OT: Open letter to the Linux World

OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Christopher Barry]

What is intelligence? Not exactly the spook kind, but rather what is
the definition of intelligence in humans? This is pretty good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions

By most accounts, the self-appointed and arguably too influential
creators and thinkers of the day around the 'One Linux' idea fit the
definition of intelligent people - at least in the technical realm.

And their messages are pretty compelling:
* Simplify cross-distro development.
* Enable faster boot times.
* Enable an on-demand, event driven architecture, similar to 'Modern'
  Operating Systems.
* Bring order and control to subsystems that have had as many different
  tools as there were distros.

All seemingly noble goals. All apparently come from a deep desire to
contribute and make things better.

Almost anyone could argue that these intelligent people thought hard
about these issues, and put an enormous amount of effort into a
solution to these problems. Unfortunately, the solution they came up
with, as you may have guessed by now, is 'systemd'.

While not new, it's grotesque impact has finally reached me and I must
speak to it publicly. 

So, what is systemd? Well, meet your new God. You may have been praying
at the alter of simplicity, but your religion is being deprecated. It
likely already happened without your knowledge during an upgrade of
your Linux box. systemd is the all knowing, all controlling meta-deity
that sees all and supervises all. It's the new One Master Process that
aspires to control everything it can - and it's already doing a lot.
It's what init would look like if it were a transformer on steroids.
It's complicated, multi-faceted, opaque, and supremely powerful.

I had heard about systemd a few years back, when upstart and some other
init replacements I can't remember were showing up on the scene. And
while it seemed mildly interesting, I was not in favor of using it, nor
any of them for that matter. init was working just fine for me. init
was simple and robust. While configuration had it's distro-specific
differences, it was often these differences that made one pick the
distro to use in the first place, and to stay with that distro. The
tools essentially *were* the distro. I just dist-upgraded to Jessie,
and voila - PID 1 was suddenly systemd. What a clusterfuck.

In a 'One Linux' world, what would distros actually be? Deprecated. No
longer relevant. Archaic shells of their once proud individualism.
Basically, they're now just a logo and a default desktop background
image. Because let's face it, there only needs to be One Modern
'competitor' to the Windows/Mac ownership of personal computing. A
unified front to combat the evil empires of Redmond and Cupertino is
what's needed. The various differences that made up different 'flavors'
of Linux needed to be corralled and brought into compliance for the war
to proceed efficiently. Um, what war?

For me, Linux had already won that war way back in 1994 when I started
using it. It did it without firing a shot or attempting to be just like
the other OSes. It won it it by not giving a flying fuck about market
share. It won it by being exactly NOT them. It won it by being simple
and understandable and configurable to be exactly how *I* wanted it to
be. It won it by being a collection of simple modular components that
could be plugged together at will to do real work. It won it by
adhering to a deeply considered philosophy of the user being in the
drivers seat, and being free to run the things she wanted to, without
layers and layers of frameworks wrapping their tendrils into all manor
of stuff they should not be touching. It won it without the various
'CrapKit' shit that's begun to insinuate itself into the heart of my
system of late. It won it without being overly complex and unknowable.
That kind of opacity was was the core of Windows and Mac, and that's
exactly what I despise about them, and exactly why I chose to use Linux
in the first goddamn place. systemd is embracing *all* that I hate about
Windows and Mac, and doing so in the name of 'modernity' and
'simplifying' a developer's job.

So why would very smart people who love and use Linux want to create or
embrace such a creepy 'Master of All' daemon? Ostensibly, it's for the
reasons they say, as I mentioned at the top. But partially I think it's
from a lack of experience. Not a lack as in programming hours, but a
lack as in time on the Planet. Intelligence alone is not a substitute
for life experience and, yes I'll say it, wisdom. There's no manual for
wisdom. Implementing systemd by distros is not a wise move for them over
the long term. It will, in fact, be their ultimate undoing.

Partially it's the larger-than-life egos of the people involved. Has
anyone actually read what Poettering says about things? Wow. This guy
is obviously convinced he has all the answers for everyone. Traditional
ideas about simplicity and freedom are quaint, but have no real place
in a 'modern' OS. Look, he's just smarter than you, so get over it and
move aside. He knows what's best, and he has it under control. How old
is this guy anyway? 12 or so? He's a fucking tool (IMHO).

Partially it's roiling subsurface commercial interests. Look, We can
make more money selling stuff to Linux users if there were a simpler
distro agnostic way to do that. Fuck choice, they'll like what they get.

Partially it may well be nefarious and shadowy in nature. With One Ring
to rule them all, having access to it sure would be sweet for those
hell-bent on total information awareness. Trust is not real high on my
list of things to give out these days.

Partially it's a belief that the Linux Community must fight against the
hegemony of Windows and Mac - as if the existence of Linux depends upon
the vanquishing of alternatives. Those who think Linux should cater to
idiots and droolers should go back to their Macs and Windoze boxen, and
stop trying to 'fix' Linux. It wasn't fucking broken!

Partially - and this is what I cannot abide - it is a blatant disregard
and disrespect - whether knowingly or not - of the major tenets of
*NIX. It's a thoughtless discarding of, and a trampling on the values
that I personally hold to be true and just, and I am not alone here.
systemd is the exact opposite of what defines *NIX. And I'm not
blathering on about POSIX compliance either. It's the Philosophy stupid.

systemd is a coup. It is a subversive interloper designed to destroy
Linux as we know it, foisted upon us by the snarky
we-know-better-than-you CamelCase crowd. They just don't get it down
deep where it matters. systemd is not pointing in a direction that we
should be going. It does not encourage freedom. It does not encourage
choice. It does not display transparency. It does not embrace
simplicity. It seizes control and forces you to cede it. It makes
applications and major system components depend on it, and they cannot
function without it. It's gaining speed by luring naive or lazy or just
plain clueless developers into the fold with the promise of making
their lives easier. Buying into this way of thinking ignores the
greater dangers that systemd represents.

Debian has always held the line against this kind of thing in the past,
and has always earned my utmost respect and loyalty for their
integrity. Debian's decision here was as a hand forced. Debian has made
a grave and cowardly mistake here, and they need a course correction
immediately. Incorporating systemd was not an intelligent choice, and
certainly not one very well considered. Debian must reject systemd and
its ilk, and restore itself to the values that got Linux to this
point in history, in no small part *led* by Debian. They must loudly and
publicly divorce themselves from GNOME, however painful and upsetting
that may seem in the sort term, and focus on the core values of
simplicity and freedom. Put systemd and it's cabal in non-free where it
belongs if you must. Let the user decide if that's what
they want. Enlightenment is an excellent choice for a default desktop
that does not have the bloated baggage of GNOME. And to the Debian
Leaders - after 20 years of my loyalty and evangelism, you really let
me and all of us down. You need to grow a fucking pair and do the right
thing here and now.

Kick these fucking carpetbaggers to the curb!

Gnome. The Linux Foundation. freedesktop.org, and others. These are all
groups with agendas. These are not those who believe in freedom. They
believe in control and standardization. They believe in sameness. Who
are these people anyway? Who are these self-appointed keepers of the
Linux flame? (subliminal malware reference intended). What are their
true agendas? Who funds these people? Why do they so aggressively want
to change the core of Linux away from it's true philosophy? Let them go
off and create their own 'competitor' to Windows and Mac. If they did,
it would be the same opaque, backdoored, user-tracking bullshit that
Windows and Mac have become. They DO NOT speak for me, and you should
not passively allow them to speak for you either.

systemd is a trojan. systemd is a medusa. systemd is Substance D.
systemd is scary - not just because it's tools suck, or because it's
a massive fucking hairball - but because architecturally it has way
too much concentrated power. We all need to collectively expel it from
our midst because it will own Linux, and by extension us and our
freedoms. systemd will *be* Linux. Sit idly by and ignore this fact at
all of our collective peril.

OneLinux == zero-choice


--
Regards,
Christopher Barry

Random geeky fortune:
BOFH excuse #202:

kernel panic: write-only-memory (/dev/wom0) capacity exceeded.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Steven Rostedt]

Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).

I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".

Of course he'll have to make that an acronym.

-- Steve

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:21:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).

+1.

Nicely written, Christopher.

> I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
> routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".

Whatever it is, it will be sane and actually doing only what's needed to
do.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Måns Rullgård]

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:

> Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).

Made my day.

> I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
> routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".

The trouble is that most of the heavy-weight kernel developers don't
seem to care at all about what goes on in userspace.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Peter Zijlstra]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1081 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:07:05PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
> 
> > Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).
> 
> Made my day.
> 
> > I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
> > routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".
> 
> The trouble is that most of the heavy-weight kernel developers don't
> seem to care at all about what goes on in userspace.

Well, I know for a fact that quite a number do; but so far most people
who care have been able to steer clear of this trainwreck so we did.

I'm about to switch all my machines to Gentoo (from Debian) because that
will indeed allow you to build a distro without much of this nonsense
in -- because as has been eloquently said; you simply don't need this
fucking shite to run a 'normal' machine.

And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy' way
out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines is
indeed painful, and I'm not liking.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:27:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy'
> way out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines
> is indeed painful, and I'm not liking.

Right, I think kernel people will gladly jump on a sane solution devoid
of that kids-jerking-off-on-linux-desktop-just-for-the-fun-of-it
situation if someone would present them with one. So, if someone would
come up and do a sane init design without the jerking off, kernel people
would jump on that in a heartbeat. Someone might even start getting
patches from them too. ^^Hint^^ ^^hint^^.

:-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Måns Rullgård]

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:07:05PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).
>> 
>> Made my day.
>> 
>> > I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
>> > routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".
>> 
>> The trouble is that most of the heavy-weight kernel developers don't
>> seem to care at all about what goes on in userspace.
>
> Well, I know for a fact that quite a number do; but so far most people
> who care have been able to steer clear of this trainwreck so we did.
>
> I'm about to switch all my machines to Gentoo (from Debian) because that
> will indeed allow you to build a distro without much of this nonsense
> in -- because as has been eloquently said; you simply don't need this
> fucking shite to run a 'normal' machine.

Beware, even Gentoo will pull in systemd, if in a dormant state, unless
you are very careful.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Peter Zijlstra]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 545 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Beware, even Gentoo will pull in systemd, if in a dormant state, unless
> you are very careful.

Right so I've not tried yet (busy see), but I meant to remove all the
*Kit and other nonsense from the USE flags.

I don't need GNOME so that shouldn't pull it in either.

And from what I understood they have their own udev fork.

And I suppose its OpenBSD to the rescue:

  http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/gsoc2014.html#systemd

which is of course entirely ironic.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Måns Rullgård]

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Beware, even Gentoo will pull in systemd, if in a dormant state, unless
>> you are very careful.
>
> Right so I've not tried yet (busy see), but I meant to remove all the
> *Kit and other nonsense from the USE flags.

The safest way to avoid it by adding it to package.mask, then adjust USE
flags until nothing conflicts.  I do the same with dbus for good measure.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Martin Steigerwald]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5920 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, 13. August 2014, 10:27:56 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:07:05PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
> > > Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).
> > 
> > Made my day.
> > 
> > > I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
> > > routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".
> > 
> > The trouble is that most of the heavy-weight kernel developers don't
> > seem to care at all about what goes on in userspace.
> 
> Well, I know for a fact that quite a number do; but so far most people
> who care have been able to steer clear of this trainwreck so we did.
> 
> I'm about to switch all my machines to Gentoo (from Debian) because that
> will indeed allow you to build a distro without much of this nonsense
> in -- because as has been eloquently said; you simply don't need this
> fucking shite to run a 'normal' machine.
> 
> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy' way
> out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines is
> indeed painful, and I'm not liking.

Just for record:

Debian continues and will (for now and supposedly Jessie lifetime) continue to 
work without systemd as PID 1 using systemd-shim and cgmanager.

And no: Debian didn´t make the choice easily or without discussion. I believe 
this to be the most controversial decision inside the Debian project and of 
the Tech CTTE in a decade or so, *after* tons over tons of discussion before. 
But one part of the decision is that Debian will continue to support other 
init systems at the moment.

Its still being discussed in about all major Debian mailing lists up to now 
popping up every now and then.

I am not completely opposed to quite some ideas within systemd, but what 
really upsets me most in this is the "I know it better than you, go away!" 
kind of attitude I also experienced with PulseAudio developers who just give a 
damn about my use case of wanting to start music playback on one X11 session 
and then switch to another session and *continue* to listen to that music. 
Just as one example where I ran into problems with PulseAudio I can just get 
rid of with an easy apt-get purge of it.

And yes, this is where I think wisdom is missing and the ability to accept 
constructive criticism is missing. Not all use cases are the same, its that 
simple.

Its the attitude of knowing best for others without willing to accept feedback 
and discuss things that I am fed up with totally. If it doesn´t fit into my own 
agenda, I don´t care, go away. This kind of attitude is not likely to help in 
the long time. And I think its exactly this attitude that contributes *a lot* 
to the polarity around systemd. If people would get the impression that 
systemd upstream acts *sane* and in a *cooperative* way instead of *forcing* 
things I think there would be lot less resentment about it.

