On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to > systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of > "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the > last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free > for all continues. I think a comment on Allan's blog post might illustrate > how I perceive this situation. > > Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? > Allan McRae posted to Arch Planet on August 13, 2012 03:59 PM > > It's not about a single file, ie rc.conf (well not completely), it's about > the simplicity of the system. > > Controversy #2 – The demise of /etc/rc.conf > While the single rc.conf is highlighted as major feature of Arch Linux, > reading the reviews makes you notice that configuration of an Arch install > was never down to a single file. Other files mentioned included… > > But lets take a step back here… How about some quotes from Judd, the > founder of Arch Linux: > “In Arch “simple” is different what other distros are considering. > The learning is more important than getting something easily done.” > “Relying on GUIs to build/use your system is just going to hurt a > user in the end. At some point in time a user will need to know all that > some GUIs hide.” > > My question becomes, are we trading the simplicity and ease of setting up a > single individuals computer, not corporate or work machine, or a set of two > or three home machines for the trappings of the corporate desktop? Are we > trading learning the shell (bash or otherwise) and learning to write bug > free shell scripts, for learning a set or arbitrary and possibly arcane > rules, decided upon in a building somewhere in the world, by someone who > knows how to use your computer better than you do? We've already seen the > likes of those already seen with polkit and consolekit. Even with udev > moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list has already > stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He considers it an > abomination. As to the standardization mentioned, does not such > standardization remove one's freedom? I'm not an RMS fan, so don't go > there. However, I am old enough to remember when there was no choice for > home computers, and a commercial by Apple for the first Mac using the idea > of breaking out of 1984 and the dull boring corporate world. Now here we > are moving the one OS that's stayed somewhat of a maverick into the stable, > then out to pasture to graze with with the rest of the corporate world. At > least IMHO. It's not about changing Arch, it's about becoming part of the > corporate structure and playing nice with everyone else. You can read that > line with the knowledge "Old hippies die hard. And I still don't trust the > establishment as far a I can throw my house!" > > Interoperability is necessary in today's world, but I think it can be done > with out sacrificing the heart and soul of Linux. When it comes to the move > of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like > not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a > mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the > system. I've never really cared for the mess of the LSB. IMHO systemd is > for administrators who, unlike Judd Vinet, want to hide the system setup > from the user with fancy gui's and not allow anyone but the sysadmin to > make any changes. > > I laud the devs who are working on this project, but I ask you to consider > "Is it better for Arch to lead one of the last bastion's of freedom when > using Linux into lock step with the the PTB's, or would it be better to > develop an alternative that keeps, not just Arch Linux, but Linux a viable > alternative to OSX, Windows, any Unix/BSD environment, and the corporate > world?" I know it's the simpler, and probably less stressfull solution, but > is it the better solution? > > I firmly believe more discussions like this on the ml would be more > productive than the brawls we've seen lately. It also might provide the > dev's an opportunity to participate more instead of throwing their hands up > in the air and saying never again. To me the mailing list has become > reactive. Too many responses, I've been guilty of this, come from > predetermined ideas which may or may not be rooted in fact. They may be > rooted in the users experience which may have been affected by other > circumstances such as the dependency hell being created by the tighter and > tighter upstream integration by KDE and Gnome. This again signals the move > towards a "corporate desktop environment". > > A wise unix guru, can't remember the name right now, said something to the > effect "the system should be a set of well written programs loosely > connected programs, each doing one thing and doing it well". Something many > of today's programs don't accomplish. > > As I said on the arch-general mailing list. These are the battles that have > spawned many a linux distro and there is always LFS, even though they moved > to use udev inside systemd. > > Myra Nelson > > To those who I bcc'd this to; > > I would like to humbly appologize if I intruded on your personal space, but > I wanted to make sure it would be read by you in your own private space > without the need to filter through the BS that's likely to occur on the ml. > > > -- > Life's fun when your sick and psychotic! > That seems to be one of the more well thought out (not pro), responces to systemd,
