arguments they do appear valid and sufficiently
substantiated by personal experience when it comes to such
convoluted "one-in-all solutions" It is hard to believe an
established company such as Red Hat is actually advocating it's
use. Recently i've also learned about musl-libc which does seem to
be a viable alternative for future system growth. At least in
spirit and to some extent in proof already, not a perfect drop-in
but the potential does seem obvious.

Debian is a META-OS, i was there on fidonet when it took shape and
the idea has proven visionary in many ways. Choosing for a
mono-init-system approach would make it just another distro. Though
by now it could probably need some trimming or reorganisation in
some places, overall quality seems to have degraded a bit here and
there.

It is due time for a wiki dedicated to the design of a new init
system, a massive community influenced design of such importance
would prove significant in many ways. For non-critical systems
systemd will have it's benefits but the "feel" is "awkward" even
from an operational perspective. Let's just not fall into another
flamewar based on fear and prejudices on both sides, maybe the
authors of systemd are forthcomming in adapting to the community
criticism and a win-win can be achieved.

A wonderful idea. It would send a message that few could ignore that
systemd is a serious power grab and an unwelcome one at that. I'm not
a coder, or a sysadmin, just a happy Linux user of some 12 years. It
was the philosophy behind Linux that attracted me and I see that
philosophy now almost entirely sidelined and ridiculed, partially by
the "our convenience is more import than your stupid philosophy"
distros and also by the systemd bullies. So yes, as a user and long
time fan - please fork Debian and give us back the Linux we love so
much.

Just to say I fully support your movement. There's only so much
poo poo an innit system can do until it becomes svchost.exe.

Hi folks,

I want to thank you in the first place, for what you are doing!!
I am in the same situation like you are, and almost all the
professionals out there!!

I am a sysadmin for some time now(before I was a programmer only), and
I thought I was alone on this problem...
I run a small park of servers(more or less 400 servers), for high
availability...
I prefere debian off course, but now I am in a difficult
situation...because systemd will be banned in my systems, I DOENS`T
ALLOW SYSTEMD HERE!!!!

Systemd doesn't allow us to control our process's in the same way that
sysvinit does!!!
I want control, and a simple control, not some binaries that I don't
know exactly how they work underneath!

Systemd seem to be simple at the beginning, but when you want to adapt
some software, to automate him, or to change the way it work on the
system...ITS a NIGHTMARE!!!

Systemd is only good for desktop's ...NOT for mine, thanks!!

I doesn't care of speed in the boot process of my systems, because I
boot them ONE Time in at least 2-5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And my desktop/laptop's I boot them almost of the time, one time only
a day!!!

RUNLEVELS...what??

ABOMINATION what they have created , ABOMINATION!!!!!

RunLEVELS are one of the tons of beautiful things of Unix like systems.

Runlevels should be preserved at ANY cost!!!
When I saw it I realized that the guys beguind systemd seem's to be
kids...that's the only answer...sorry for my conclusion, but I think
that not even 1 person with a minimal knowledge an respect for the
Unix like culture, exist's there!!

How a programmer has the guts to kill Runlevels, or at least remove
from the user the chance to use them explicitly!?

yes I Agree, when a attacker gains access to root, its a problem,
because the logs are exposed...and in this I agree that are some work
to do, but what they have done is so bad that I just can't accept it!!

Well, I write this email, that ends up being a rant, but the goal is
to supportyour actions towards this degrading situation, and if the
Debian committee doesn't care, encourage you guys to continue fighting
this problem that seems to stole the, freedom and power, we have on
our beloved Debian!

If you want readable configuration, that is possible (even in
systemd), since even relational databases can be implemented in
plain text. That said, perhaps a footnote about critical
efficiencies might moot this minor point.

It's good to know that we're not alone and there are a lot more people
fighting against the cancerD infection on Debian/Linux. You have my
full support.

I'm a "desktop user"; I administrate just a single personal server and so
I don't really consider myself "a veteran unix admin".
I wholeheartedly applaud your initiative in doing this.
Thank you.

