

Open letter to the Linux World - etix
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/12/459

======
Karellen
"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."

Really? That's what you think the whole difference between the distros is, the
fucking _init_ system?

You're using Debian, but you don't think the Social Contract and DFSG are any
part of what Debian uses to set itself apart? You're just completely ignoring
that, I can only presume on purpose? You don't think that portage and USE
flags distinguishes Gentoo from the other distros in any way? Or that
Slackware's deliberately ascetic package managment is at all important? Or
that it's unique directory layout and symlink farm is what makes GoboLinux
awesome? The defining characteristic of all the these distros is what _init_
system they use?

"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."

Obviously, you aren't aware of the debian-devel thread on the matter. "Not [a
choice] very well considered" my arse.

"Gnome. The Linux Foundation. freedesktop.org, and others. These are all
groups with agendas. These are not those who believe in freedom."

And Debian too? All of these groups don't believe in freedom? They're just one
huge cabal, none of whom believe in freedom, wanting to control you for...
what end, exactly? Because it's _beyond_ the realm of possibility in your mind
that they might have all independently come to the same conclusion, for the
simple technical that systemd _might_ actually be better than sysv-init?

Are you fucking kidding me?

For someone who started an open letter asking a question about the nature of
intelligence, it certainly seems to this reader that the author is a long way
from finding any answers at all in their quest...

~~~
pdkl95
> Really? That's what you think the whole difference between the distros is,
> the fucking init system?

Systemd isn't (just) an init system. According to Poettering himself, in a
recent talk[1], noted how systemd has already taken over:

"init system, journal logging, login management, device management, temporary
and volatile file management, binary format registration, backlight
save/restore, rfkill save/restore, bootchart, readahead, encrypted storage
setup, EFI/GPT partition discovery, virtual machine/container registration,
minimal container management, hostname management, locale management, time
management, random seed management, sysctl variable management, and console
managment."

His roadmap for the next features to annex includes:

    
    
        - DNS/DNSSEC, mDNS responder
        - IPC (kernel code! (kdbus, etc))
        - NTP
        - More container integration, w/ new OS image format
        - mandating layout of /usr /etc and /var
        - "Verifiable OS images"
          "All the way to the firmware"
          "Boot Loading"
          (good luck using custom kernels once
           PoetteringOS starts requiring UEFI SecureBoot)
        - (etc)
    

Do _you_ call that "the fucking _init_ system"? There isn't much left after
that, and if past and current behavior is any judge, Poettering will probably
expand that list over time.

> Or that it's unique directory layout and symlink farm

That's exactly the kind of thing that the systemd crowd is trying to prevent.
See the part above where the current goal is to mandate the filesystem layout.
Remember, it was Poettering himself that said that the goal of systemd was to
"...get rid of many of the more pointless differences of the various
distributions..."

> Obviously, you aren't aware of the debian-devel thread on the matter.

Obviously, the author has read that threat (as have I). It was quite the
experience, and is one of the most revealing threads I've seen regarding the
abusive, manipulative, our-way-or-nothing methods used by the systemd camp.
Debian has indeed made a dangerous choice, which was further discussed in the
replies to this LKML post.

> And Debian too? All of these groups don't believe in freedom? They're just
> one huge cabal...

No such claim was made. Debian has put itself in a situation where the freedom
currently enjoyed will not be possible in the future. Systemd is forcing
incompatibilities with the traditional Linux/Unix ways - on purpose - and they
already have limited manpower. Siding with systemd will require either more
manpower than they have, or dropping the "old ways".

> ...the author is a long way from finding any answers...

Ahh, attacking the author. This type of tactic is pretty common from the
systemd shills, as a method of shutting down the discussion. Instead of using
this kind of rhetoric, I suggest actually reading up on the history of the
current init situation.

Unless you actually _want_ Linux to become a windows-style monoculture,
incompatible with most traditional unix software - because removing "old"
features and backwards compatibility is the _stated goal_ of the larger
"CoreOS"/systemd project.

[1]
[http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTczNDk](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTczNDk)

