Warning - FreeBSD (*BSD) entanglement in Linux ecosystem

[jb]

Hi,

here is an interesting comment (basically echoing other people's view) on
Linux developments:
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20120820
Reader Comments
"1 o Arch and systemd (by Microlinux on 2012-08-20 10:11:39 GMT from France)
Much has been said on the subject of Systemd. Let me quote Eric Hameleers, one
of Slackware's developers.

"[...] systemd is essentially evil. It is invasive, extremely hostile to other
environments, threatening to kill non-Linux ecosystems which have hal, udev,
dbus, consolekit, polkit, udisks, upower and friends as dependencies. And
every iteration of the software written by the Redhat employees who are
responsible for hal, udev, consiolekit, polkit and now systemd are
incompatible with previous releases, re-implementing their bad ideas with new
bad ideas... basically proving that these Redhat employees must be declared
unfit to work on the core of a Linux distro. However, the influence of their
employer is so big that these products are forced upon the wider UNIX
community and at some point it will be "assimilate or die". I hope we
(Slackware) will find a way where we do not have to assimilate but still
manage to keep the distro working. I have high hopes for KDE which has no
Redhat ties and so far, manages to stay clear of this mess, sticking to
widely accepted standards."

Cheers from a Slackware user."

For those of you who are unfamiliar - systemd is a replacement for SysV, LSB,
and Upstart init subsystem scripts.

Together with some other technologies like GNOME 3 (soon GNOME OS ?) they are
aiming at being Microsoft-like Linux distro (soon OS ?).

On my FreeBSD machine:
$ ls /var/db/pkg/
...
hal-0.5.14_19/
dbus-1.4.14_i3/
consolekit-0.4.3/
polkit-0.99/
upower-0.9.7/
...

Also, once again I refer to Linux-related ports in *BSD ecosystem
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=linux&stype=all
and warn against becoming entangled in affairs of Linux ecosystem.

jb


_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

[Mark Felder]

Those in on the core teams here are very well aware. Did you notice we've
survived this long without ALSA? :-) However, this is very good reading
for anyone who hasn't looked at Linux lately, and it's worth mentioning
that this is snowballing quickly. I used to really like some Linux
distros. I've been working closely with FreeBSD for 3 years now and after
watching Linux change in those 3 years from this distance I'm not sure I
want to go back. Everything that originally excited me about *nix
operating systems is gone; it's a big convoluted mess now. This isn't a
good sign and I hope someone has the sense enough to stand their ground
and tell RedHat/Poettering "NO".


TEAR DOWN THIS WALL, MR GORB^H^H^H^HPOETTERING

[Jerry]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:09:12 +0000 (UTC)
jb articulated:

Change is scary. There were those who believed in the early 1900's that
there were no new discoveries to be made or inventions to be designed
and implemented. Thank God that there were those who said, "Wow, this
8086 processor is cool; however, I think we can do better." Change is
always scary and sometimes even dangerous; however, everything either
evolves or dies.

Unless someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to accept
changes that you do not approve of, I do not see a problem. With that
said, telling others that they have to watch their TV by candle light
is an extremely limited view of the bigger picture. An analog man in a
digital world can be confusing and scary.

Personally, I embrace progress. Even if there are ten failures in a
row, that one success can be an life changing idea that can alter the
course of an entire industry.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[jb]

Jerry <jerry <at> seibercom.net> writes:

>
> > However, the influence of their employer
> > is so big that these products are forced upon the wider UNIX
> > community and at some point it will be "assimilate or die".

> ...

> Personally, I embrace progress. Even if there are ten failures in a
> row, that one success can be an life changing idea that can alter the
> course of an entire industry.

Well, this is not about progress, not even about the pace of it.
It is about an ecosystem, in which a professional company tries to dominate it
by "my way, or high way" approach (you know it when you follow development of
Fedora, their test system distro). Because of the nature of that ecosystem
called free and open source software, what is implemented has great impact on
it by way of sharing and like-mindedness.
What bothers me (and few other people, even inside Red Hat/Fedora) is them
speaking from both sides of their mouth. On one side they call themselves
UNIX-like, on the other they violate many principles of UNIX philosophy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
This is not a religion (to some it may be), but "a set of cultural norms and
philosophical approaches to developing software based on the experience of
leading developers of the Unix operating system" - they are relevant beyond
any doubt.
Let me mention few of them, like modularity and composition, that are violated
by software like systemd, GNOME, etc.
They also want to build a monolithic OS based on violation of these
principles.
The end effect is, they consciously want to screw up Linux and non-Linux (UNIX,
*BSD, etc) ecosystems that opt not to follow them (read some additional
comments that appeared in the meantime in the comments section of Distrowatch).
This is a bad thing for all UNIX or UNIX-like ecosystems, performed under
the noble flag of "progress" to neutralize and fight opposition.
jb

[Michael Powell]

Mark Felder wrote:

> Those in on the core teams here are very well aware. Did you notice we've
> survived this long without ALSA? :-) However, this is very good reading
> for anyone who hasn't looked at Linux lately, and it's worth mentioning
> that this is snowballing quickly. I used to really like some Linux
> distros. I've been working closely with FreeBSD for 3 years now and after
> watching Linux change in those 3 years from this distance I'm not sure I
> want to go back. Everything that originally excited me about *nix
> operating systems is gone; it's a big convoluted mess now. This isn't a
> good sign and I hope someone has the sense enough to stand their ground
> and tell RedHat/Poettering "NO".
>

You hit the nail on the head for me. For quite a few years I have tried
Skype on various flavors of Linux machines all with the same end result: in
order to use the microphone Pulseaudio had to be disabled. It's as if the
guy that started it (Poettering) never conceived needing to use a microphone
with a sound server and never tried it. So, in my opinion Pulseaudio is
software left unfinished.

Never mind such unfinished and untested as it was, it was mind-numbing to
see all the 'distros' incorporate it as a default. Then Poettering moved on
to systemd. My reservations are several. Developeritus notwithstanding, I am
left to wonder whether he will 'finish' systemd or walk away from it when he
gets bored with it, leaving it in the same kind of mess he left Pulseaudio.

Now I truly like the idea and concept of Pulseaudio - it would just be nice
if the author and project made it work the way an end-user sitting in front
of his computer expects it to work. So called 'developeritus' is a
fundamental disconnect between coders who code to please themselves and pat
themselves on the back for adding 'features' and end-users who utilize
computers to do other work.

Anyway, enough rant from the my $.02 dept. I perceive the 'developeritus'
affliction as a huge elephant in the open source software room that no one
wants to talk about. I am definitely NOT against technological advances in
software and the state of the art moving forward; indeed I welcome it. But,
if it's broken like Pulseaudio I don't want to have anything to do with it.
If it means using it requires me to spend countless hours trying to make it
work instead of putting the time towards paying work then I do not need it
getting in my way. Devs who code for ego gratification among their peers
instead of trying to produce something a computer user might need should
attempt to connect to this concept. And I see somewhat more "connect" in the
FreeBSD community, which is a line-item on my list of what attracts me to
continue using it.

-Mike

[Jamie Paul Griffin]

== jb wrote on Mon 20.Aug'12 at 17:40:40 +0000 ==

> The end effect is, they consciously want to screw up Linux and non-Linux (UNIX,
> *BSD, etc) ecosystems that opt not to follow them (read some additional
> comments that appeared in the meantime in the comments section of Distrowatch).
> This is a bad thing for all UNIX or UNIX-like ecosystems, performed under
> the noble flag of "progress" to neutralize and fight opposition.
> jb

I have to say I completely agree.

[Jerry]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:40:40 +0000 (UTC)
jb articulated:

> This is a bad thing for all UNIX or UNIX-like ecosystems, performed
> under the noble flag of "progress" to neutralize and fight opposition.

Do you have any idea how idiotic that statement sounds? What are you
planning on doing? Are you going to lay siege to their domains and
prepare for a full frontal assault?

Seriously though, I have spent years attempting to get things to work
in FreeBSD with either utter or partial failure. Wireless "N" NICs were
totally orphaned by FreeBSD for years. Now, reluctantly I would assume,
there is some partial support. Support for "FLASH" basically sucks.
Hell, there is not even a viable "Tex-Live" port, an application that I
have working perfectly on a Windows machine. The list goes on and on.
The only constant I have been able to determine is that the open-source
community, and FreeBSD in particular, would rather play the "blame
game" as opposed to correcting the problem. Everyone else is always to
blame, when in reality, all that is needed to determine the true source
of the problem is to look in the mirror. The answer will stare them
right in the face.

I no longer spend days trying to debug a problem that I did not
create. My time is just way to valuable for that nonsense. I simply
find an acceptable alternative and move on. I don't need to be taking
more drugs to control my blood pressure. I would strongly suggest that
you find alternatives that suit your needs and leave the past behind.
You'll feel better and enjoy life more.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[Robison, Dave]

nice ad hominem screed

Dave Robison
Sales Solution Architect II
FIS Banking Solutions
510/621-2089 (w)
530/518-5194 (c)
510/621-2020 (f)
da...@vicor.com
david....@fisglobal.com

_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.

[Mark Felder]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:57:14 -0500, <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:

> Support for "FLASH" basically sucks.

Please stop trolling. I've been using flash with zero issues for 3 years.

[Hans Ottevanger]

On 08/20/12 16:42, Mark Felder wrote:
> Those in on the core teams here are very well aware. Did you notice
> we've survived this long without ALSA? :-) However, this is very good
> reading for anyone who hasn't looked at Linux lately, and it's worth
> mentioning that this is snowballing quickly. I used to really like some
> Linux distros. I've been working closely with FreeBSD for 3 years now
> and after watching Linux change in those 3 years from this distance I'm
> not sure I want to go back. Everything that originally excited me about
> *nix operating systems is gone; it's a big convoluted mess now. This
> isn't a good sign and I hope someone has the sense enough to stand their
> ground and tell RedHat/Poettering "NO".
>
>

> TEAR DOWN THIS WALL, MR GORB^H^H^H^HPOETTERING

I had the honor to meet that Mr. Poettering in person at a conference a
while ago and tried to discuss the portability issues caused by the
imminent proliferation of an over-engineered and unnecessary subsystem
like systemd. My conclusion was that the guy talks a lot and never
listens (mirroring his on-line behavior) and in general is a type of guy
I had rather see in the enemy camp, instead of in the ranks of a (in my
case) valued business partner. Also, he appears to have practically free
reign within Red Hat, where currently nobody seems to have a clear
overview of the OS related issues and system initialization is
considered a minor technical feature. So I don't think you should expect
Mr. Poettering to tear down any walls any time soon 8-)

I can only hope that FreeBSD and the leftover systemd averse Linux
distros can prevent higher level subsystems (like Xorg, KDE, Xfce, etc)
to depend too much on current and future systemd features. Maybe this is
an opportunity for the mostly invisible core team of FreeBSD to publicly
take a position here, if only to take away concerns of users with
respect to systemd portability issues in the future.

Kind regards,

Hans Ottevanger

[Chad Perrin]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:42:32AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> Those in on the core teams here are very well aware. Did you notice
> we've survived this long without ALSA? :-) However, this is very
> good reading for anyone who hasn't looked at Linux lately, and it's
> worth mentioning that this is snowballing quickly. I used to really
> like some Linux distros. I've been working closely with FreeBSD for
> 3 years now and after watching Linux change in those 3 years from
> this distance I'm not sure I want to go back. Everything that
> originally excited me about *nix operating systems is gone; it's a
> big convoluted mess now. This isn't a good sign and I hope someone
> has the sense enough to stand their ground and tell
> RedHat/Poettering "NO".
>
>
> TEAR DOWN THIS WALL, MR GORB^H^H^H^HPOETTERING

Hallelujah.

Poettering and his ilk represent the gravest threat to the Linux
ecosystem I've ever seen. I switched from Debian to FreeBSD in late 2005
or early 2006, having not touched FreeBSD much before that. Early the
year before last year, I got a laptop and discovered that I should have
paid more attention to what I was buying, because at the time FreeBSD
didn't support the laptop's graphics. I thought "Well, Debian isn't as
nice as FreeBSD, but it was pretty good, so I'll use that."

Ever since then, I've spent uncounted hours writing hackish wrapper code
to paper over the disaster area that is system management in the Linux
world now. I wrote an article for TechRepublic about some of my
experiences (and other gripes about the Linux world after five years away
from it) titled "NetworkManager, the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalinux".

The more we can avoid code written by Poettering and anything remotely
like it, the better off we will be, I'm sure. Luckily, he wants to help
us; he has stated that he believes writing quality, portable code somehow
hinders "innovation", and as such he goes out of his way to avoid
portability concerns. Good riddance.

--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

[David Jackson]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM, jb <jb.12...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,

>
> here is an interesting comment (basically echoing other people's view) on
> Linux developments:
> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20120820
> Reader Comments
> "1 o Arch and systemd (by Microlinux on 2012-08-20 10:11:39 GMT from
> France)
> Much has been said on the subject of Systemd. Let me quote Eric Hameleers,
> one
> of Slackware's developers.
>
> "[...] systemd is essentially evil. It is invasive, extremely hostile to
> other
> environments, threatening to kill non-Linux ecosystems which have hal,
> udev,
> dbus, consolekit, polkit, udisks, upower and friends as dependencies. And
> every iteration of the software written by the Redhat employees who are
> responsible for hal, udev, consiolekit, polkit and now systemd are
> incompatible with previous releases, re-implementing their bad ideas with
> new
> bad ideas... basically proving that these Redhat employees must be
> declared

> unfit to work on the core of a Linux distro. However, the influence of

> their
> employer is so big that these products are forced upon the wider UNIX

> community and at some point it will be "assimilate or die". I hope we
> (Slackware) will find a way where we do not have to assimilate but still
> manage to keep the distro working. I have high hopes for KDE which has no
> Redhat ties and so far, manages to stay clear of this mess, sticking to
> widely accepted standards."
>
> Cheers from a Slackware user."
>
> For those of you who are unfamiliar - systemd is a replacement for SysV,
> LSB,
> and Upstart init subsystem scripts.
>
> Together with some other technologies like GNOME 3 (soon GNOME OS ?) they
> are
> aiming at being Microsoft-like Linux distro (soon OS ?).
>
> On my FreeBSD machine:
> $ ls /var/db/pkg/
> ...
> hal-0.5.14_19/
> dbus-1.4.14_i3/
> consolekit-0.4.3/
> polkit-0.99/
> upower-0.9.7/
> ...
>
> Also, once again I refer to Linux-related ports in *BSD ecosystem
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=linux&stype=all
> and warn against becoming entangled in affairs of Linux ecosystem.
>

> jb

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
>

I will throw in my two cents. Systemd sounds fine to me. I think that
having additional features such as event based startup of scripts is
something that is okay and not a problem. I think as long as systemd
supports SysV init and BSD startup scripts, it is fine. Remember you are
free to have your own startup scripts run from systemd.

The fact is that systemd is more powerful, its features are available but
no one is absolutely required to use every feature. I believe people here
would rather complain about it rather than have FreeBSD support it, in the
process making FreeBSD better. Instead of making FreeBSD better all they
know how to do is criticize OSs that are trying to improve things.

I dont think the complaints here have anything to do with a shortcoming of
systemd, i think it has to do with people who would rather attack anyone
who implements something that is more powerful than what FreeBSD provides,
so FreeBSD does not have to compete with a better, more flexible
alternative.

There is nothing stopping FreeBSD from adding the dependancy system
features that are needed by systemd so that FreeBSD can use it. Instead of
complaining about Linux implementing something better, why not match it? No
one is stopping FreeBSD from implementing its own BSD systemd program.

[David Jackson]

In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about
portability", this is deceptive and misleading. It implies that he is
building in a dependance on intractable hardware platform dependance when
this is absolutely not the case, there is no dependance on a hardware
platform.There is nothing about systemd that FreeBSD could not easily
support. Yes, his software does use system call facilities provided by
Linux, but since this is a dependance on software systems, FreeBSD could
easily add these facilities to its own libraries and kernel. This fact
exposes what the complaints from some people are about, it has nothing to
do with portability, because these issues can be easily addressed in
software code by FreeBSD, it has to do with FreeBSD not wanting to
implement equivalent functionality as Linux.

The fact is, FreeBSD can fully support systemd and all kernel and system
features, there is nothing here that is impossible for FreeBSD to support.

By doing so, it would give users MORE freedom rather than less freedom.
FreeBSD would not even be required to use systemd for its own bootup
sequence, which can be BSD init scripts still, but, systemd could be made
available on FreeBSD, called from FreeBSDs init scripts, for users that
wants to use it.

Some here would make it seem like it is impossible for FreeBSD to support
systemd, nothing could be further from the truth. No one is stopping
FreeBSD from implementing it or any other feature found in Linux.

I carefully looked through the documentation of systemd, I could see
nothing except for a well designed, powerful and flexible start up system
that is a major improvement. It IS backwards compatable with SysV and init
scripts, so, no one can say they are taking away someones capability to use
their own init scripts. BSD could continue to use its own startup init
system and optionally allow systemd to be called from this for software
that needs systemd. So, FreeBSD does not even have to change much about its
current init system to support systemd. systemd could be called from
FreeBSDs current init scripts as an addon rather than needing to replace
any of the existing init system.

I basically cannot see a rational reason to not support it.

[Michel Talon]

David Jackson said:

> In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about
> portability", this is deceptive and misleading.

You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering
http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943
The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really
astounding. I will just quote two extracts:

" LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups,
udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux
API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are
irrelevant ?

Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I
think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems
when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a
burden, and holds us back for little benefit. "

and cherry on the cake

"LinuxFr.org : Why Linux desktop hasn't been adopted by the
mainstream users ? Linus Torvalds seems to think it's mostly a social
issue and not a technical one. Do you agree with him ?

Lennart : I think we weren't innovative enough in the interface, and we
didn't have a convincing message and clear platform. If you accept MacOS
as benchmark for user interfaces, then we weren't really matching it, at
best copying it. I think this is changing now, with GNOME 3 which is a
big step forward as an interface for Linux and for the first time is
something that has been strictly designed under UI design guidelines.
"





--

Michel TALON

[Jamie Paul Griffin]

[ Michel Talon wrote on Wed 22.Aug'12 at 12:29:56 +0200 ]

>
> David Jackson said:

> > In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about
> > portability", this is deceptive and misleading.

> You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering
> http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943
> The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really
> astounding. I will just quote two extracts:

> " LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups,
> udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux
> API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are
> irrelevant ?

> Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I
> think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems
> when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a
> burden, and holds us back for little benefit. "

This guy seems to be a real moron. What a ridiculous statement to make.

[CyberLeo Kitsana]

On 08/21/2012 09:04 PM, David Jackson wrote:
> In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about

If I were to hazard a guess, it's because systemd is intended to replace
a subsystem which is simple and has had decades of testing with
something that is as yet largely unproven. If not done properly, and
with competent oversight, it could result in an unmaintainable system
that requires more than just a text editor to repair. Just imagine
losing a library against which systemd is compiled: no single-user mode
because 'init' couldn't start at all now, and no /bin/sh because the
startup scripts required to get the machine into a usable state are no
longer written in bourne shell.

But the larger issue, in my analysis, is that it forces feature creep
into any other posix implementation that must support it to run software
that depends upon it. FreeBSD has a jail implementation that is far more
advanced and secure than anything Linux currently offers; yet systemd
requires what basically amounts to a neutered version (containers) so
that it can keep track of processes. Not a dishonourable endeavour in
and of itself, but then it's like GEM/KMS all over again, where smaller,
more resource-constrained teams are rushing to add otherwise-unneeded
features to their kernels in such a way that won't cause instability or
security vulnerabilities. In this case, there isn't even any
compatibly-licensed reference code for containers that can be freely
used; the implementation must be engineered from scratch.

Lastly, it's also LGPL-licensed; either someone will have to convince
the authors to dual-license it, or a BSD-licensed implementation will
have to be written. With the current FreeBSD GPL-exodus, I don't see the
adoption of further GPL/LGPL code having much chance of succeeding;
especially when said code is required to actually bootstrap the userland.

Personally, I think diversity is good, and systemd does offer alternate
options that were previously lacking in a sysvinit/bsdinit world; but
systemd could be a lot more flexible in supporting platforms that are
other than Linux or GPL.

--
Fuzzy love,
-CyberLeo
Technical Administrator
CyberLeo.Net Webhosting
http://www.CyberLeo.Net
<Cybe...@CyberLeo.Net>

Furry Peace! - http://wwww.fur.com/peace/

[Jerry]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:29:56 +0200
Michel Talon articulated:

> David Jackson said:
>
> > In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care
> > about portability", this is deceptive and misleading.
>

> You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering
> http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943
> The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really
> astounding. I will just quote two extracts:
>
> " LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups,
> udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux
> API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems
> are irrelevant ?
>
> Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I
> think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those
> systems when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or
> ecosystem is a burden, and holds us back for little benefit. "
>

> and cherry on the cake
>
> "LinuxFr.org : Why Linux desktop hasn't been adopted by the
> mainstream users ? Linus Torvalds seems to think it's mostly a social
> issue and not a technical one. Do you agree with him ?
>
> Lennart : I think we weren't innovative enough in the interface, and
> we didn't have a convincing message and clear platform. If you accept
> MacOS as benchmark for user interfaces, then we weren't really
> matching it, at best copying it. I think this is changing now, with
> GNOME 3 which is a big step forward as an interface for Linux and for
> the first time is something that has been strictly designed under UI
> design guidelines. "

The critics complain that the new ideas merely introduces de minimis
modifications and does nothing to amend the real faults in the system.
The real problem is that true innovative development in FreeBSD has
become stagnant. It has taken, and in some cases still not achieved
equal standings with other OSs in many areas. Wireless technology, full
USB support to name a few. It is ALWAYS easier to blame others for our
failures than to admit the problem lies within ourselves. Thank God
that everyone is not the complacent. Where would civilization be now if
Edison had considered the candle the ultimate technological advancement
in portable lighting or if Bell had considered the telegraph the
pinnacle of high speed communication. Change is hard -- it always has
been. There exists a strong subculture that would rather curse the
darkness then light a candle. Debating with them is a waste of time.

You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down
to their level....then beat you with experience. Simple ignore them and
when time has passed them by and proven you right, you can smile
knowing that you were. The frontiers are littered with "dinosaurs". You
could also enjoy a great day of golf which beats the hell out of
arguing with those married to the past.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

[Jerome Herman]

I would not call FreeBSD approach a failure, from my point of view it is
definitely a choice. FreeBSD is all about the "Least Astonishment". Sure
it results in new technologies and paradigm making their way into the OS
really slowly (though in the case of both wifi and USB (and ACPI by the
way) most of the problem still lies in incomplete specs and dubious
standard compliance from manufacturers).

But on the other hand it also results in a system that is extremely
coherent with himself and extremely stable over time. Almost every
script I wrote under FreeBSD 4.x still work flawlessly in 9.1.

In fact most *BSD contributors, write code for their needs - they
improve FreeBSD because they need the new stuff, not because they have
an agenda or a product to sell. Of course non vital improvement
(graphics, sounds, 3D etc.) takes longer to be implemented. But I
personally prefer an ugly frontend with a robust motor under the hood
than the contrary.

> Thank God
> that everyone is not the complacent. Where would civilization be now if
> Edison had considered the candle the ultimate technological advancement
> in portable lighting or if Bell had considered the telegraph the
> pinnacle of high speed communication. Change is hard -- it always has
> been. There exists a strong subculture that would rather curse the
> darkness then light a candle. Debating with them is a waste of time.
>
> You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down
> to their level....then beat you with experience. Simple ignore them and
> when time has passed them by and proven you right, you can smile
> knowing that you were. The frontiers are littered with "dinosaurs". You
> could also enjoy a great day of golf which beats the hell out of
> arguing with those married to the past.
>

[David Jackson]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Jamie Paul Griffin <ja...@kode5.net> wrote:

> [ Michel Talon wrote on Wed 22.Aug'12 at 12:29:56 +0200 ]
>
> >

> > David Jackson said:
>
> > > In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about
> > > portability", this is deceptive and misleading.
>
> > You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering
> > http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943
> > The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really
> > astounding. I will just quote two extracts:
>
> > " LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups,
> > udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux
> > API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are
> > irrelevant ?
>
> > Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I
> > think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems
> > when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a
> > burden, and holds us back for little benefit. "
>
>

That sort of shows my point in fact. There is nothing stopping FreeBSD from
implementing cgroups, udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, its not like
Linux is going to enforce patents on these things, its software, and
freebsd can easily add code to support these things, and as well, systemd.
You are acting like there is dependancy in systemd on some hardware device
you cannot change, this is not true, Software is flexible and can be easily
extended and improved, they use some software features provided by the OS,
and you clearly can install these features into FreeBSD if you would care
to do so. FreeBSD can implement all of the software interfaces to make
systemd and other software portable to FreeBSD.

So this is clearly not about "portability", FreeBSD is free to implement
these software interfaces to assure that software is portable to FreeBSD.
What this is about is FreeBSDs refusal to implement equivalent
functionality as Linux has. On this, FreeBSD has only itself to blame if it
refuses to do so, since FreeBSD clearly has the capability to easily add
the code necessary.

Clearly this is all FreeBSDs politics. It refuses to implement the features
because Linux developed because of the animosity towards Linux. FreeBSD has
a "not made here syndrome".

FreeBSD would rather criticize other OSs that are trying to improve their
features and flexibility, and power, rather than to improve itself.

As for FreeBSDs market share, it is vanishingly small on the desktop with
far less uptake than Linux. It is also shrinking in the server area, there
is increasingly little reason to use an OS that has worse hardware support,
less functionality. Linux is just as reliable as FreeBSD and has more
functionality by far.

I have been a supporter of FreeBSD for some time, but it was becoming clear
that Linux distributions can offer much more and are just as reliable, in
addition to offering more capabilities, power and features. all of this has
left little reason to keep using FreeBSD. Why use an OS that has less
features and capabilities when there are more powerful alternatives with
more capabilities that are just as reliable, available?

> This guy seems to be a real moron. What a ridiculous statement to make.

[Polytropon]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:41:05 -0400, David Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Jamie Paul Griffin <ja...@kode5.net> wrote:
>
> > [ Michel Talon wrote on Wed 22.Aug'12 at 12:29:56 +0200 ]
> >
> > >
> > > David Jackson said:
> >
> > > > In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about
> > > > portability", this is deceptive and misleading.
> >
> > > You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering
> > > http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943
> > > The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really
> > > astounding. I will just quote two extracts:
> >
> > > " LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups,
> > > udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux
> > > API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are
> > > irrelevant ?
> >
> > > Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I
> > > think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems
> > > when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a
> > > burden, and holds us back for little benefit. "
> >
> >
>
>
> That sort of shows my point in fact. There is nothing stopping FreeBSD from
> implementing cgroups, udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, its not like
> Linux is going to enforce patents on these things, its software, and
> freebsd can easily add code to support these things, and as well, systemd.

A problem might be that the Linux world is constantly changing.
Do you remember the HAL and DBUS problems? When FreeBSD had
implemented it, it has been abolished in Linux. There are of
course Linux-oriented software solutions that heavily rely
on Linux-specific things to fully function. Xfce is an example.
In case FreeBSD doesn't offer "low level functionality" like
kernel interfaces or library calls that are addressed by that
software on Linux, it will make that software unusable (or at
least limited in function) on FreeBSD. Assuming that more and
more software _will_ be primarily developed ON and FOR Linux,
it implies that FreeBSD will soon be out of that software.

Of course FreeBSD can implement those requirements. I just
think it's not _that_ easy because FREEBSD IS NOT LINUX.
Many dependencies will be resolved, many things added to
the kernel and system libraries, and when they are in a
working state, Linux will already use something else.

FreeBSD puts emphasize on durability, stability, the ability
to predict things, and the UNIX principle to have small
functional parts that do _one_ thing, and do it well, and
to interconnect those parts, instead intending to build
an egg-laying-wool-milk-sow, a "one size fits all" thing
that "does everything". Of course it's nice to have a system
where different functionality can be "plugged into" to have
basically the same purpose (e. g. "start or stop something").
FreeBSD has -- in ITS environment! -- such a system. Linux
has a different system, has different systemS. The more the
functional parts "the OS" and "the applications" are merged,
as it is the case in Linux (where no "the OS" exists, even
the kernel and the system tools are "additional packages"),
the more problems this implies to systems like FreeBSD that
have this functional distinction. However, integrating the
OS more with the installed GUI (!) programs is massively
important to attract desktop users with limited knowledge
about basic computer operations. This seems to be a growing
majority.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/fewer-and-fewer-people-want-to-know-about-computers-says-google/261271/

Not sure where this leads to...

> What this is about is FreeBSDs refusal to implement equivalent
> functionality as Linux has.

I'm not competent to make a statement regarding the amount
of work to do that, the benefit it brings and for how long
it will work until the whole thing has to be replaced by
something completely different. Still it would make sense
to assume that it's "not that easy".



> As for FreeBSDs market share, [...]

FreeBSD _does not have_ any market share. It's not a commercial
undertaking per se. It has usage share and even mind share. There
is no way you could bring _any_ numbers regarding market share
because (1st) it doesn't apply (e. g. like "Which market share
has air in comparison to coal?" - stupid question, I know),
and (2nd) as per the BSD license, you wouldn't even notice all
the BSDs running in network gear, storage appliances, electric
control units, display devices and so on. You have _zero_ chance
to find any numbers here you could compare.



> [...] it is vanishingly small on the desktop with

> far less uptake than Linux.

You mean usage share. Okay, agreed. FreeBSD is not a typically
known desktop system (even though _I_ am using it on the desktop
exclusively since 4.0). It's much more prominent in servers
where durability and stability are much more important than
bleeding edge features. You have no idea how many FreeBSD boxes
are still out there, running 4.x, 5.x or 6.x, acting as a file
server, and not going to stop doing so. :-)

> It is also shrinking in the server area, there
> is increasingly little reason to use an OS that has worse hardware support,
> less functionality.

Depends on what functionality you need on your server (as software
feature), and what server you are actually using - standard hardware
or short-life consumer stuff.

> Linux is just as reliable as FreeBSD and has more
> functionality by far.

Again, it depends on your setting if you need them, and if you are
willing to take the risk they might imply by their presence.

> I have been a supporter of FreeBSD for some time, but it was becoming clear
> that Linux distributions can offer much more and are just as reliable, in
> addition to offering more capabilities, power and features.

On the other hand, as a developer, I might argue that Linux often
has inferior documentation (which is _essential_ to developers)
and suffers from massive fragmentation, starting at directory
layout and not ending at what initialization system to use. Of
course I can understand that attitude: Why put time and money
into documentation that nobody will be interested in reading
it, or which would require manpower for continuous changing,
and that will be obsolete and not applying anymore in few years?

> all of this has
> left little reason to keep using FreeBSD. Why use an OS that has less
> features and capabilities when there are more powerful alternatives with
> more capabilities that are just as reliable, available?

Because it JUST WORKS(tm). :-)




--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

[Markiyan Kushnir]

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-July/231832.html

Already read and discussed/flamed here.

--
Markiyan.

On 22.08.2012 13:29, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> David Jackson said:
>
>> In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about
>> portability", this is deceptive and misleading.
>
> You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering
> http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943
> The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really
> astounding. I will just quote two extracts:
>
> " LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups,
> udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux
> API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are
> irrelevant ?
>
> Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I
> think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems
> when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a
> burden, and holds us back for little benefit. "
>

> and cherry on the cake
>
> "LinuxFr.org : Why Linux desktop hasn't been adopted by the
> mainstream users ? Linus Torvalds seems to think it's mostly a social
> issue and not a technical one. Do you agree with him ?
>
> Lennart : I think we weren't innovative enough in the interface, and we
> didn't have a convincing message and clear platform. If you accept MacOS
> as benchmark for user interfaces, then we weren't really matching it, at
> best copying it. I think this is changing now, with GNOME 3 which is a
> big step forward as an interface for Linux and for the first time is
> something that has been strictly designed under UI design guidelines.
> "
>
>
>
>
>

[kpn...@pobox.com]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:41:05AM -0400, David Jackson wrote:
> Clearly this is all FreeBSDs politics. It refuses to implement the features
> because Linux developed because of the animosity towards Linux. FreeBSD has
> a "not made here syndrome".
>
> FreeBSD would rather criticize other OSs that are trying to improve their
> features and flexibility, and power, rather than to improve itself.

A step in the wrong direction is not the same as a step forward.

I prefer to think of Linux as being more liberal and FreeBSD more conservative.
Linux has lots of people writing lots of new stuff, and lots of it turns
out to be bad or at least a bad idea. Then Linux people have to deal with
the badness. Meanwhile, FreeBSD sits back and waits for Linux to figure
out what works and what doesn't. FreeBSD waits to see what works well in
practice instead of wasting time on stuff that is only good in theory.

Let me give a non-Linux example:

In the past couple of weeks on the clang/llvm lists there was a question
about how much it would cost to implement a new C parser. Estimates were
put forth of around $14 million. But they also stated that clang/llvm's
C parser was rewritten a few times as they were learning what worked
and what didn't. Only after they went through all that effort and all
those iterations did FreeBSD pull in clang. That's a lot of pain and
trouble that FreeBSD simply skipped over.

> As for FreeBSDs market share, it is vanishingly small on the desktop with
> far less uptake than Linux. It is also shrinking in the server area, there

> is increasingly little reason to use an OS that has worse hardware support,

> less functionality. Linux is just as reliable as FreeBSD and has more
> functionality by far.

More functionality is a reason to run Linux only in some circumstances.
That functionality must be required and must be trustworthy about not
causing new problems or introducing new complications elsewhere. Those
are big if's.

And much functionality can be obtained through FreeBSD's ports system.
It is the core of the system that FreeBSD is conservative about.

> I have been a supporter of FreeBSD for some time, but it was becoming clear
> that Linux distributions can offer much more and are just as reliable, in

> addition to offering more capabilities, power and features. all of this has

> left little reason to keep using FreeBSD. Why use an OS that has less
> features and capabilities when there are more powerful alternatives with
> more capabilities that are just as reliable, available?

I dispute that Linux is just as reliable. The kernel may (I said MAY) be
just as reliable, but an apples-to-apples comparison requires including
this new stuff that Linux distributions keep throwing in. That makes it
less reliable.

I personally know of a business that tried to replace a business-critical
FreeBSD server farm with one that was based on Linux. It was supposed to
be a "drop-in" replacement. But after spending weeks dealing with issue
after issue after issue, and after wasting too much time with, for example,
interoperability issues with IBM z/OS, said business switched back to
FreeBSD.

Desktops and servers have very, very different requirements. FreeBSD aims
more to the server side and less to the desktop. Being critical of that
is like being critical of Jimi Hendrix for not trying to compete head-to-head
with The Beatles. Would you criticize Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, or Yngwie
Malmstein for not competing with Britney Spears?

If you want Lady Gaga you know where to find her.

--
Kevin P. Neal http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/

Seen on bottom of IBM part number 1887724:
DO NOT EXPOSE MOUSE PAD TO DIRECT SUNLIGHT FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.

[Jonathan McKeown]

On Wednesday 22 August 2012 15:41:05 David Jackson wrote:
> So this is clearly not about "portability", FreeBSD is free to implement
> these software interfaces to assure that software is portable to FreeBSD.

Really? You make software portable by writing it to one environment and then
changing every other environment to suit the software?

I'm not sure software portability means what you think it means.

Jonathan

[C. P. Ghost]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM, David Jackson <djack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That sort of shows my point in fact. There is nothing stopping FreeBSD from
> implementing cgroups, udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, its not like
> Linux is going to enforce patents on these things, its software, and
> freebsd can easily add code to support these things, and as well, systemd.

Right!

Nothing prevents us from writing a Linux compat shim similar
to the Linux-ABI (linuxulator) to provide the framework needed
by systemd et al. Make it optional, if necessary, so that the base
default FreeBSD system won't be contaminated.

It would also be nice to be able to kldload linux drivers
(binary blobs developed for Linux and provided by 3rd party
hardware vendors), but that would be harder to implement.
Then again, why not try? Isn't it like ndis(4), all over again?

-cpghost.

--
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/

[J B]

Hi,
I think it would be useful to get familiar with what systemd is,
technically and fundamentally.
Here is a thread in which a knowledgeable professional
questions many technical aspects of it:

open this thread in one browser window (to get a nice overview of what
you already read):
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-June/thread.html#152323

and start with the first post in another window (the reason is that tricksters
tried to change the thread subject, but if you follow thr thread with "next"
post you will not miss anything; be patient - there are some intermediate
posts that are noice):
systemd: please stop trying to take over the world :) Denys Vlasenko
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-June/152323.html

There are important points raised:
- going beyond system init replacement, systemd to be a platform for OS,
together with GNOME 3
- not adhering to UNIX principles (modularity, etc)
- interference with sysadmin duties/decisions to set up the system (e.g.
loading modules on its own and e.g. enabling sys capabilities and protocols)
- there are many other phantom reasons systemd was introduced as
the next thing after the sliced bread invention, like parallelization that
is not (but they sold it as if they implemented concurrency)

This is just an intro ...
There is much more to be questioned if you know what and care to.

The author of this snake oil knows what and why he sells it.
He is not a UNIX mind.

One can scratch her head thinking what kind of pseudo "progress" can
be sold to those goofies in Linux ecosystem, and apparently in *BSD
ecosystem as well.
The Slackware dev hit it exactly on the nail !

Think and enjoy it.
I will eventually comment more on it later as well.
jb

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "David" == David Jackson <djack...@gmail.com> writes:

David> The fact is, FreeBSD can fully support systemd and all kernel and system
David> features, there is nothing here that is impossible for FreeBSD to
David> support.

So this statement in the WikiP is false?

systemd is Linux-only by design, as it relies upon features such as
cgroups and fanotify.[6] Debian is avoiding the adoption of systemd due
to this issue.[7]

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion

[Thomas Mueller]

> So this statement in the WikiP is false?

> systemd is Linux-only by design, as it relies upon features such as
> cgroups and fanotify.[6] Debian is avoiding the adoption of systemd due
> to this issue.[7]

> --
> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc.

I read an article online about some Linux constructs make it very difficult to port some software to BSD.

This included systemd, also Xfce and GNOME 3.

I figure this is why GNOME 3, out for some time now, has not yet been ported to FreeBSD ports or NetBSD pkgsrc.


Tom