I agree with you about the importance of UNIX philosophy, I think the
GNU/Linux is taking a bad track and I fear this. Then what do you
think about replace GNU things like GCC, GDB and binutils (the
toolchain) for Clang, LLDB and LLVM? Besides, GNU is Not Unix, then we
cannot expect of them some attitude for bloated things like systemd.
Bash had a critical bug because it is bloated, luckily the Debian
default shell is dash. LLVM is more modular than GCC, so I think it
doesn't hurt UNIX philosophy and never will.
And what about GNOME? I like it and I use it, now I'm using Gnome 3.12
on my FreeBSD, could you build GNOME with no systemd?

The recent discussions surrounding 'systemd' and 'sysvinit' have
brought the "one thing done well" philosophy under renewed consideration.
I would like us to consider the value of this philosophy in another
situation -- Linux™ distributions. Each week I see new distributions,
each packaged to suit the preferences of yet another end-user community.
Someone prefers a specific Desktop Environment. Someone else wants
something different. Someone wants a specific initialization suite.
Someone else wants something different.
This diversity of preferences is a major strength of the Linux
universe.[1]

First, my humble definition of a Linux distribution. "A
distribution is a packaged collection of software components: a kernel,
drivers and modules, libraries, utilities, user interface, applications
and so on."

Why would anyone create a packaged collection of components? One motive
might be a belief that their collection has benefits not offered by
existing collections. Sadly, I don't hear much discussion about the "one
thing done well" aspects of these collections.

As a community, there is a tendency to treat a distribution as a
monolith, but that is far from the case. Consider "the kernel," "drivers"
and "modules." [I call this the kernel suite.] As a collection, it is
difficult to describe "one thing" that the suite needs to "do well." I'll
try:

The kernel suite has the task of enabling the workstation hardware such
that multiple utilities and applications can be installed, configured
and run to deliver their designed benefits to end-users.

Notice that I use very few words to describe the "one thing done well."
Such a brief statement cannot be a specification or even a statement of
requirements. However, these brief statements are crucial to any "one
thing done well" evaluation.

When I look at software suites and seek their description of "one
thing done well" I usually find large documents. What would you write as
a description for a software suite such as 'systemd' 'upstart' or
'sysvinit'? Let's consider the problem space in parts.

* Once the kernel is loaded and running with a suitable set of drivers
and modules, we are able to load and start a process-one executable to
take over the activation of utilities, applications and such. CHECK
-- We can do this and do it well.
* Process-one needs to read configuration details and activate those
utilities, applications and such. CHECK -- We can do this and do it
well.
* 'sysvinit' accomplishes the above in a handy way. This is especially
true for workstations with a mostly static complement of utilities and
applications. For workstations with a dynamic complement, there are
some difficulties. Clearly beneficial for servers ... not so much for
laptops.
* 'systemd' does the job of handling the dynamic deployment of utilities
and applications by responding to discovery events. Many of these
same events happen during a cold start and so systemd also handles the
initial deployment. Herein lies one possible source of confusion and
conflict.Clearly beneficial for laptops ... not so much for servers.

Given that "the static case" and "the dynamic case" are two things, this
appears to violate the "one thing done well" philosophy. When coupled
with a large list of dependencies on supporting libraries and utilities,
and we have a large and complex subsystem.

The Linux universe has other large, complex subsystems -- web servers,
email servers, database managers, etc. These don't generate the sort of
divisive language found in the 'systemd' discussion. I seem to remember
that they used to until enough time and effort allowed the benefits and
liabilities to shake out and sound software engineering to refactor and
otherwise address complexities of the early editions.

---
[1] I use "universe" in the astronomical and cosmological sense rather
than as an indicator of linux package availability made popular by certain
distribution publishers.

People still focus on the wrong thing with this systemd debate. All
the arguments are just minor things too me. This is what is
particularly wrong with the whole thing:

There is a debate whether to replace legacy init-systems. It is a good
debate, and imho a new init system is very due.