One can have different oppinions about the tone on this mailing list at times, 
but so far I never found anyone so stubborn not even to let a feedback sink in 
before responding on a regular basis. But I think for systemd developers some 
kind of feedback ridicules their world view by an amount that they just 
iptable -j DROP it before even receiving it. They may still answer it, but 
also that sometimes to my perception without even having received the feedback 
first.

That said, systemd in Debian works for me mostly, except some issues with 
mounting NFS at the workstation at work. But I will keep sysvinit-core 
installed for the time being.

That all said: I believe that any feedback like this is best served on 
systemd-devel mailing list – maybe in an attempt to express it in a somewhat 
polite, yet also direct way. Instead of on LKML, debian-user, debian-devel and 
you name it what other mailinglists. Cause that would increase the chance of 
upstream noticing it.

BTW I am still using KDE / Plasma and last I looked on GNOME (in Debian 
Wheezy) I just thought "Oh my god" and knowing that GNOME also insists on 
PulseAudio, I will continue with a desktop environment that leaves me choice. 
KDE developers invented Phonon for a reason. One reason is to be independent 
of any insanity going on in the lower layers of multimedia handling. Same 
thing with Solid. I think meanwhile they rely on systemd-logind, cause 
ConsoleKit is unmaintained, but at least they do not depend directly on it. I 
really hope this will stay this way and they continue to abstract all systemd 
use away so that in case systemd will not work out in the long term, they can 
adapt easily.

For any account: Depending on a particular init system in a desktop 
environment is a *bug*. And no way of intelligent arguing around this is 
likely going to convince me of the opposite.


Also I think:

martin@merkaba:~> ls -l /sbin/init
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 40648 Aug  3 21:01 /sbin/init
martin@merkaba:~> ls -l /bin/systemd
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Aug  6 13:41 /bin/systemd -> /lib/systemd/systemd
martin@merkaba:~> ls -l /lib/systemd/systemd
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1084816 Aug  6 13:42 /lib/systemd/systemd

martin@merkaba:~> apt list 2>&1 | egrep "(^systemd/|sysvinit-core)"
systemd/unstable,now 208-7 amd64 [installed]
sysvinit-core/unstable,now 2.88dsf-53.3 amd64 [installed,automatic]

is highly worrying. A one MiB binary as PID 1? Really?

I think I would also have separated cgroup managing from PID 1 also for the 
price of limited functionality should it not be available. I know there are 
arguments of systemd developers against it, but one MiB binary for PID 1 just 
asks for trouble and bugs.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Peter Zijlstra]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 661 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> That all said: I believe that any feedback like this is best served on 
> systemd-devel mailing list – maybe in an attempt to express it in a somewhat 
> polite, yet also direct way. Instead of on LKML, debian-user, debian-devel and 
> you name it what other mailinglists. Cause that would increase the chance of 
> upstream noticing it.

I think most people have given up on talking to them entirely. I
certainly have. And yes, its a popular subject for bitchin' about. And I
realize that bitchin' won't fix thing at all, but we all need to vent
our frustration somewhere.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Peter Zijlstra]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 818 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> 
> Also I think:
> 
> martin@merkaba:~> ls -l /sbin/init
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 40648 Aug  3 21:01 /sbin/init
> martin@merkaba:~> ls -l /bin/systemd
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Aug  6 13:41 /bin/systemd -> /lib/systemd/systemd
> martin@merkaba:~> ls -l /lib/systemd/systemd
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1084816 Aug  6 13:42 /lib/systemd/systemd
> 
> martin@merkaba:~> apt list 2>&1 | egrep "(^systemd/|sysvinit-core)"
> systemd/unstable,now 208-7 amd64 [installed]
> sysvinit-core/unstable,now 2.88dsf-53.3 amd64 [installed,automatic]
> 
> is highly worrying. A one MiB binary as PID 1? Really?

Yeah, utterly insane. PID 1 should not be doing these things; no single
process should do as much as systemd does, PID 1 least of all.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Måns Rullgård]

Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, 13. August 2014, 10:27:56 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:07:05PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
>> > > Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).
>> > 
>> > Made my day.
>> > 
>> > > I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
>> > > routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".
>> > 
>> > The trouble is that most of the heavy-weight kernel developers don't
>> > seem to care at all about what goes on in userspace.
>> 
>> Well, I know for a fact that quite a number do; but so far most people
>> who care have been able to steer clear of this trainwreck so we did.
>> 
>> I'm about to switch all my machines to Gentoo (from Debian) because that
>> will indeed allow you to build a distro without much of this nonsense
>> in -- because as has been eloquently said; you simply don't need this
>> fucking shite to run a 'normal' machine.
>> 
>> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy' way
>> out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines is
>> indeed painful, and I'm not liking.
>
> Just for record:
>
> Debian continues and will (for now and supposedly Jessie lifetime)
> continue to work without systemd as PID 1 using systemd-shim and
> cgmanager.

For now.  Non-systemd configurations will receive little testing, if
any.  Once enough breakage accumulates, someone will issue an ultimatum
for dropping such support entirely unless those who complain fix
everything within an unreasonably short time.  Obviously most things
will remain broken, because those who opposed systemd are not package
maintainers and have other jobs to do, and non-systemd support will be
removed.  I expect this to happen in unstable/testing within 18 months.

> That all said: I believe that any feedback like this is best served on
> systemd-devel mailing list – maybe in an attempt to express it in a
> somewhat polite, yet also direct way. Instead of on LKML, debian-user,
> debian-devel and you name it what other mailinglists. Cause that would
> increase the chance of upstream noticing it.

This discussion is not aimed at systemd developers.  We already know
they don't give a hoot.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Martin Steigerwald]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1479 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, 13. August 2014, 11:52:13 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > That all said: I believe that any feedback like this is best served on
> > systemd-devel mailing list – maybe in an attempt to express it in a
> > somewhat polite, yet also direct way. Instead of on LKML, debian-user,
> > debian-devel and you name it what other mailinglists. Cause that would
> > increase the chance of upstream noticing it.
> 
> I think most people have given up on talking to them entirely. I
> certainly have. And yes, its a popular subject for bitchin' about. And I
> realize that bitchin' won't fix thing at all, but we all need to vent
> our frustration somewhere.

I understand and symphatize with that.

I have given up on giving feedback to PulseAudio upstream as well for now. I 
just try to avoid it, but now Skype required skype 4.3. I don´t use Skype at 
the moment, but I support a close family member who does, and well… I hope it 
will just work. Or its Google Hangout or at some point a free as in freedom 
*and* easy alternative I am not yet aware of.

I read systemd-devel and I think there are quite sane discussions, but I 
believe if I bring up general feedback to systemd or question certain things 
about it… well… I feel reluctant about it at least.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Mittwoch, 13. August 2014, 10:57:01 schrieb Måns Rullgård:
> Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de> writes:
> > Am Mittwoch, 13. August 2014, 10:27:56 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:07:05PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
> >> > > Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > Made my day.
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > > I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
> >> > > routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > The trouble is that most of the heavy-weight kernel developers don't
> >> > seem to care at all about what goes on in userspace.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Well, I know for a fact that quite a number do; but so far most people
> >> who care have been able to steer clear of this trainwreck so we did.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> I'm about to switch all my machines to Gentoo (from Debian) because that
> >> will indeed allow you to build a distro without much of this nonsense
> >> in -- because as has been eloquently said; you simply don't need this
> >> fucking shite to run a 'normal' machine.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy' way
> >> out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines is
> >> indeed painful, and I'm not liking.
> > 
> > Just for record:
> > 
> > Debian continues and will (for now and supposedly Jessie lifetime)
> > continue to work without systemd as PID 1 using systemd-shim and
> > cgmanager.
> 
> For now.  Non-systemd configurations will receive little testing, if
> any.  Once enough breakage accumulates, someone will issue an ultimatum
> for dropping such support entirely unless those who complain fix
> everything within an unreasonably short time.  Obviously most things
> will remain broken, because those who opposed systemd are not package
> maintainers and have other jobs to do, and non-systemd support will be
> removed.  I expect this to happen in unstable/testing within 18 months.

I usually do not engage in predictions of the future, you know… my crystal 
ball has holidays.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[William Pitcock]

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:07:05PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
>>
>> > Nice rant, I sympathize with you (just complaining about this on G+).
>>
>> Made my day.
>>
>> > I'm just waiting for Linus to get pissed enough to write his own init
>> > routine. Maybe he'll call it "Boot Init Through Computer Hardware".
>>
>> The trouble is that most of the heavy-weight kernel developers don't
>> seem to care at all about what goes on in userspace.
>
> Well, I know for a fact that quite a number do; but so far most people
> who care have been able to steer clear of this trainwreck so we did.
>
> I'm about to switch all my machines to Gentoo (from Debian) because that
> will indeed allow you to build a distro without much of this nonsense
> in -- because as has been eloquently said; you simply don't need this
> fucking shite to run a 'normal' machine.
>
> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy' way
> out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines is
> indeed painful, and I'm not liking.

Another solution here which is more similar to Debian than Gentoo, is
Alpine (http://www.alpinelinux.org).  Alpine is a distribution which
takes a lot of design cues from Debian (although we do use OpenRC).
The typical user experience when using the alpine package management
tools is easy for Debian users to understand, being modeled on the apt
package manager.  Another interesting detail is that we have adopted
musl libc recently, and are working on glibc binary compatibility
where it matters - the non-free flash player is already working here,
and nvidia/fglrx are interesting targets as well.

We feel that our usage of musl libc allows for improved security of
the entire distribution, as musl's simplified implementation of
standard library features has a much lower attack surface, and indeed
a common observation is that many applications behave more robustly on
Alpine (using musl) than other distributions they are developing
against.

At present, there are no plans to adopt systemd there, and systemd
would need to be radically different than it is now to even be
considered as the init system.  The main blockers for systemd on
Alpine are believed to be permanent:

- systemd intentionally uses non-standard extensions to glibc
- systemd components cannot be safely split up to reduce installation footprint
- systemd has too much attack surface on PID 1 (d-bus, etc.)
- kdbus support could be reasonably implemented without systemd
- alpine does not wish to be 'forced' into adopting systemd through
applications using systemd-exclusive APIs

It should also be mentioned that Alpine is lightweight by default.
This has been a goal that Debian in many ways has strayed from over
the years.  An empty LXC container with an alpine install in it, but
no deployed applications, only takes approximately 3 megabytes of
disc.  Debian takes many orders of magnitude more now.

William

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Robert Hancock]

On 12/08/14 01:38 PM, Christopher Barry wrote:
>
>
> What is intelligence? Not exactly the spook kind, but rather what is
> the definition of intelligence in humans? This is pretty good:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions
>
> By most accounts, the self-appointed and arguably too influential
> creators and thinkers of the day around the 'One Linux' idea fit the
> definition of intelligent people - at least in the technical realm.
>
> And their messages are pretty compelling:
> * Simplify cross-distro development.
> * Enable faster boot times.
> * Enable an on-demand, event driven architecture, similar to 'Modern'
>    Operating Systems.
> * Bring order and control to subsystems that have had as many different
>    tools as there were distros.
>
> All seemingly noble goals. All apparently come from a deep desire to
> contribute and make things better.
>
> Almost anyone could argue that these intelligent people thought hard
> about these issues, and put an enormous amount of effort into a
> solution to these problems. Unfortunately, the solution they came up
> with, as you may have guessed by now, is 'systemd'.
>
> While not new, it's grotesque impact has finally reached me and I must
> speak to it publicly.
>
> So, what is systemd? Well, meet your new God. You may have been praying
> at the alter of simplicity, but your religion is being deprecated. It
> likely already happened without your knowledge during an upgrade of
> your Linux box. systemd is the all knowing, all controlling meta-deity
> that sees all and supervises all. It's the new One Master Process that
> aspires to control everything it can - and it's already doing a lot.
> It's what init would look like if it were a transformer on steroids.
> It's complicated, multi-faceted, opaque, and supremely powerful.
>
> I had heard about systemd a few years back, when upstart and some other
> init replacements I can't remember were showing up on the scene. And
> while it seemed mildly interesting, I was not in favor of using it, nor
> any of them for that matter. init was working just fine for me. init
> was simple and robust. While configuration had it's distro-specific
> differences, it was often these differences that made one pick the
> distro to use in the first place, and to stay with that distro. The
> tools essentially *were* the distro. I just dist-upgraded to Jessie,
> and voila - PID 1 was suddenly systemd. What a clusterfuck.

You might want to send this to a mailing list that's remotely relevant, 
like perhaps a Debian one. Though I wouldn't expect a very productive 
response there either, since you neglected to include any reasons behind 
your rant other than "they changed it, now it sucks".

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Jaswinder Singh]

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Christopher Barry
<christopher.r.barry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What is intelligence? Not exactly the spook kind, but rather what is
> the definition of intelligence in humans? This is pretty good:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions
>

Do you want to see bigger picture ?

Ideal intelligent application software:
1. Software which can automatically add/modify/delete functions.
2. Software which can automatically fix bugs.

Ideal intelligent operating software:
1. Software which can automatically add/modify/delete hardware.
2. Software which can automatically add/modify/delete drivers.
3. Software which can automatically add/modify/delete service packs.
4. Software which can automatically add/modify/delete functions.
5. Software which can automatically fix bugs.

Thanks,
--
Jaswinder Singh.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 13.08.2014 11:00, schrieb Borislav Petkov:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:27:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy'
>> way out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines
>> is indeed painful, and I'm not liking.
>
> Right, I think kernel people will gladly jump on a sane solution devoid
> of that kids-jerking-off-on-linux-desktop-just-for-the-fun-of-it
> situation if someone would present them with one. So, if someone would
> come up and do a sane init design without the jerking off, kernel people
> would jump on that in a heartbeat. Someone might even start getting
> patches from them too. ^^Hint^^ ^^hint^^.
>
> :-)

Hmm, a sane and maintainable solution would use C++ with which people 
don't have to manually build lists or hashes for every structure like in 
the kernel (generic programming done right). So you won't find much 
kernel developers there. ;)

Regards,

Alexander Holler

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 08:15:45PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> 
> Hmm, a sane and maintainable solution would use C++ with which people don't
> have to manually build lists or hashes for every structure like in the
> kernel (generic programming done right). So you won't find much kernel
> developers there. ;)
> 

Troll a lot do you? ;-)

While I like C++ (and quite a number of kernel people can in fact write
C++ no problem) we can have a long debate about whether the STL is in
fact 'done right' :-)

Also, I don't think init (as in PID-1) should be a large program, and
therefore writing it in C would be entirely reasonable.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 04.09.2014 09:54, schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 08:15:45PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, a sane and maintainable solution would use C++ with which people don't
>> have to manually build lists or hashes for every structure like in the
>> kernel (generic programming done right). So you won't find much kernel
>> developers there. ;)
>>
>
> Troll a lot do you? ;-)

Not really.

I just hate all the stuff which is necessary in C when I e.g. want a 
sorted list, map or set for whatever structure I have the need for. I 
had fun doing so 30 years ago, when I started to learn C, but now it's 
just tiring.

E.g. for the dependency based initialization order with DT I would have 
liked it to have a list (or map or set) of strings (sorted) in order to 
find a driver by name (fast). In C++ it would need something < 10 lines 
of source and I would be able to change the sorting algorithm from list 
to map(hash) or similiar by changing a few lines. Doing so in C is just 
a pain. Not to speak about all the possible errors when implementing the 
stuff in C again and again. Ok, the kernel provides some macros for 
lists, but e.g. they can be found only in the kernel (which means many 
people don't know or remember how to use them) and are by far not that 
flexible.

> While I like C++ (and quite a number of kernel people can in fact write
> C++ no problem) we can have a long debate about whether the STL is in
> fact 'done right' :-)

Up to now I haven't seen something really better. Of course, there are a 
lot of other programming languages which do make it easy to use lists, 
maps and similiar, but none of them is as fast and portable as C++ while 
still allowing to do low-level things (if necessary).

> Also, I don't think init (as in PID-1) should be a large program, and
> therefore writing it in C would be entirely reasonable.

It's a myth that C++ ends up in bigger code than C. At least in my 
experience. Especially when the latest additions to C++ are in effect 
(like the move-semantics in C++11 I like quiet a lot and which you get 
almost for free (by changing nothing) when you use the STL). Thread 
support is now also standardized (in C++11), quiet nice to use.

Regards,

Alexander Holler

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 962 bytes --]

On 2014-09-04 06:16, Alexander Holler wrote:
> 
> It's a myth that C++ ends up in bigger code than C. At least in my
> experience. Especially when the latest additions to C++ are in effect
> (like the move-semantics in C++11 I like quiet a lot and which you get
> almost for free (by changing nothing) when you use the STL). Thread
> support is now also standardized (in C++11), quiet nice to use.
Assuming you are writing in a standalone environment (no standard
libraries), then yes, your code will usually be about the same size
(unless you go way overboard with the object-oriented stuff); but the
runtime is larger in almost all non-standalone environments, and there
are some cases that code does end up larger in C++.  A lot of 'Clean C'
(stuff written so that it compiles correctly as C, C++ and Objective C)
that I have seen seems to end up larger (by about 4-6%) when built as
C++ (although it usually does much worse as Objective C).


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2455 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 04.09.2014 16:36, schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn:
> On 2014-09-04 06:16, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>
>> It's a myth that C++ ends up in bigger code than C. At least in my
>> experience. Especially when the latest additions to C++ are in effect
>> (like the move-semantics in C++11 I like quiet a lot and which you get
>> almost for free (by changing nothing) when you use the STL). Thread
>> support is now also standardized (in C++11), quiet nice to use.

> Assuming you are writing in a standalone environment (no standard
> libraries), then yes, your code will usually be about the same size
> (unless you go way overboard with the object-oriented stuff); but the
> runtime is larger in almost all non-standalone environments, and there
> are some cases that code does end up larger in C++.  A lot of 'Clean C'
> (stuff written so that it compiles correctly as C, C++ and Objective C)
> that I have seen seems to end up larger (by about 4-6%) when built as
> C++ (although it usually does much worse as Objective C).

There are always corner cases and I never would use some "Clean C" code 
to compare sizes of C and C++. There is a whole lot of stuff you just 
can't, shouldn't or wouldn't do when using C instead of C++.

And just throwing in some numbers without any explanation about features 
(like exceptions), optimizations and so on you've enabled for the tests 
you used to get those numbers, doesn't work. ;)

I can't really comment on what you mean with "standalone environment" or 
"non-standalone environment", as I don't know what you mean with that. 
But if several programms share e.g. the stuff which is in libstdc++. 
you'll get a lot of size back when compared with C-only programms where 
everyone invents the wheel again and again.

Regards,

Alexander Holler

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2572 bytes --]

On 2014-09-04 13:29, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 04.09.2014 16:36, schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn:
>> On 2014-09-04 06:16, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a myth that C++ ends up in bigger code than C. At least in my
>>> experience. Especially when the latest additions to C++ are in effect
>>> (like the move-semantics in C++11 I like quiet a lot and which you get
>>> almost for free (by changing nothing) when you use the STL). Thread
>>> support is now also standardized (in C++11), quiet nice to use.
> 
>> Assuming you are writing in a standalone environment (no standard
>> libraries), then yes, your code will usually be about the same size
>> (unless you go way overboard with the object-oriented stuff); but the
>> runtime is larger in almost all non-standalone environments, and there
>> are some cases that code does end up larger in C++.  A lot of 'Clean C'
>> (stuff written so that it compiles correctly as C, C++ and Objective C)
>> that I have seen seems to end up larger (by about 4-6%) when built as
>> C++ (although it usually does much worse as Objective C).
> 
> There are always corner cases and I never would use some "Clean C" code
> to compare sizes of C and C++. There is a whole lot of stuff you just
> can't, shouldn't or wouldn't do when using C instead of C++.
> 
> And just throwing in some numbers without any explanation about features
> (like exceptions), optimizations and so on you've enabled for the tests
> you used to get those numbers, doesn't work. ;)
> 
> I can't really comment on what you mean with "standalone environment" or
> "non-standalone environment", as I don't know what you mean with that.
> But if several programms share e.g. the stuff which is in libstdc++.
> you'll get a lot of size back when compared with C-only programms where
> everyone invents the wheel again and again.
By standalone environment, I mean no libraries, no libc[++], no external
dependencies, and in the case of a lot of kernel programming, no
built-ins.  A OS kernel HAS to be written like that, and it's easier to
do that in C than C++.  I doubt that you have ever looked at any source
code for Windows drivers, but Windows is written in C++, and they still
are just as mind-numbingly insane as some of the poorly maintained,
vendor originated Linux drivers.
Not all C is like the Linux kernel, and in fact, if you use Linux,
probably more than half of your user-space programs were written in C.
They use dynamic linking just like C++ programs (but often with less
complex symbol mangling).


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2455 bytes --]

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 04.09.2014 19:58, schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn:
> On 2014-09-04 13:29, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Am 04.09.2014 16:36, schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn:
>>> On 2014-09-04 06:16, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's a myth that C++ ends up in bigger code than C. At least in my
>>>> experience. Especially when the latest additions to C++ are in effect
>>>> (like the move-semantics in C++11 I like quiet a lot and which you get
>>>> almost for free (by changing nothing) when you use the STL). Thread
>>>> support is now also standardized (in C++11), quiet nice to use.
>>
>>> Assuming you are writing in a standalone environment (no standard
>>> libraries), then yes, your code will usually be about the same size
>>> (unless you go way overboard with the object-oriented stuff); but the
>>> runtime is larger in almost all non-standalone environments, and there
>>> are some cases that code does end up larger in C++.  A lot of 'Clean C'
>>> (stuff written so that it compiles correctly as C, C++ and Objective C)
>>> that I have seen seems to end up larger (by about 4-6%) when built as
>>> C++ (although it usually does much worse as Objective C).
>>
>> There are always corner cases and I never would use some "Clean C" code
>> to compare sizes of C and C++. There is a whole lot of stuff you just
>> can't, shouldn't or wouldn't do when using C instead of C++.
>>
>> And just throwing in some numbers without any explanation about features
>> (like exceptions), optimizations and so on you've enabled for the tests
>> you used to get those numbers, doesn't work. ;)
>>
>> I can't really comment on what you mean with "standalone environment" or
>> "non-standalone environment", as I don't know what you mean with that.
>> But if several programms share e.g. the stuff which is in libstdc++.
>> you'll get a lot of size back when compared with C-only programms where
>> everyone invents the wheel again and again.
> By standalone environment, I mean no libraries, no libc[++], no external
> dependencies, and in the case of a lot of kernel programming, no
> built-ins.  A OS kernel HAS to be written like that, and it's easier to
> do that in C than C++.  I doubt that you have ever looked at any source
> code for Windows drivers, but Windows is written in C++, and they still
> are just as mind-numbingly insane as some of the poorly maintained,
> vendor originated Linux drivers.

I've seen drivers for Windows and for OS2/2 and DOS and FreeBSD and ...

But throwing the ball back, did you know that all Arduino SW is in C++? ;)

> Not all C is like the Linux kernel, and in fact, if you use Linux,
> probably more than half of your user-space programs were written in C.
> They use dynamic linking just like C++ programs (but often with less
> complex symbol mangling).

This thread isn't about the kernel, but some userspace program which 
does quiet a lot and which wants to do even more. I've just used one 
example I did in the kernel space to explain what I miss when I'm using 
or having to use C instead of C++.

I do understand why the Linux kernel is (still) in C and don't want to 
start a discussion about that.

Regards,

Alexander Holler

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Rogelio Serrano]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote:
> Am 13.08.2014 11:00, schrieb Borislav Petkov:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:27:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy'
>>> way out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines
>>> is indeed painful, and I'm not liking.
>>
>>
>> Right, I think kernel people will gladly jump on a sane solution devoid
>> of that kids-jerking-off-on-linux-desktop-just-for-the-fun-of-it
>> situation if someone would present them with one. So, if someone would
>> come up and do a sane init design without the jerking off, kernel people
>> would jump on that in a heartbeat. Someone might even start getting
>> patches from them too. ^^Hint^^ ^^hint^^.
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> Hmm, a sane and maintainable solution would use C++ with which people don't
> have to manually build lists or hashes for every structure like in the
> kernel (generic programming done right). So you won't find much kernel
> developers there. ;)
>

Seriously Dude?

Have you tried it? I was using c++ before during and after the stl was
standardised
and the memories of the resulting induced self hair pulling still
gives me the shivers.
Try writing a real time kernel with full c++ support. You have to
provide the entire c++
runtime in the kernel!

I still do a little c++ programming when i am forced to but its only
in small pieces.
Ill go crazy otherwise.


> Regards,
>
> Alexander Holler
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 04.09.2014 20:27, schrieb Rogelio Serrano:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote:
>> Am 13.08.2014 11:00, schrieb Borislav Petkov:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:27:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And the thing is; we're all very busy so we tend to take the 'easy'
>>>> way out for things like this; but wholesale switching all my machines
>>>> is indeed painful, and I'm not liking.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, I think kernel people will gladly jump on a sane solution devoid
>>> of that kids-jerking-off-on-linux-desktop-just-for-the-fun-of-it
>>> situation if someone would present them with one. So, if someone would
>>> come up and do a sane init design without the jerking off, kernel people
>>> would jump on that in a heartbeat. Someone might even start getting
>>> patches from them too. ^^Hint^^ ^^hint^^.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>
>> Hmm, a sane and maintainable solution would use C++ with which people don't
>> have to manually build lists or hashes for every structure like in the
>> kernel (generic programming done right). So you won't find much kernel
>> developers there. ;)
>>
>
> Seriously Dude?
>
> Have you tried it? I was using c++ before during and after the stl was
> standardised
> and the memories of the resulting induced self hair pulling still
> gives me the shivers.
> Try writing a real time kernel with full c++ support. You have to
> provide the entire c++
> runtime in the kernel!
>
> I still do a little c++ programming when i am forced to but its only
> in small pieces.
> Ill go crazy otherwise.