What should have been done (*):

1.) define interfaces/apis for a new init system by the linux
community/process
2.) standardaize these interface
3.) have somebody provide a reference implementation and
reference-test-suite (an init-system is missing critical, I cannot debug
umteenth servers when they fail initing)

what has been done:

1.) a reference implementation has been pooped into existence with
interfaces/apis 'designed' on the fly
2.) this mix of standards/implemention has then been pushed and force-fed
to the community
3.) now the community is pissed

The discussion about whether or not systemd must be used is moot. If
standards exist, systemd can be replaced. If not, like we have now, it
cannot.

So, stop the stupid debate, and really get down to solving this
problem (see *).

Hi. I'm a professional Unix and Linux systems admin. I work at
Magellan Healthcare in the operations department. My title is
Senior System Administrator. I've been doing this job at various
places of employment for 19 years. I've been involved with Unix
since 1988. I have a beard. It is quite gray. Please keep me in
the loop on the Debian fork. I will help preserve our way of life
if I can.


debianfork All information on this page is free to copy. This webpage is an independent communication promoted and managed by a group of Debian users, developers and admins and is not affiliated with the Debian project. Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

this but ironically

Gazpacho
Jun 18, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
Slippery Tilde
when someone says "that goes against the Unix philosophy" give him a lollipop

Phoenixan
Jan 16, 2010

Just Keep Cool-idge

pram posted:

For twelve years you've been asking "Should we fork Debian?"
lol

Gazpacho
Jun 18, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
Slippery Tilde
personally i would rather not see systemd hegemony happen but i've accepted that it will because the systemd opposition is filled with morons

Suspicious Dish
Sep 24, 2011

2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro
Fun Shoe

Mr Dog posted:

also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns

http://community.arm.com/groups/arm-mali-graphics/blog/2014/08/14/mali-x11-vs-wayland-at-siggraph-2014

gnome's wayland support still isn't usable though :(

How so? I've been using it as a day to day desktop for a few weeks now, and it works quite well.

Suspicious Dish
Sep 24, 2011

2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro
Fun Shoe

keyvin posted:

srsly suspdish, if you are privy to market research or stats or anything, which percentage of fedora users used gnome 3?

I'd love to have any sort of data, but Fedora is broken and any attempt to discover how users are using the software we make is shut down with privacy concerns.

Gazpacho
Jun 18, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
Slippery Tilde

Suspicious Dish posted:

I'm asking because everybody seems to think that systemd doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy, but nobody has been able to tell me what that is, and why Linux follows it.
A master signifier is any signifier that a subject has invested his or her identity in — any signifier that the subject has identified with (or against) and that thus constitutes a powerful positive or negative value. Master signifiers are thus the factors that give the articulated system of signifiers — that is, knowledge, belief, language — purchase on a subject: they are what make a message meaningful. Lacan expresses this point by saying that master signifiers are what make a discourse readable.

We can recognize master signifiers by the way both senders and receivers of a message respond to them. Senders use them as the last word, the bottom line, the term that anchors, explains or justifies the claims or demands contained in the message. Receivers respond to master signifiers with a similar attitude: whereas other terms and the values and assumptions they bear may be challenged, master signifiers are simply accepted as having a value or validity that goes without saying.

Suspicious Dish
Sep 24, 2011

2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro
Fun Shoe

Gazpacho posted:

A master signifier is any signifier that a subject has invested his or her identity in — any signifier that the subject has identified with (or against) and that thus constitutes a powerful positive or negative value. Master signifiers are thus the factors that give the articulated system of signifiers — that is, knowledge, belief, language — purchase on a subject: they are what make a message meaningful. Lacan expresses this point by saying that master signifiers are what make a discourse readable.

We can recognize master signifiers by the way both senders and receivers of a message respond to them. Senders use them as the last word, the bottom line, the term that anchors, explains or justifies the claims or demands contained in the message. Receivers respond to master signifiers with a similar attitude: whereas other terms and the values and assumptions they bear may be challenged, master signifiers are simply accepted as having a value or validity that goes without saying.