I've started to use C++ when only precompilers (to translate C++ to C) 
were available. That was long before the STL was standardised.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Rob Landley]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote:
>>> Hmm, a sane and maintainable solution would use C++ with which people
>>> don't
>>> have to manually build lists or hashes for every structure like in the
>>> kernel (generic programming done right). So you won't find much kernel
>>> developers there. ;)
>>>
>>
>> Seriously Dude?
>>
>> Have you tried it? I was using c++ before during and after the stl was
>> standardised
>> and the memories of the resulting induced self hair pulling still
>> gives me the shivers.
>> Try writing a real time kernel with full c++ support. You have to
>> provide the entire c++
>> runtime in the kernel!
>>
>> I still do a little c++ programming when i am forced to but its only
>> in small pieces.
>> Ill go crazy otherwise.
>
>
> I've started to use C++ when only precompilers (to translate C++ to C) were
> available. That was long before the STL was standardised.

What's actually wrong with C++ at a language design level.

Short version:

http://lwn.net/Articles/504751/

Long version (parts 1, 2, 3):

http://landley.net/notes-2011.html#16-03-2011
http://landley.net/notes-2011.html#19-03-2011
http://landley.net/notes-2011.html#20-03-2011

Seriously, saying C++ is a good language because it contains the whole
of C is like saying a mud pie is a good beverage because it contains
an entire glass of water.

Do you honestly think this is the first time this topic has come up?

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus

Rob

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 04.09.2014 21:18, schrieb Rob Landley:

> What's actually wrong with C++ at a language design level.
>
> Short version:

OMG.

It's better than C. In almost every aspect. Stop. Nothing else. Of
course, if you want to write something like systemd in Python, Perl,
Pascal, Modula or Erlang, feel free to so. And if you want more security
bugs, feel free to still use C for string handling instead of
std::string, Or still write your sorted list for every structure (or 
just don't and go the slow way, because you don't find the time to do it 
right in C). And ...

You don't have to understand how templates do work to use e.g.
std::string. Other people do hard stuff for you. So don't panic.

Alexander Holler

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 05.09.2014 08:31, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 04.09.2014 21:18, schrieb Rob Landley:
>
>> What's actually wrong with C++ at a language design level.
>>
>> Short version:
>
> OMG.
>
> It's better than C. In almost every aspect. Stop. Nothing else. Of
> course, if you want to write something like systemd in Python, Perl,
> Pascal, Modula or Erlang, feel free to so. And if you want more security
> bugs, feel free to still use C for string handling instead of
> std::string, Or still write your sorted list for every structure (or
> just don't and go the slow way, because you don't find the time to do it
> right in C). And ...
>
> You don't have to understand how templates do work to use e.g.
> std::string. Other people do hard stuff for you. So don't panic.


I've brought up the critics about using C in a critical and very 
security sensitive piece of software in userland, so I've decided a bit 
more explanations might make sense.

First, as you don't seem to have noticed or you don't know or you ignore 
the difference, let me repeat that this thread is about a piece of SW 
which runs in userland. So, please, keep away with any comments from 
Linus where he talks about kernelspace. I'm pretty sure he knows the 
difference.

Now let me bring up a very small piece of code which you can find in a 
similiar fashion in almost every piece of software which gets in contact 
with strings. And not just in one place or function, but in dozens or 
even hundred of places (inline, not in functions) in one project.

First in C++:

void foo_bar(const std::string& foo, const std::string& bar, 
std::string& foobar)
{
	foobar = foo + bar;
}

For those which don't know C++, this concatenates the two strings named 
foo and bar and puts the result into foobar.

Now an example how you would have to do that in C:

char *foo_bar(const char *foo, const char *bar)
{
	char *foobar = malloc(strlen(foo) + strlen(bar));

	strcpy(foobar, foo);
	strcat(foobar, bar);

	return foobar;
}

Do you see the difference and spot all the problems?

First I've though about not posting the answer to see the response, but 
that would just have ended up with a lot of people calling me a fool 
and/or assuming I can't write proper C. And it bears the problem that 
some inexperienced people might copy and paste and use it.

So at first: THE ABOVE EXAMPLE IN C IS BROKEN.

The very first problem is that foobar is allocated with the wrong size, 
because it doesn't take care of the terminating null byte. A very common 
problem already found at uncountable places.

But there are several more problems:

- What happens if foo or bar isn't terminated with a null byte?

- What happens if malloc fails?

- Who is the owner of foo, bar and/or foobar? Does the caller still owns 
foo and bar afterwards? Will the caller own foobar? (That means who is 
repsonsible to free foo, bar and foobar if they aren't used anymore).

So now we extend the above C example:

char *foo_bar(const char *foo, const char *bar)
{
	char *foobar;

	if (!foo || !bar)
		return NULL;

	foobar = malloc(strlen(foo) + strlen(bar) + 1);

	if (!foobar)
		return NULL;

	strcpy(foobar, foo);
	strcat(foobar, bar);

	return foobar;
}

This has still some problems. First, the caller has to check if 
foo_bar() hasn't returned NULL. A very common bug already found in 
uncountable places too.

Next, there is still the unsolvable problem about what happens if foo or 
bar isn't terminated with a null byte (in other words they aren't C 
strings).
So you have to check all callers up to the source of foo and bar to be 
sure the program doesn't crash in the possible far far away place called 
foo_bar().

And still no comment about ownership. That means someone who just looks 
at the prototype or sees a call of foo_bar() somewhere has no idea about 
the ownership of foo, bar and the returned foobar without a comment.

So just this very simple functionality about string handling in C 
already contains several still open questions and is 17 lines long which 
have to be reviewed very carefull (e.g. to not miss the off-by-one bug).
Compare this with the 4 lines in C++ which are almost impossible to do 
or to use wrong.

And, again, this thread is about a piece of software which runs with 
process ID 1, wants to control the whole system and owns all permissions 
to modify the system in almost every possible way. It doesn't run as 
some user  with restricted permissions or in chroot or something 
similar. Some parts might do, but for sure not all (read again the above 
"far far away").

And now some stats. I've just checked out systemd:

git grep -E "strcat|strncat|strcpy|strncpy|strlen" | wc -l
570

git grep -E "strcat|strncat|strcpy|strncpy|memcpy|strlen" | wc -l
850

Ok, not every of those places might be part of pid 1. And several places 
are trivial calls like strlen("ATTR"), but it gives an idea about how 
many places do exist in systemd which might contain a problem wich isn't 
trivial to spot.

And regardless how clever and experienced these people are which are 
writing this piece of software, everyone is prone to do e.g. such an 
off-by-one bug.
Maybe he writes the piece of code after having worked 12 hours, maybe he 
got interrupted while writing the code and continued it a day later, 
maybe it's full moon or maybe his last meal wasn't like it should have been.

Whatever.

This means, every piece of code in that piece of software has to be 
reviewed multiple times (reviewers aren't perfect too), and, as long as 
the software changes, every piece which changes has to be reviewed 
multiple times again.

I could continue with examples for lists, sets and similiar data 
structures, which have to be inventent again and again and again in C, 
whereas in C++ people can reuse some code which is already in use by 
many, many people in many, many other projects.

And to come to your argument about how simple everything in C is. Just 
look at the macro for container_of(). I wouldn't say it's such simple 
that everyone understands what it does. And it's just part of the Linux 
kernel, that means limited documentation and many people never heard of 
it before, compared with stuff which can be found standard libraries.

And, again, this is not about the kernelspace, it isn't the Linux kernel 
where Linus has managed it to organize an army of people which do look 
at every line again and again (and still do sometimes miss a bug).
Most software projects don't have that many resources (human or not) 
available as the Linux kernel. In fact it's an absolute exception.

So you just don't want to use error prone C in new and non-trivial 
projects (if not really necessary) which are a major problem if 
something fails in the code.

Doing so just means nothing has be learned from the (of corse relatively 
short) history of software development.

Alexander Holler

PS: Please don't try to tell me that even the above C++ example ends up 
in some similar code as the C code. std::string is used by even more 
people than which do review the Linux kernel code. Besides that it was 
designed and reviewed by clever people too. And, just to repeat it 
again, we are talking about userspace, not kernelspace.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:01:29PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> I've brought up the critics about using C in a critical and very
> security sensitive piece of software in userland, so I've decided a
> bit more explanations might make sense.
> 
> First, as you don't seem to have noticed or you don't know or you
> ignore the difference, let me repeat that this thread is about a
> piece of SW which runs in userland. So, please, keep away with any
> comments from Linus where he talks about kernelspace. I'm pretty
> sure he knows the difference.
> 
> Now let me bring up a very small piece of code which you can find in
> a similiar fashion in almost every piece of software which gets in
> contact with strings. And not just in one place or function, but in
> dozens or even hundred of places (inline, not in functions) in one
> project.
> 
> First in C++:
> 
> void foo_bar(const std::string& foo, const std::string& bar,
> std::string& foobar)
> {
> 	foobar = foo + bar;
> }
> 
> For those which don't know C++, this concatenates the two strings
> named foo and bar and puts the result into foobar.
> 
> Now an example how you would have to do that in C:
> 
> char *foo_bar(const char *foo, const char *bar)
> {
> 	char *foobar = malloc(strlen(foo) + strlen(bar));
> 
> 	strcpy(foobar, foo);
> 	strcat(foobar, bar);
> 
> 	return foobar;
> }
> 
> Do you see the difference and spot all the problems?
> 
> First I've though about not posting the answer to see the response,
> but that would just have ended up with a lot of people calling me a
> fool and/or assuming I can't write proper C. And it bears the
> problem that some inexperienced people might copy and paste and use
> it.
> 
> So at first: THE ABOVE EXAMPLE IN C IS BROKEN.
> 
> The very first problem is that foobar is allocated with the wrong
> size, because it doesn't take care of the terminating null byte. A
> very common problem already found at uncountable places.
> 
> But there are several more problems:
> 
> - What happens if foo or bar isn't terminated with a null byte?
> 
> - What happens if malloc fails?
> 
> - Who is the owner of foo, bar and/or foobar? Does the caller still
> owns foo and bar afterwards? Will the caller own foobar? (That means
> who is repsonsible to free foo, bar and foobar if they aren't used
> anymore).
> 
> So now we extend the above C example:
> 
> char *foo_bar(const char *foo, const char *bar)
> {
> 	char *foobar;
> 
> 	if (!foo || !bar)
> 		return NULL;
> 
> 	foobar = malloc(strlen(foo) + strlen(bar) + 1);
> 
> 	if (!foobar)
> 		return NULL;
> 
> 	strcpy(foobar, foo);
> 	strcat(foobar, bar);
> 
> 	return foobar;
> }
> 
> This has still some problems. First, the caller has to check if
> foo_bar() hasn't returned NULL. A very common bug already found in
> uncountable places too.
> 
> Next, there is still the unsolvable problem about what happens if
> foo or bar isn't terminated with a null byte (in other words they
> aren't C strings).
> So you have to check all callers up to the source of foo and bar to
> be sure the program doesn't crash in the possible far far away place
> called foo_bar().
> 
> And still no comment about ownership. That means someone who just
> looks at the prototype or sees a call of foo_bar() somewhere has no
> idea about the ownership of foo, bar and the returned foobar without
> a comment.
> 
> So just this very simple functionality about string handling in C
> already contains several still open questions and is 17 lines long
> which have to be reviewed very carefull (e.g. to not miss the
> off-by-one bug).
> Compare this with the 4 lines in C++ which are almost impossible to
> do or to use wrong.
> 
> And, again, this thread is about a piece of software which runs with
> process ID 1, wants to control the whole system and owns all
> permissions to modify the system in almost every possible way. It
> doesn't run as some user  with restricted permissions or in chroot
> or something similar. Some parts might do, but for sure not all
> (read again the above "far far away").
> 
> And now some stats. I've just checked out systemd:
> 
> git grep -E "strcat|strncat|strcpy|strncpy|strlen" | wc -l
> 570
> 
> git grep -E "strcat|strncat|strcpy|strncpy|memcpy|strlen" | wc -l
> 850
> 
> Ok, not every of those places might be part of pid 1. And several
> places are trivial calls like strlen("ATTR"), but it gives an idea
> about how many places do exist in systemd which might contain a
> problem wich isn't trivial to spot.
> 
> And regardless how clever and experienced these people are which are
> writing this piece of software, everyone is prone to do e.g. such an
> off-by-one bug.
> Maybe he writes the piece of code after having worked 12 hours,
> maybe he got interrupted while writing the code and continued it a
> day later, maybe it's full moon or maybe his last meal wasn't like
> it should have been.
> 
> Whatever.
> 
> This means, every piece of code in that piece of software has to be
> reviewed multiple times (reviewers aren't perfect too), and, as long
> as the software changes, every piece which changes has to be
> reviewed multiple times again.
> 
> I could continue with examples for lists, sets and similiar data
> structures, which have to be inventent again and again and again in
> C, whereas in C++ people can reuse some code which is already in use
> by many, many people in many, many other projects.
> 
> And to come to your argument about how simple everything in C is.
> Just look at the macro for container_of(). I wouldn't say it's such
> simple that everyone understands what it does. And it's just part of
> the Linux kernel, that means limited documentation and many people
> never heard of it before, compared with stuff which can be found
> standard libraries.
> 
> And, again, this is not about the kernelspace, it isn't the Linux
> kernel where Linus has managed it to organize an army of people
> which do look at every line again and again (and still do sometimes
> miss a bug).
> Most software projects don't have that many resources (human or not)
> available as the Linux kernel. In fact it's an absolute exception.
> 
> So you just don't want to use error prone C in new and non-trivial
> projects (if not really necessary) which are a major problem if
> something fails in the code.
> 
> Doing so just means nothing has be learned from the (of corse
> relatively short) history of software development.

So why C++ then if you care about making the code easy to make safe when
there are clearly even better options.  Why not OCAML or Erlang or one
of the other much more robust languages that don't contain all the
dangers of C?

-- 
Len Sorensen

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Alexander Holler]

Am 07.09.2014 01:44, schrieb Lennart Sorensen:

> So why C++ then if you care about making the code easy to make safe when
> there are clearly even better options.  Why not OCAML or Erlang or one
> of the other much more robust languages that don't contain all the
> dangers of C?

I would choose Prolog. ;)

I don't have to provide an answer because I'm not one of those which 
have gone out to change this critical part of many systems.

My concerns are that C is one of the worst languages for that. I'm not
saying that C++ would be the best solution. But I'm pretty sure it would 
have been a much better solution than C.

That means I haven't spend much time (around zero) to think about what 
an init-replacement has to do and how it would be done best. I'm just 
very concerned about what happens there.

So here are just some thoughts:

- Why do you call OCAML or Erlang more robust? Many problems in other 
languages just aren't well known because they are only used by a few 
people which don't tell you bad things about the language they've 
choosen. ;)

- Can you achieve all goals with just using OCAML or another language? 
My experience is that in almost all of those "very well designed 
languages", you are reaching very often some limits or problems which 
are very ugly to solve, if it's possible at all to solve them.

- How many people do you know which can program (and review) that language?

- How robust are the compilers/interpreters? How are they maintained? 
What happens if you find a bug in the compiler/interpreter?

But, as said above, I don't have to provide a solution because I'm not 
the one who has gone out to change PID 1 into something more complicated. ;)

Regards,

Alexander Holler

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Christopher Barry
<christopher.r.barry@gmail.com> wrote:
> So why would very smart people who love and use Linux want to create or
> embrace such a creepy 'Master of All' daemon? Ostensibly, it's for the
> reasons they say, as I mentioned at the top. But partially I think it's
> from a lack of experience. Not a lack as in programming hours, but a
> lack as in time on the Planet. Intelligence alone is not a substitute
> for life experience and, yes I'll say it, wisdom. There's no manual for
> wisdom. Implementing systemd by distros is not a wise move for them over
> the long term. It will, in fact, be their ultimate undoing.
>
> Partially it's the larger-than-life egos of the people involved. Has
> anyone actually read what Poettering says about things? Wow. This guy
> is obviously convinced he has all the answers for everyone. Traditional
> ideas about simplicity and freedom are quaint, but have no real place
> in a 'modern' OS. Look, he's just smarter than you, so get over it and
> move aside. He knows what's best, and he has it under control. How old
> is this guy anyway? 12 or so? He's a fucking tool (IMHO).

Yes, this is *exactly* the problem with systemd.

Not the quality of the code. Not the desire to fix some
old design problems of SystemV-style init.
Code quality is good. The goals are legitimate.

The problem is: the author is a control freak.

I don't mean this to be an insult, it's my honest assessment
of his personality. He wants to control everything.

And I am convinced he is knowingly lying about it.

He pretends that he wants to add stuff to systemd to improve
this or that aspect of the user's experience, but in reality
he just wants to "privatize" more and more of the OS
to his project.

He probably understands that this is not a right thing to do,
that modularity is a good thing, but it conflicts with his character,
so he won't split up the projects into independent subprojects.
(Say, a semi-recent addition to systemd, the logging daemon,
HAD TO BE a separate tool)

I no longer think that talking to Lennart about this is useful.
I and other people tried. It doesn't work.

I am just waiting for a sufficient number of people to get pissed off,
fork the project, and bring sanity to it, which in this case means
splitting it up into modular bits, and probably dropping
some parts.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Rob Landley]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Christopher Barry
> <christopher.r.barry@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So why would very smart people who love and use Linux want to create or
>> embrace such a creepy 'Master of All' daemon? Ostensibly, it's for the
>> reasons they say, as I mentioned at the top. But partially I think it's
>> from a lack of experience. Not a lack as in programming hours, but a
>> lack as in time on the Planet. Intelligence alone is not a substitute
>> for life experience and, yes I'll say it, wisdom. There's no manual for
>> wisdom. Implementing systemd by distros is not a wise move for them over
>> the long term. It will, in fact, be their ultimate undoing.
>>
>> Partially it's the larger-than-life egos of the people involved. Has
>> anyone actually read what Poettering says about things? Wow. This guy
>> is obviously convinced he has all the answers for everyone. Traditional
>> ideas about simplicity and freedom are quaint, but have no real place
>> in a 'modern' OS. Look, he's just smarter than you, so get over it and
>> move aside. He knows what's best, and he has it under control. How old
>> is this guy anyway? 12 or so? He's a fucking tool (IMHO).
>
> Yes, this is *exactly* the problem with systemd.

Not to me.

I responded to systemd the way I responded to udev, "that's too
complicated, lemme see if I can clone a subset of it". In busybox this
resulted in mdev, so you had an alternate implementation that did the
same thing and could swap between them. (This lead to me butting heads
with Greg KH and Kay Sievers on more than one occasion, because they
were convinced sysfs was a private export from their kernel software
to their userspace software which nobody else would ever use and they
could force upgrades on both sides in lockstep. And they continued to
act this way even after Linus chewed them out about it, but I worked
around it and moved on.)

But systemd has no clear goals, no specification, the single
implementation is a moving target... it's basically a microsoft
product. Remember the days when the *.doc file format was "what
microsoft offices produces and is capable of consuming", and the
staroffice guys went to GREAT LENGTHS to reverse engineer it made
possible only by the fact that Microsoft went years between releases
so they had time to work out what the office 6 format was before
office 7 came out, and so on. Same for the Excel file format being
"what microsoft's implementation produces and consumes is correct by
definition, every strange corner case bug of that one magic
implementation _is_ the spec and there is no other."

Samba reverse engineered windows NT's network protocols the same way,
producing a giant "if it's this version, do this. If it's this
versino, do this. Avoid doing this because it bluescreens this
specific version of NT for no apparent reason..."

i thought we'd moved _on_ from the days of "this site optimized for
internet explorer", but systemd is that all over again. Linux is all
about modularity where you swap out openssh for libressh (or dropbear)
and swap out xfree86 for x.org and swap out glibc for eglibc (or
uclibc or musl) and you have at least a fighting chance to make it
work. Unfortunately, the systemd developers take the suggestion that
you might want to keep the option of doing that open as some sort of
personal attack.

I don't care what they're doing. I don't want to _have_ to care what
they're doing. I want a description of the problem space from which I
can write a new implementation. If I can't even reverse engineer such
a thing because it's still too much of a moving target several years
into the project, then what they're doing is crazy and I refuse to get
any of it on me.

> Not the quality of the code. Not the desire to fix some
> old design problems of SystemV-style init.

I'm still unclear on what problem they were actually trying to solve.
(In my defense, _they_ seem unclear. We're way beyond Zawinski's law
here...)

> Code quality is good. The goals are legitimate.

1) Not really, but that's beside the point. 2) What _are_ the goals?
They keep changing...

> The problem is: the author is a control freak.

I don't care. Honestly don't care. We used cdrecord for years from a
solaris bigot who openly insulted linux in the README, Openssl's
maintainer wasn't that much happier about Linux (until he needed
money), put up with xfree86's insular development for a couple
_decades_ before that maintainer finally went over the line.

Heck, the FSF's entire "It's GNU Linux, Dammit! Call it by its proper
name: GNU/Linux/dammit" campaign is seriously irritating, and part of
what I was doing with busybox was trying to create a linux development
system without a single gnu package in it (busybox, uclibc, tinycc)
capable of rebuilding itself under itself, and then ask Stallman "I
know you're going to insist this isn't a Linux system but a
GNU/Linux/Dammit system, I'd just like you to try to explain _how_."
(Preferably capturing this on video.) But that was only a small part
of my motivation or I wouldn't have bothered to spend years poking at
busybox (and more years poking at toybox to make android
self-hosting).

My problem is the blank incomprehension on their part when I go "If I
were to clone a minimal subset of systemd in busybox or toybox, where
would I start reading?" and they can't fit in their head the idea that
anybody would _want_ to do that, and if they think I'm serious they
feel threatened and start changing stuff faster. It's a bit like Adobe
going "you want to... clone the flash plugin? Why would you do that?
You don't need a fresh implementation, we've got one! See, we're
giving it to you. Take what we give you, it's free, you ungrateful
little..."

I don't care about the personality of the developers behind the
project. I don't want to use their code, I want to write a new one.
Unfortunately the systemd developers seem to treat linux machines
without systemd the way microsoft treated PCs sold without their OS
preinstalled. ("Bare machines are piracy!" No really, they had a web
page to that effect last decade.)

> I don't mean this to be an insult, it's my honest assessment
> of his personality. He wants to control everything.
>
> And I am convinced he is knowingly lying about it.

I don't care if he's stabbing kittens. I want a modular design
consisting of interchangeable parts available from multiple sources.
This is why Linux succeeded. This is why the PC succeeded. When
netscape released its source code and mozilla spent its first 5 years
floundering like a beached whale (before galeon forked off and threw
out 90% of the code, and then firefox forked off from _that_ to
finally get a usable browser), the KDE guys didn't wait and wrote
Konqueror, which Apple forked as webkit and then Google forked that as
Chrome. This is how it _works_. You have multiple competing
implementations.

The systemd guys are very all-or-nothing, and treat simply asking
"what else is out there" as an attack.

Look, the systemd problem is self-limiting: the smartphone is to the
PC what the PC was to the minicomputer and mainframe before it. A
decade from now you'll plug your phone into a USB3 hub with a
keyboard, mouse, and HDMI adapter (or chromecast) and that will _be_
your workstation. All the "my vax is way more powerful than your dinky
little compaq and I will cling to it unto death" arguments will
resolve themselves in time via the obvious solution.

Android has a no GPL in userspace policy, systemd is gpl. Android has
its own init system it's not moving off of, and android is shipping a
billion devices annually while the PC gets kicked up into the server
space the way big iron always is by the next generation of devices
everyone actually interacts with. (This time that's called "the
cloud", and it's every bit as lucrative and boring as punch cards and
JCL and timesharing and so on.)

Since systemd is excluded from android, I'm not getting particularly
worked up about it because if I didn't care what the mainframe guys
were doing when I was learning DOS, I don't see why I should care what
the cloud guys are doing while trying to bring up a native development
environment on my phone. I gave a talk about this in 2013
(http://landley.net/talks/celf-2013.txt).

> I no longer think that talking to Lennart about this is useful.
> I and other people tried. It doesn't work.

I actually had a brief interaction with the guy a few years back
because I was the one saying "separate /bin and /usr/bin directories
are a historical artifact we've outgrown" back in 2001, and he wanted
to reference my 2010 busybox post on the subject to support what he
was doing there and I went "sure". (And thus the old post went viral
and I wound up doing an updated version of it for some magazine with a
couple numbers corrected and citations to primary sourcess... where is
that... http://landley.net/writing/hackermonthly-issue022-pg33.pdf)

Anyway, he seemed nice enough at the time. I'd switch to BSD before
using a Linux distro based on systemd, but I have nothing personally
against its author.

> I am just waiting for a sufficient number of people to get pissed off,
> fork the project, and bring sanity to it, which in this case means
> splitting it up into modular bits, and probably dropping
> some parts.

Last time around this was me (udev->mdev). I've pondered doing this
for systemd (I have half a design for a "lunchd" loosely based on
macosx launchd without xml config files), but it hasn't been a
priority because I don't _care_ what big iron is doing while I'm
trying to turn android into a development environment. One is the
future, the other really isn't.

As long as android isn't merging systemd, the problem should solve
itself. It may take conventional linux down with it, but the FSF was
trying pretty hard with its GNU/Linux/Dammit campaign and the
community at large avoided that (and I gave a talk about _that_ too:
http://landley.net/talks/ohio-2013.txt

If you're more worked up about it than I am: write an alternative. The
main reason I haven't bothered yet is I don't see the _point_ of
systemd. I don't have a clear understanding of the problem they're
trying to solve, let alone how they're going about it. I'm told all
sorts of packages now have systemd hooks, which seems a bit like
bundling RPM and DEB build recipes in with your source tarball. It's a
thing people largely stopped doing when portage and pacman and bitbake
and so on cropped up and there were enough _different_ ones it became
somebody else's problem. Just because systemd has Red Hat's big
pointy-haired weight thrown behind it and ubuntu went "well it can't
be a worse idea than redirecting #!/bin/sh to point to dash" doesn't
make it interesting technology.

Rob

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
> But systemd has no clear goals, no specification, the single
> implementation is a moving target... it's basically a microsoft
> product.

I think the actual goal is to control everything.
To satisfy the control freak.
And yes, it is the M$ way of seeing things.

> i thought we'd moved _on_ from the days of "this site optimized for
> internet explorer", but systemd is that all over again. Linux is all
> about modularity where you swap out openssh for libressh (or dropbear)
> and swap out xfree86 for x.org and swap out glibc for eglibc (or
> uclibc or musl) and you have at least a fighting chance to make it
> work. Unfortunately, the systemd developers take the suggestion that
> you might want to keep the option of doing that open as some sort of
> personal attack.

Yes. They want you to use their stuff, and in their way.

> I don't care what they're doing. I don't want to _have_ to care what
> they're doing. I want a description of the problem space from which I
> can write a new implementation. If I can't even reverse engineer such
> a thing because it's still too much of a moving target several years
> into the project, then what they're doing is crazy and I refuse to get
> any of it on me.
>
>> Not the quality of the code. Not the desire to fix some
>> old design problems of SystemV-style init.
>
> I'm still unclear on what problem they were actually trying to solve.
>
> (In my defense, _they_ seem unclear. We're way beyond Zawinski's law
> here...)
>
>> Code quality is good. The goals are legitimate.
>
> 1) Not really, but that's beside the point. 2) What _are_ the goals?
> They keep changing...

The _stated_ goal, initially, was a better service, a daemon babysitter.
It is a legitimate goal because "industry standard" one, SysV,
leaves a lot to be desired.

But then it suddenly started having unrelated functionality
added to it. Again. And again.

>> The problem is: the author is a control freak.
>
> I don't care. Honestly don't care.
>
> My problem is the blank incomprehension on their part when I go "If I
> were to clone a minimal subset of systemd in busybox or toybox, where
> would I start reading?" and they can't fit in their head the idea that
> anybody would _want_ to do that, and if they think I'm serious they
> feel threatened and start changing stuff faster.

Yes. You are agreeing with me: they are control freaks.

> I don't care about the personality of the developers behind the
> project. I don't want to use their code, I want to write a new one.

I only care to the extent necessary to figure out how,
and whether it is possible, to cooperate with the people on the project.

It's possible to cooperate even with people with whom you have
lots of disagreements in details.
When someone's core desire is to make you use _their_ code,
and not being able to switch parts with reasonable expenditure
of time/effort, it is not possible for me.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Rogelio M. Serrano Jr.]

>
> Look, the systemd problem is self-limiting: the smartphone is to the
> PC what the PC was to the minicomputer and mainframe before it. A
> decade from now you'll plug your phone into a USB3 hub with a
> keyboard, mouse, and HDMI adapter (or chromecast) and that will _be_
> your workstation. All the "my vax is way more powerful than your dinky
> little compaq and I will cling to it unto death" arguments will
> resolve themselves in time via the obvious solution.
>
> Android has a no GPL in userspace policy, systemd is gpl. Android has
> its own init system it's not moving off of, and android is shipping a
> billion devices annually while the PC gets kicked up into the server
> space the way big iron always is by the next generation of devices
> everyone actually interacts with. (This time that's called "the
> cloud", and it's every bit as lucrative and boring as punch cards and
> JCL and timesharing and so on.)
>
> Since systemd is excluded from android, I'm not getting particularly
> worked up about it because if I didn't care what the

Uh there is a "suggestion" of kdbus replacing android binder so yeah
systemd might be close behind.

I would not be surprised if they try to ram systemd down google's throat...

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 07:37:15PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Heck, the FSF's entire "It's GNU Linux, Dammit! Call it by its proper
> name: GNU/Linux/dammit" campaign is seriously irritating, and part of
> what I was doing with busybox was trying to create a linux development
> system without a single gnu package in it (busybox, uclibc, tinycc)
> capable of rebuilding itself under itself, and then ask Stallman "I
> know you're going to insist this isn't a Linux system but a
> GNU/Linux/Dammit system, I'd just like you to try to explain _how_."
> (Preferably capturing this on video.)

What was the result of this work? Did you manage to build
a self-hosting system? What implementation of "make" did you use
to build the kernel?

A.

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Rob Landley]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 07:37:15PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Heck, the FSF's entire "It's GNU Linux, Dammit! Call it by its proper
>> name: GNU/Linux/dammit" campaign is seriously irritating, and part of
>> what I was doing with busybox was trying to create a linux development
>> system without a single gnu package in it (busybox, uclibc, tinycc)
>> capable of rebuilding itself under itself, and then ask Stallman "I
>> know you're going to insist this isn't a Linux system but a
>> GNU/Linux/Dammit system, I'd just like you to try to explain _how_."
>> (Preferably capturing this on video.)
>
> What was the result of this work?

http://landley.net/aboriginal/about.html

My old self-hosting system was 7 packages: linux, busybox, uClibc,
gmake, gcc, binutils, and bash.

The new one I'd like to do is 4 packages: linux, toybox, musl, and
qcc. Right now, I'm focusing on getting toybox to 1.0 as fast as
possible, then I worry about other stuff.

> Did you manage to build a self-hosting system?

Yeah, but it's still using a gcc toolchain. (The last gplv2 release of
gcc, binutils, and make, circa 2006.)

I was going to replace it with http://landley.net/code/tinycc (and
then http://landley.net/code/qcc). The idea was to take my tcc fork
and make it a multiplexer like busybox (so it could run as cc, ld,
strip, as, and so on depending on what name you called it under; one
binary with lots of symlinks to it).

The qcc idea was to rip out tcc's code generator and replace it with
QEMU's tcg (tiny code generator), so you'd turn the compiler behind
http://bellard.org/tcc/tccboot.html (I.E. this already _built_ a
working kernel at one point, albeit with a lot of cheating that I was
working to fix) and make it support all the targets qemu does,
leveraging qemu's developer base to keep them well-supported. _AND_ I
got permission to BSD license his tcc code, and qemu's tcg is already
BSD licensed, so that fixes the license problem.

But I got distracted by toybox (the history is
https://lwn.net/Articles/478308/ then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmtP5Lg_t0 then
https://lwn.net/Articles/629362/ and I'm currently dealing with
merging http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2015-April/004024.html
and yes that's the Android Core maintainer posting to the toybox
list).

So I've been kinda busy with other things of late. :)

These days I'm waiting for llvm to mature, but a month or two back
somebody picked up my qcc idea (combine tinycc's front end with tcg's
back end to get a simple bsd licensed C99 compiler that supports a lot
of targets) and actually started seriously working on it. So at this
point I'm looking to contribute to _his_ project. (I'd link to him but
I'm in japan at the moment and those files are back in texas. Ping me
after the 20th if you're still curious.)

> What implementation of "make" did you use to build the kernel?

I plan on writing my own, but it's a bit down on the todo list. For
qcc it was going to be one of the multiplexer commands like nm and
objdump. Maybe I should implement it in toybox instead, but it's not
in the 1.0 roadmap at http://landley.net/toybox/roadmap.html and I'm
not adding more stuff to that until _after_ the release. (Well not
that I have to implement, somebody wants to send me a command already
written I'll certainly look at it...)

I note that the hard part with getting the kernel to build with tinycc
was actually the more obscure binutils things. When I was trying to
get my tinycc fork to build the kernel (without using any parts of gcc
or binutils) one of the first things that failed was generating a
header file that did either nm or objdump -d on a binary (I forget
which) and ran the result through sed to generate a header file with
structure offsets. Tinycc had an assembler but not a disassembler, you
see...

These days I'm waiting for http://ellcc.org and similar to bear fruit.
For the linker they're either using http://lld.llvm.org but the
musl-cross toolchain is using
https://github.com/sabotage-linux/libelf-compat and before they were
using  https://fedorahosted.org/releases/e/l/elfutils/ and I still
haven't had a chance to look at the LLVM toolchain AOSP is building.
It's all up in the air right now as everybody works to clean up after
the "career limiting move" that was GPLv3.

The android guys are using their own weird make setup (the Android.mk
files), and they tell me they have a brand new build tool to replace
make that they're they're porting the AOSP build to, which I should go
take a look at and maybe come up to speed on. But really, I wrote my
own "sed" and made Linux From Scratch build with it, and then did it
AGAIN from scratch under a different license. I'm partway through
writing my own shell for toybox and am supporting bash syntax in it.
Writing my own make that handles gmake stuff packages actually use
isn't that much harder if it comes to it.

(But as with init systems, it's a ways down on my todo list at the
moment. Get toybox to 1.0 so we have a public domain posix+LSB command
line that can build Linux From Scratch, _then_ see where toolchains
and such are. I know musl-libc.org is in good shape, llvm is
progressing without me, if I need to write a make I can do that...)

Rob

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Rob Landley]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Vlad Glagolev <stealth@tiberian.ru> wrote:
> Now what do we see? Complete degradation of Linux-like ecosystem. I'm

Nah, lots of embedded guys value simplicity and a modular design where
you can swap actually out parts. Check out the musl-libc.org mailing
list for example. Those mailing lists are the place for this sort of
thing, this isn't.

Way back when I wrote mdev instead of accepting udev, and I plan to do
some kind of "lunchd" in toybox (loosely based on launchd but not
crazy stuff like xml config files) as part of my project to make
android self-hosting, which I gave a talk about last year:

video: http://youtu.be/SGmtP5Lg_t0
outline: http://landley.net/talks/celf-2013.txt

Keep in mind that mainframes and minicomputers got kicked up into the
server space by the PC, and now smartphones are kicking the PC up
there. The fight between Amazon's PC cloud and IBM big iron servers is
exactly the same fight IBM's mainframes and DEC's minicomputers fought
25 years ago. Last time DEC lost, this time IBM is losing, but it
doesn't matter to the rest of us.

Plug your phone into a USB hub, add a USB keyboard, USB mouse, and USB
to VGA (or with USB3 a USB to HDMI) adapter, and you've got the
hardware of a development workstation. The software side we're working
on, but it won't be the current pile of PC userspace for the same
reason the PC didn't run MVS or VMS. Technological disruption goes
_upmarket_, not down.

Android has a no GPL in userspace policy, so nothing systemd does has
any impact on the _billion_ seat android market. Among other things,
if a company adds GPL software to Android they violate the Android
trademark licensing guidelines and can't call the result "android".
But toybox is public domain, musl is BSD licensed, they can add _our_
stuff no problem.

Fighting over the desktop market in 2014 is like Unix fighting over
the minicomputer and RISC workstation market in 1994. It doesn't
_matter_. Sure the modern equivalent of cobol programmers will make
plenty of money servicing entrenched fortune 500 fossils in that
space, but the rest of us can ignore it and focus on what will replace
it instead.

And that's highly unlikely to include a GPL'd systemd. Busybox
predates android and they're _still_ not using it. Good luck waiting
them out...

Rob

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 15 August 2014, Vlad Glagolev wrote:
>This is a problem, which is silently ignored by those who HAS to defend
>OSS' freedom. But politics (related to stuff they get a lot of money
>from) of companies like RedHat isn't that white and fluffy for users,
>because THEY started this chaos of perverting the UNIX philosophy.
>I noticed that when they announced a brand new strategy with obfuscation
>of kernel patches, so it would be damn hard for their opponents (aka
>the rest of the world) to understand what these patches exactly do. [0]
>
>My road with Linux started in good old 2002-2003 with 3-disc RedHat
>distro. You know why? Because once my irc-friend told me: "Here's a new
>operating system: it's free, open-sourced and primarily -- you can
>redraw everything in it (speaking of UI)". I formatted my HDD with
>win2k that night. Because it was what I had been looking for --
>operating system with a total freedom. And everything you need was only
>time and brains. I tried some binary distros and have discovered
>they're not for me -- not much freedom enough (I needed to keep my
>system clean and small without a ton of dependencies I would never
>use). Source-based distros have saved me. I'm talking about those which
>aren't known to 99% of Linux community (except Gentoo, ofc.) -- Source
>Mage, Lunar, T2. LFS is a bit hard to maintain on >2 machines on a
>yearly basis, you know.
>
>Now what do we see? Complete degradation of Linux-like ecosystem. I'm
>not talking about Linux kernel itself, because it's going the right way
>(mostly because of its head). But I'm talking about those who made
>Linux what it is now. About initial developers of userland stuff,
>which is (and really was) VERY fragmented. And now we see a couple of
>companies (companies, indeed, not people; because yes, Linux is a
>really gainful thingy, who would have ever thought like that 15 years
>ago?) who wants to defragment it, like what we did with filesystems on
>Windows in good old days to make it work faster. Now someone strives to
>exactly the same aim -- to rake a lot of money faster than it happens
>now.
>
>Have you ever thought what spheres will be affected? Hosting companies,
>corporations migrating to Linux from billion m$ contracts (at least we
>see this tendency here in Russia, in Germany and across the Europe).
>I will quote IgnorantGuru to show you what will happen soon:
>
>"In open source, you can’t lock people out of the code like you can in
>Windows. But you can make the system so complex that no one can control
>it at a lower level without being a developer with lots of time to
>spare. I think ultimately that’s what this is about. And the systemd
>tool stack will likely eventually be used for DRM and other restrictive
>technologies (just as HAL was)." [1]
>
>"I think it’s safe to say that any spirit of freedom and diversity
>that once drove Linux is dead. The new people entering the realm of
>development in Linux are just Windows developers looking for a larger
>base and more money, or simply corporate whores tearing it apart for
>short-sighted, malicious goals (which they themselves understand very
>poorly). They care not for any of the principles that made Linux what
>it is, or was.
>
>So Linux has been lost because the community has failed to protect it
>and help it grow. And this isn’t just about toolkits – the infection
>goes deep into the kernel, udev, the init system, and other areas. In
>the next few years any remaining GNU Linux users who even know what a
>principle is, will need to find a new home." [2]
>
>exhaustively enough, right?
>
>Do you think that everyone will happily run to buy yet another
>subscription from RedHat? Then how is it different from Windows?
>Because it's open-sourced? To whom? To RedHat employees? Meh.
>
>I'm not against RedHat, I'm against politics they follow. And I feel its
>disruptive effect on many people across mailing lists, forums, irc,
>etc. -- everything that links people who created tools for
>essential existence of this company!
>
>There are a lot of standards that describe UNIX-like arch like POSIX,
>FHS, etc. Where are all those distro-builders who refuse to see them?
>Busy in race adapting yet another systemd version while reading gdbm
>traces of it? Very useful time-spending.
>
>Thank you, Christopher. At least there are people who see this
>idiocracy under the right angle.
>
>Because everything depends on human resources, personally I see the only
>one way to keep high-quality and yet easily maintained Linux distros
>afloat: support distros with strict policies and rules preventing
>the worms like systemd from infiltration and gnawing from inside out.
>Linux community needs yet another dot-com boom in Linux distros -- like
>Ubuntu that changed (or helped to change) the world.
>
>It is time to implement the protocols themselves, not to write a train
>of RFCs for them. Otherwise we would have no choice for VRRP.
>Because the real enemy is close and.. remember, Adam: everybody lies آ©
>
>[0] http://lwn.net/Articles/430098/
>[1]
>http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/ubuntu-to-dump-nautilus-wants-
>your-input/ [2] http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/
>
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:38:12 -0400
>
>Christopher Barry wrote:
>> What is intelligence? Not exactly the spook kind, but rather what is
>> the definition of intelligence in humans? This is pretty good:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions
>> 
>> By most accounts, the self-appointed and arguably too influential
>> creators and thinkers of the day around the 'One Linux' idea fit the
>> definition of intelligent people - at least in the technical realm.
>> 
>> And their messages are pretty compelling:
>> * Simplify cross-distro development.
>> * Enable faster boot times.
>> * Enable an on-demand, event driven architecture, similar to 'Modern'
>> 
>>   Operating Systems.
>> 
>> * Bring order and control to subsystems that have had as many
>> different
>> 
>>   tools as there were distros.
>> 
>> All seemingly noble goals. All apparently come from a deep desire to
>> contribute and make things better.
>> 
>> Almost anyone could argue that these intelligent people thought hard
>> about these issues, and put an enormous amount of effort into a
>> solution to these problems. Unfortunately, the solution they came up
>> with, as you may have guessed by now, is 'systemd'.
>> 
>> While not new, it's grotesque impact has finally reached me and I must
>> speak to it publicly.
>> 
>> So, what is systemd? Well, meet your new God. You may have been
>> praying at the alter of simplicity, but your religion is being
>> deprecated. It likely already happened without your knowledge during
>> an upgrade of your Linux box. systemd is the all knowing, all
>> controlling meta-deity that sees all and supervises all. It's the new
>> One Master Process that aspires to control everything it can - and
>> it's already doing a lot. It's what init would look like if it were a
>> transformer on steroids. It's complicated, multi-faceted, opaque, and
>> supremely powerful.
>> 
>> I had heard about systemd a few years back, when upstart and some
>> other init replacements I can't remember were showing up on the
>> scene. And while it seemed mildly interesting, I was not in favor of
>> using it, nor any of them for that matter. init was working just fine
>> for me. init was simple and robust. While configuration had it's
>> distro-specific differences, it was often these differences that made
>> one pick the distro to use in the first place, and to stay with that
>> distro. The tools essentially *were* the distro. I just dist-upgraded
>> to Jessie, and voila - PID 1 was suddenly systemd. What a
>> clusterfuck.
>> 
>> In a 'One Linux' world, what would distros actually be? Deprecated. No
>> longer relevant. Archaic shells of their once proud individualism.
>> Basically, they're now just a logo and a default desktop background
>> image. Because let's face it, there only needs to be One Modern
>> 'competitor' to the Windows/Mac ownership of personal computing. A
>> unified front to combat the evil empires of Redmond and Cupertino is
>> what's needed. The various differences that made up different
>> 'flavors' of Linux needed to be corralled and brought into compliance
>> for the war to proceed efficiently. Um, what war?
>> 
>> For me, Linux had already won that war way back in 1994 when I started
>> using it. It did it without firing a shot or attempting to be just
>> like the other OSes. It won it it by not giving a flying fuck about
>> market share. It won it by being exactly NOT them. It won it by being
>> simple and understandable and configurable to be exactly how *I*
>> wanted it to be. It won it by being a collection of simple modular
>> components that could be plugged together at will to do real work. It
>> won it by adhering to a deeply considered philosophy of the user
>> being in the drivers seat, and being free to run the things she
>> wanted to, without layers and layers of frameworks wrapping their
>> tendrils into all manor of stuff they should not be touching. It won
>> it without the various 'CrapKit' shit that's begun to insinuate
>> itself into the heart of my system of late. It won it without being
>> overly complex and unknowable. That kind of opacity was was the core
>> of Windows and Mac, and that's exactly what I despise about them, and
>> exactly why I chose to use Linux in the first goddamn place. systemd
>> is embracing *all* that I hate about Windows and Mac, and doing so in
>> the name of 'modernity' and
>> 'simplifying' a developer's job.
>> 
>> So why would very smart people who love and use Linux want to create
>> or embrace such a creepy 'Master of All' daemon? Ostensibly, it's for
>> the reasons they say, as I mentioned at the top. But partially I
>> think it's from a lack of experience. Not a lack as in programming
>> hours, but a lack as in time on the Planet. Intelligence alone is not
>> a substitute for life experience and, yes I'll say it, wisdom.
>> There's no manual for wisdom. Implementing systemd by distros is not
>> a wise move for them over the long term. It will, in fact, be their
>> ultimate undoing.
>> 
>> Partially it's the larger-than-life egos of the people involved. Has
>> anyone actually read what Poettering says about things? Wow. This guy
>> is obviously convinced he has all the answers for everyone.
>> Traditional ideas about simplicity and freedom are quaint, but have
>> no real place in a 'modern' OS. Look, he's just smarter than you, so
>> get over it and move aside. He knows what's best, and he has it under
>> control. How old is this guy anyway? 12 or so? He's a fucking tool
>> (IMHO).
>> 
>> Partially it's roiling subsurface commercial interests. Look, We can
>> make more money selling stuff to Linux users if there were a simpler
>> distro agnostic way to do that. Fuck choice, they'll like what they
>> get.
>> 
>> Partially it may well be nefarious and shadowy in nature. With One
>> Ring to rule them all, having access to it sure would be sweet for
>> those hell-bent on total information awareness. Trust is not real
>> high on my list of things to give out these days.
>> 
>> Partially it's a belief that the Linux Community must fight against
>> the hegemony of Windows and Mac - as if the existence of Linux
>> depends upon the vanquishing of alternatives. Those who think Linux
>> should cater to idiots and droolers should go back to their Macs and
>> Windoze boxen, and stop trying to 'fix' Linux. It wasn't fucking
>> broken!
>> 
>> Partially - and this is what I cannot abide - it is a blatant
>> disregard and disrespect - whether knowingly or not - of the major
>> tenets of *NIX. It's a thoughtless discarding of, and a trampling on
>> the values that I personally hold to be true and just, and I am not
>> alone here. systemd is the exact opposite of what defines *NIX. And
>> I'm not blathering on about POSIX compliance either. It's the
>> Philosophy stupid.
>> 
>> systemd is a coup. It is a subversive interloper designed to destroy
>> Linux as we know it, foisted upon us by the snarky
>> we-know-better-than-you CamelCase crowd. They just don't get it down
>> deep where it matters. systemd is not pointing in a direction that we
>> should be going. It does not encourage freedom. It does not encourage
>> choice. It does not display transparency. It does not embrace
>> simplicity. It seizes control and forces you to cede it. It makes
>> applications and major system components depend on it, and they cannot
>> function without it. It's gaining speed by luring naive or lazy or
>> just plain clueless developers into the fold with the promise of
>> making their lives easier. Buying into this way of thinking ignores
>> the greater dangers that systemd represents.
>> 
>> Debian has always held the line against this kind of thing in the
>> past, and has always earned my utmost respect and loyalty for their
>> integrity. Debian's decision here was as a hand forced. Debian has
>> made a grave and cowardly mistake here, and they need a course
>> correction immediately. Incorporating systemd was not an intelligent
>> choice, and certainly not one very well considered. Debian must
>> reject systemd and its ilk, and restore itself to the values that got
>> Linux to this point in history, in no small part *led* by Debian.
>> They must loudly and publicly divorce themselves from GNOME, however
>> painful and upsetting that may seem in the sort term, and focus on
>> the core values of simplicity and freedom. Put systemd and it's cabal
>> in non-free where it belongs if you must. Let the user decide if
>> that's what
>> they want. Enlightenment is an excellent choice for a default desktop
>> that does not have the bloated baggage of GNOME. And to the Debian
>> Leaders - after 20 years of my loyalty and evangelism, you really let
>> me and all of us down. You need to grow a fucking pair and do the
>> right thing here and now.
>> 
>> Kick these fucking carpetbaggers to the curb!
>> 
>> Gnome. The Linux Foundation. freedesktop.org, and others. These are
>> all groups with agendas. These are not those who believe in freedom.
>> They believe in control and standardization. They believe in
>> sameness. Who are these people anyway? Who are these self-appointed
>> keepers of the Linux flame? (subliminal malware reference intended).
>> What are their true agendas? Who funds these people? Why do they so
>> aggressively want to change the core of Linux away from it's true
>> philosophy? Let them go off and create their own 'competitor' to
>> Windows and Mac. If they did, it would be the same opaque,
>> backdoored, user-tracking bullshit that Windows and Mac have become.
>> They DO NOT speak for me, and you should not passively allow them to
>> speak for you either.
>> 
>> systemd is a trojan. systemd is a medusa. systemd is Substance D.
>> systemd is scary - not just because it's tools suck, or because it's
>> a massive fucking hairball - but because architecturally it has way
>> too much concentrated power. We all need to collectively expel it from
>> our midst because it will own Linux, and by extension us and our
>> freedoms. systemd will *be* Linux. Sit idly by and ignore this fact at
>> all of our collective peril.
>> 
>> OneLinux == zero-choice
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Christopher Barry
>> 
>> Random geeky fortune:
>> BOFH excuse #202:
>> 
>> kernel panic: write-only-memory (/dev/wom0) capacity exceeded.
>
>--
>Vlad Glagolev
>--

I don't normally do much in the me too dept.  But these two people have a 
valid point, one we ignore at our peril.  And I've been a linux user 
exclusively since my first red hat 5.0 install days in late '97 or early 
'98.

Too many people are changing things around JUST TO MAKE THEIR DISTRO 
UNIQUE and often grossly slower, not to mention much harder to configure.  
And I'm getting damned tired of the slow.

I have, not powered up in years, a 500mhz k6-III powered box under the 
next desk over, that in 2002 or 3, with a red hat 7.1 install on it, that 
played all the sound & video files then available on the MSM News sites 
perfectly. And did it on a net pipe with 5% of the 10 megabit circuit I 
have now.

But I needed a faster machine, one that didn't have to use a gigabyte of 
swap when I opened a big image in gimp, so I built a phenom based quad 
core running at 2.1Ghz on a ASUS motherboard with 8Gb of ram on the board.  
It has yet to play a video whose audio was in sync with the video, or that 
didn't suffer audio under runs cutting words into fractional syllable bits 
at about 4 per second, or video freezes that might last for several 10's 
of seconds, then plays catchup at 6000 frames per second.

Currently running a 3.13.6 kernel and its still not usable.  Great 
uptimes, but not at all pleasant to use.

There is something basically and drastically wrong with this picture.  So 
I'll be more than happy to add my "me too" to this rant.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS

Re: OT: Open letter to the Linux World

[Vlad Glagolev]

This is a problem, which is silently ignored by those who HAS to defend
OSS' freedom. But politics (related to stuff they get a lot of money
from) of companies like RedHat isn't that white and fluffy for users,
because THEY started this chaos of perverting the UNIX philosophy.
I noticed that when they announced a brand new strategy with obfuscation
of kernel patches, so it would be damn hard for their opponents (aka
the rest of the world) to understand what these patches exactly do. [0]

My road with Linux started in good old 2002-2003 with 3-disc RedHat
distro. You know why? Because once my irc-friend told me: "Here's a new
operating system: it's free, open-sourced and primarily -- you can
redraw everything in it (speaking of UI)". I formatted my HDD with
win2k that night. Because it was what I had been looking for --
operating system with a total freedom. And everything you need was only
time and brains. I tried some binary distros and have discovered
they're not for me -- not much freedom enough (I needed to keep my
system clean and small without a ton of dependencies I would never
use). Source-based distros have saved me. I'm talking about those which
aren't known to 99% of Linux community (except Gentoo, ofc.) -- Source
Mage, Lunar, T2. LFS is a bit hard to maintain on >2 machines on a
yearly basis, you know.

Now what do we see? Complete degradation of Linux-like ecosystem. I'm
not talking about Linux kernel itself, because it's going the right way
(mostly because of its head). But I'm talking about those who made
Linux what it is now. About initial developers of userland stuff,
which is (and really was) VERY fragmented. And now we see a couple of
companies (companies, indeed, not people; because yes, Linux is a
really gainful thingy, who would have ever thought like that 15 years
ago?) who wants to defragment it, like what we did with filesystems on
Windows in good old days to make it work faster. Now someone strives to
exactly the same aim -- to rake a lot of money faster than it happens
now.

Have you ever thought what spheres will be affected? Hosting companies,
corporations migrating to Linux from billion m$ contracts (at least we
see this tendency here in Russia, in Germany and across the Europe).
I will quote IgnorantGuru to show you what will happen soon:

"In open source, you can’t lock people out of the code like you can in
Windows. But you can make the system so complex that no one can control
it at a lower level without being a developer with lots of time to
spare. I think ultimately that’s what this is about. And the systemd
tool stack will likely eventually be used for DRM and other restrictive
technologies (just as HAL was)." [1]

"I think it’s safe to say that any spirit of freedom and diversity that
once drove Linux is dead. The new people entering the realm of
development in Linux are just Windows developers looking for a larger
base and more money, or simply corporate whores tearing it apart for
short-sighted, malicious goals (which they themselves understand very
poorly). They care not for any of the principles that made Linux what
it is, or was.

So Linux has been lost because the community has failed to protect it
and help it grow. And this isn’t just about toolkits – the infection
goes deep into the kernel, udev, the init system, and other areas. In
the next few years any remaining GNU Linux users who even know what a
principle is, will need to find a new home." [2]

exhaustively enough, right?

Do you think that everyone will happily run to buy yet another
subscription from RedHat? Then how is it different from Windows?
Because it's open-sourced? To whom? To RedHat employees? Meh.

I'm not against RedHat, I'm against politics they follow. And I feel its
disruptive effect on many people across mailing lists, forums, irc,
etc. -- everything that links people who created tools for
essential existence of this company!

There are a lot of standards that describe UNIX-like arch like POSIX,
FHS, etc. Where are all those distro-builders who refuse to see them?
Busy in race adapting yet another systemd version while reading gdbm
traces of it? Very useful time-spending.

Thank you, Christopher. At least there are people who see this
idiocracy under the right angle.

Because everything depends on human resources, personally I see the only
one way to keep high-quality and yet easily maintained Linux distros
afloat: support distros with strict policies and rules preventing
the worms like systemd from infiltration and gnawing from inside out.
Linux community needs yet another dot-com boom in Linux distros -- like
Ubuntu that changed (or helped to change) the world.

It is time to implement the protocols themselves, not to write a train
of RFCs for them. Otherwise we would have no choice for VRRP.
Because the real enemy is close and.. remember, Adam: everybody lies ©

[0] http://lwn.net/Articles/430098/
[1]
http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/ubuntu-to-dump-nautilus-wants-your-input/
[2] http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:38:12 -0400
Christopher Barry wrote:
> 
> What is intelligence? Not exactly the spook kind, but rather what is
> the definition of intelligence in humans? This is pretty good:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions
> 
> By most accounts, the self-appointed and arguably too influential
> creators and thinkers of the day around the 'One Linux' idea fit the
> definition of intelligent people - at least in the technical realm.
> 
> And their messages are pretty compelling:
> * Simplify cross-distro development.
> * Enable faster boot times.
> * Enable an on-demand, event driven architecture, similar to 'Modern'
>   Operating Systems.
> * Bring order and control to subsystems that have had as many different
>   tools as there were distros.
> 
> All seemingly noble goals. All apparently come from a deep desire to
> contribute and make things better.
> 
> Almost anyone could argue that these intelligent people thought hard
> about these issues, and put an enormous amount of effort into a
> solution to these problems. Unfortunately, the solution they came up
> with, as you may have guessed by now, is 'systemd'.
> 
> While not new, it's grotesque impact has finally reached me and I must
> speak to it publicly. 
> 
> So, what is systemd? Well, meet your new God. You may have been praying
> at the alter of simplicity, but your religion is being deprecated. It
> likely already happened without your knowledge during an upgrade of
> your Linux box. systemd is the all knowing, all controlling meta-deity
> that sees all and supervises all. It's the new One Master Process that
> aspires to control everything it can - and it's already doing a lot.
> It's what init would look like if it were a transformer on steroids.
> It's complicated, multi-faceted, opaque, and supremely powerful.
> 
> I had heard about systemd a few years back, when upstart and some other
> init replacements I can't remember were showing up on the scene. And
> while it seemed mildly interesting, I was not in favor of using it, nor
> any of them for that matter. init was working just fine for me. init
> was simple and robust. While configuration had it's distro-specific
> differences, it was often these differences that made one pick the
> distro to use in the first place, and to stay with that distro. The
> tools essentially *were* the distro. I just dist-upgraded to Jessie,
> and voila - PID 1 was suddenly systemd. What a clusterfuck.
> 
> In a 'One Linux' world, what would distros actually be? Deprecated. No
> longer relevant. Archaic shells of their once proud individualism.
> Basically, they're now just a logo and a default desktop background
> image. Because let's face it, there only needs to be One Modern
> 'competitor' to the Windows/Mac ownership of personal computing. A
> unified front to combat the evil empires of Redmond and Cupertino is
> what's needed. The various differences that made up different 'flavors'
> of Linux needed to be corralled and brought into compliance for the war
> to proceed efficiently. Um, what war?
> 
> For me, Linux had already won that war way back in 1994 when I started
> using it. It did it without firing a shot or attempting to be just like
> the other OSes. It won it it by not giving a flying fuck about market
> share. It won it by being exactly NOT them. It won it by being simple
> and understandable and configurable to be exactly how *I* wanted it to
> be. It won it by being a collection of simple modular components that
> could be plugged together at will to do real work. It won it by
> adhering to a deeply considered philosophy of the user being in the
> drivers seat, and being free to run the things she wanted to, without
> layers and layers of frameworks wrapping their tendrils into all manor
> of stuff they should not be touching. It won it without the various
> 'CrapKit' shit that's begun to insinuate itself into the heart of my
> system of late. It won it without being overly complex and unknowable.
> That kind of opacity was was the core of Windows and Mac, and that's
> exactly what I despise about them, and exactly why I chose to use Linux
> in the first goddamn place. systemd is embracing *all* that I hate about
> Windows and Mac, and doing so in the name of 'modernity' and
> 'simplifying' a developer's job.
> 
> So why would very smart people who love and use Linux want to create or
> embrace such a creepy 'Master of All' daemon? Ostensibly, it's for the
> reasons they say, as I mentioned at the top. But partially I think it's
> from a lack of experience. Not a lack as in programming hours, but a
> lack as in time on the Planet. Intelligence alone is not a substitute
> for life experience and, yes I'll say it, wisdom. There's no manual for
> wisdom. Implementing systemd by distros is not a wise move for them over
> the long term. It will, in fact, be their ultimate undoing.
> 
> Partially it's the larger-than-life egos of the people involved. Has
> anyone actually read what Poettering says about things? Wow. This guy
> is obviously convinced he has all the answers for everyone. Traditional
> ideas about simplicity and freedom are quaint, but have no real place
> in a 'modern' OS. Look, he's just smarter than you, so get over it and
> move aside. He knows what's best, and he has it under control. How old
> is this guy anyway? 12 or so? He's a fucking tool (IMHO).
> 
> Partially it's roiling subsurface commercial interests. Look, We can
> make more money selling stuff to Linux users if there were a simpler
> distro agnostic way to do that. Fuck choice, they'll like what they get.
> 
> Partially it may well be nefarious and shadowy in nature. With One Ring
> to rule them all, having access to it sure would be sweet for those
> hell-bent on total information awareness. Trust is not real high on my
> list of things to give out these days.
> 
> Partially it's a belief that the Linux Community must fight against the
> hegemony of Windows and Mac - as if the existence of Linux depends upon
> the vanquishing of alternatives. Those who think Linux should cater to
> idiots and droolers should go back to their Macs and Windoze boxen, and
> stop trying to 'fix' Linux. It wasn't fucking broken!
> 
> Partially - and this is what I cannot abide - it is a blatant disregard
> and disrespect - whether knowingly or not - of the major tenets of
> *NIX. It's a thoughtless discarding of, and a trampling on the values
> that I personally hold to be true and just, and I am not alone here.
> systemd is the exact opposite of what defines *NIX. And I'm not
> blathering on about POSIX compliance either. It's the Philosophy stupid.
> 
> systemd is a coup. It is a subversive interloper designed to destroy
> Linux as we know it, foisted upon us by the snarky
> we-know-better-than-you CamelCase crowd. They just don't get it down
> deep where it matters. systemd is not pointing in a direction that we
> should be going. It does not encourage freedom. It does not encourage
> choice. It does not display transparency. It does not embrace
> simplicity. It seizes control and forces you to cede it. It makes
> applications and major system components depend on it, and they cannot
> function without it. It's gaining speed by luring naive or lazy or just
> plain clueless developers into the fold with the promise of making
> their lives easier. Buying into this way of thinking ignores the
> greater dangers that systemd represents.
> 
> Debian has always held the line against this kind of thing in the past,
> and has always earned my utmost respect and loyalty for their
> integrity. Debian's decision here was as a hand forced. Debian has made
> a grave and cowardly mistake here, and they need a course correction
> immediately. Incorporating systemd was not an intelligent choice, and
> certainly not one very well considered. Debian must reject systemd and
> its ilk, and restore itself to the values that got Linux to this
> point in history, in no small part *led* by Debian. They must loudly and
> publicly divorce themselves from GNOME, however painful and upsetting
> that may seem in the sort term, and focus on the core values of
> simplicity and freedom. Put systemd and it's cabal in non-free where it
> belongs if you must. Let the user decide if that's what
> they want. Enlightenment is an excellent choice for a default desktop
> that does not have the bloated baggage of GNOME. And to the Debian
> Leaders - after 20 years of my loyalty and evangelism, you really let
> me and all of us down. You need to grow a fucking pair and do the right
> thing here and now.
> 
> Kick these fucking carpetbaggers to the curb!
> 
> Gnome. The Linux Foundation. freedesktop.org, and others. These are all
> groups with agendas. These are not those who believe in freedom. They
> believe in control and standardization. They believe in sameness. Who
> are these people anyway? Who are these self-appointed keepers of the
> Linux flame? (subliminal malware reference intended). What are their
> true agendas? Who funds these people? Why do they so aggressively want
> to change the core of Linux away from it's true philosophy? Let them go
> off and create their own 'competitor' to Windows and Mac. If they did,
> it would be the same opaque, backdoored, user-tracking bullshit that
> Windows and Mac have become. They DO NOT speak for me, and you should
> not passively allow them to speak for you either.
> 
> systemd is a trojan. systemd is a medusa. systemd is Substance D.
> systemd is scary - not just because it's tools suck, or because it's
> a massive fucking hairball - but because architecturally it has way
> too much concentrated power. We all need to collectively expel it from
> our midst because it will own Linux, and by extension us and our
> freedoms. systemd will *be* Linux. Sit idly by and ignore this fact at
> all of our collective peril.
> 
> OneLinux == zero-choice
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Christopher Barry
> 
> Random geeky fortune:
> BOFH excuse #202:
> 
> kernel panic: write-only-memory (/dev/wom0) capacity exceeded.

--
Vlad Glagolev