In conclusion, bitches be trippin

cowboy beepboop
Feb 24, 2001

Suspicious Dish posted:

I'd love to have any sort of data, but Fedora is broken and any attempt to discover how users are using the software we make is shut down with privacy concerns.

do what debian does and do the popularity contest opt-in during install?

Suspicious Dish
Sep 24, 2011

2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro
Fun Shoe
Debian has an opt-in cron job called "popularity-contest" which sends a list of your packages to the Debian servers once a week. It's remarkably broken and easily gamed for any sort of actual statistics, and as such it's considered just for fun and not really anything meaningful when talking about technical arguments.

Suspicious Dish
Sep 24, 2011

2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro
Fun Shoe
You have to install it on your servers manually, and it's not offered during installation, which means that people using Debian for real work never install it, and people using Debian to dick around with it sometimes do.

Notorious b.s.d.
Jan 25, 2003

by Reene

Suspicious Dish posted:

You have to install it on your servers manually, and it's not offered during installation, which means that people using Debian for real work never install it, and people using Debian to dick around with it sometimes do.

popcon uses the system mailer to post its results, but no non-beardlord has had a functional system mailer that can reach internet destinations since like 1993.

i assume the data is a mixture of adverse selection problems and sample counts so small they couldn't be relevant even if they weren't garbage

Notorious b.s.d.
Jan 25, 2003

by Reene
btw popcon was still offered as a yes/no question during debian installation the last time i installed debian, despite the low odds of it functioning as intended

i wonder how many systems out there have 1,000+ undelivered popcon emails sitting somewhere in the depths of /var/mail

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE
Aug 1, 2004

whoa, what just happened here?







College Slice

Gazpacho posted:

personally i would rather not see systemd hegemony happen but i've accepted that it will because the systemd opposition is filled with morons

As a relatively casual observer one might be swayed by their bad faith arguments

But there doesn't really appear to be any technical or policy or practical reason that could support the sysvinit position whatsoever, particularly where Debian's concerned

Notorious b.s.d.
Jan 25, 2003

by Reene

api call girl posted:

But there doesn't really appear to be any technical or policy or practical reason that could support the sysvinit position whatsoever, particularly where Debian's concerned

it's debian: choice is the default. you need an extremely persuasive case to deny the use of sysvinit. including systemd is a no-brainer.

making systemd a default is a no-brainer. denying a substantial faction of sperglords their ancient stripped-down system, that part requires serious fuckin consideration

Sniep
Mar 28, 2004

All I needed was that fatty blunt...



King of Breakfast

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

it's debian: choice is the default. you need an extremely persuasive case to deny the use of sysvinit. including systemd is a no-brainer.

making systemd a default is a no-brainer. denying a substantial faction of sperglords their ancient stripped-down system, that part requires serious fuckin consideration

man, i dont know much about this system D but i kinda feel like i want it all up in my OS, forcefully if necessary. just ram it in there, put all the system D into MY system.

pseudorandom name
May 6, 2007

I was going to make a joke about how critical system components like the kernel aren't a choice but then I remembered how god damned stupid Debian is.

Suspicious Dish
Sep 24, 2011

2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro
Fun Shoe
Debian/kFreeBSD

pseudorandom name
May 6, 2007

also Debian GNU/Hurd

Gazpacho
Jun 18, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
Slippery Tilde
it seems to be a standard argument for lean init systems to say that "the kernel requires nothing from pid 1 except to be a process collector of last resort therefore that is all it must ever do"

there's never any thought of reading it the other way round, i.e. the kernel's special treatment of init, as long as it remains in place, constitutes a grant of responsibility for any feature that must hook into last-resort process collection to work correctly, and if this leads to bloat well maybe you should point the finger at the kernel and its unique treatment of this one process

tl;dr software architecture is politics

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

cowboy beepboop
Feb 24, 2001

Suspicious Dish posted:

Debian/kFreeBSD

what's the k

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply