Jim Jackson , dans le message <slrnvlk56u.2qa.jj@iridium.wf32df>, a crit:
> My God, how did we all manage running services before systemd came along?

Badly, with services that have crashed and nobody noticed for weeks.

Some teams have been working on better replacement for SysV init, but
without the industrial strength of Red Hat they could only stay niche.

--

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 09:56:25 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wibbled:
>Jim Jackson , dans le message <slrnvlk56u.2qa.jj@iridium.wf32df>, a crit:
>> My God, how did we all manage running services before systemd came along?
>
>Badly, with services that have crashed and nobody noticed for weeks.

Important services don't go unnoticed for weeks.

>Some teams have been working on better replacement for SysV init, but
>without the industrial strength of Red Hat they could only stay niche.

Oh rubbish. Community traction is usually whats required for something to
be accepted. Only in the last 15 years or so did corps start to force their
ideas into linux. Red Hat was notorious for having its own kernels mods
back in the day. Maybe it still does.

Kenny McCormack, dans le message <vjec09$1jpju$1@news.xmission.com>, a
écrit :
> Badly, with services that have crashed and nobody noticed for weeks.
>
> Some teams have been working on better replacement for SysV init, but
> without the industrial strength of Red Hat they could only stay niche.

I wrote that, not you, liar.

In article <675acd55$0$5211$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack, dans le message <vjec09$1jpju$1@news.xmission.com>, a
> crit:
>> Badly, with services that have crashed and nobody noticed for weeks.
>>
>> Some teams have been working on better replacement for SysV init, but
>> without the industrial strength of Red Hat they could only stay niche.
>
>I wrote that, not you, liar.

It is not clear whom you are calling a "liar".

My post made it clear that you wrote the content and I was only correcting
your inadvertent failure to fix the Subject line.

One of the knuckleheads (LDO or Muddle - can't remember which) messed up
the attribution line (failed to fix it - lot of that going around).

--
In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.
-- Barack Obama --

Kenny McCormack, dans le message <vjep5g$1juts$1@news.xmission.com>, a
écrit :
> It is not clear whom you are calling a "liar".

You, for putting “From:” yourself in front of my words.

> My post made it clear that you wrote the content

Hiding it in the headers that nobody reads is not “clear”. That's your
second lie.

> and I was only correcting
> your inadvertent failure to fix the Subject line.

It is not your place to do that for other people. Next time you feel like
it, go solve a jigsaw puzzle in the middle of a highway instead.

And if you are too incompetent to do it without breaking threads, do not do
it at all.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:26:01 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:

> Only in the last 15 years or so did corps start to force
> their ideas into linux.

Nobody can “force” their ideas into Open Source. Ideas only get adopted
for their intrinsic merit, not because of any big-budget marketing
campaign to tell everyone how wonderful it is.

What would be the business model for such a marketing campaign, anyway?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro , dans le message <vjfob3$2vfl9$4@dont-email.me>, a
écrit :
> Nobody can “force” their ideas into Open Source.

Of course they can. Have enough hired developers contribute to the project,
bully the project leader into resigning in favor of a democracy that does
not give more voice to the people to know the project inside-out and intend
to be there for the long run, and bam, you can do whatever you want with the
project.

I am not making this up, I am summarizing what has been happening in a major
Libre Software project over the last fifteen years.

They took that long because they tried to go too fast and were forced into a
fork they eventually drove into the ground. But they have been back.

On 12 Dec 2024 23:34:54 GMT, Nicolas George wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro , dans le message <vjfob3$2vfl9$4@dont-email.me>, a
> écrit :
>
>> Nobody can “force” their ideas into Open Source.
>
> Of course they can. Have enough hired developers contribute to the
> project, bully the project leader into resigning ...

Oracle tried that sort of thing, with the Open Source projects it
inherited from Sun. Remember what happened? The contributors left
wholesale to set up a fork. And the forks ended up doing better than the
originals.

So no, it pays not to antagonize the Open Source community. They have long
memories.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro , dans le message <vjg88j$36h24$5@dont-email.me>, a
écrit :
> Oracle tried that sort of thing, with the Open Source projects it
> inherited from Sun. Remember what happened? The contributors left
> wholesale to set up a fork. And the forks ended up doing better than the
> originals.
>
> So no, it pays not to antagonize the Open Source community. They have long
> memories.

Your example proves that it does not always work.

Your example does not prove that it never works.

We have an example proving that its it working at least once.

On 13 Dec 2024 07:46:59 GMT, Nicolas George wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro , dans le message <vjg88j$36h24$5@dont-email.me>, a
> écrit :
>
>> Oracle tried that sort of thing, with the Open Source projects it
>> inherited from Sun. Remember what happened? The contributors left
>> wholesale to set up a fork. And the forks ended up doing better than
>> the originals.
>>
>> So no, it pays not to antagonize the Open Source community. They have
>> long memories.
>
> Your example proves that it does not always work.
>
> Your example does not prove that it never works.
>
> We have an example proving that its it working at least once.

No, we have no such example. We have merely your claims about Red Hat
motives, which are not borne out by any independent evidence.

For one example, the discussions within Debian over adoption of systemd
are a matter of public record. For another, the decision by Mark
Shuttleworth to abandon upstart in Ubuntu and adopt systemd is also a
matter of public record. Go and see if you can find any “pressure” that
Red Hat might have exerted on either of them; you won’t.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:26:01 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:
>
>> Only in the last 15 years or so did corps start to force
>> their ideas into linux.
>
> Nobody can “force” their ideas into Open Source. Ideas only get adopted
> for their intrinsic merit, not because of any big-budget marketing
> campaign to tell everyone how wonderful it is.
>
> What would be the business model for such a marketing campaign, anyway?

Business model of open source corporations is service and extras.
Creators of given artifacts have significant advantage compared
to others (first, they know the thing better, second, they decide
what gets accepted in "standard" version). So, there is substantial
incentive to push for wide adoption.

Of course, proposal needs to have some basic qualities. And as
other corporations may want to push their own solution, proposing
corporation must convince other _corporations_ that their
solution is "better". And "better" may mean available first
or being dependency of some important program. Intrinsic merit
counts, but is just one of factors. And once something gets
wide adpotion compatibility concerns frequently mean that
intrinsically better ideas have no chance.

--
Waldek Hebisch

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 20:28:21 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:

> And once something gets wide adpotion compatibility concerns frequently
> mean that intrinsically better ideas have no chance.

Open Source projects seem less hidebound by that. Look at the way things
have evolved, with old “traditional” *nix ideas being supplanted by new
ones: netstat/ifconfig by iproute2, X11 by Wayland, various hacky audio
things by first PulseAudio and then PipeWire, sysvinit by systemd (and
other options) etc.

Just goes to show, there is no “vendor lock-in” in the Open Source world.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 20:28:21 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
>> And once something gets wide adpotion compatibility concerns frequently
>> mean that intrinsically better ideas have no chance.
>
> Open Source projects seem less hidebound by that. Look at the way things
> have evolved, with old “traditional” *nix ideas being supplanted by new
> ones: netstat/ifconfig by iproute2, X11 by Wayland, various hacky audio
> things by first PulseAudio and then PipeWire, sysvinit by systemd (and
> other options) etc.
>
> Just goes to show, there is no “vendor lock-in” in the Open Source world.

Rather that vendors can (an will) break compatibility when they want.
And actually systemd is an example of thing that users are essentially
forced to use regardless if they want it or not: it comes with the
system and is hard or even impossible to avoid if one wants to
use rest of the system. Currenlty one can opt to use X11, but
apparently Wayland proponents want to remove this choice.

Breaking compatibility with past does not mean that compatibility
is not a concern. Simply once enough vendors decide on "new"
solution other are forced to follow to be compatible. And if
big vendors stick to their solution, alternative has little or
no chance of success.

--
Waldek Hebisch

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:17:50 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:

> Rather that vendors can (an will) break compatibility when they want.

But they cannot lock Open Source users into their product.

> And actually systemd is an example of thing that users are essentially
> forced to use regardless if they want it or not ...

It is one of many choices of init/service-management systems. You have
your choice of distros with or without it.

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 21:52:29 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> gabbled:
>On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:17:50 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
>> Rather that vendors can (an will) break compatibility when they want.
>
>But they cannot lock Open Source users into their product.
>
>> And actually systemd is an example of thing that users are essentially
>> forced to use regardless if they want it or not ...
>
>It is one of many choices of init/service-management systems. You have
>your choice of distros with or without it.

That depends on what you want to do. Some applications only work on certain
distros out the box. Yes, you can always get them to work on any other so
long as you don't mind picking apart their install scripts and/or manually
downloading any missing libraries (which may cause version issues with your
own distro**), but most for most people life's too short for that.

** Unless you go down the docker/VM route but they bring their own level of
pain.

On 2025-01-16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:17:50 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
>> Rather that vendors can (an will) break compatibility when they want.
>
> But they cannot lock Open Source users into their product.
>
>> And actually systemd is an example of thing that users are essentially
>> forced to use regardless if they want it or not ...
>
> It is one of many choices of init/service-management systems. You have
> your choice of distros with or without it.

Certainly for headless (no graphics) purposes, it is still comparatively
easy in Debian to replace systemd with the old sysv-init(or alternative
init) stuff. Though I'm not sure for how long that will be true. But you don't even need to switches distros.

I did it recently on a Raspberry Pi with their latest "lite" version of
PiOS (Debian based). I was pleasantly surprized at how easy it was.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 20:00:35 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote:

> Certainly for headless (no graphics) purposes, it is still comparatively
> easy in Debian to replace systemd ...

Or why not use Devuan, which explicitly sets out to be
Debian-without-systemd?

Also, this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_distributions_without_systemd>.

On 2025-01-18, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 20:00:35 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote:
>
>> Certainly for headless (no graphics) purposes, it is still comparatively
>> easy in Debian to replace systemd ...
>
> Or why not use Devuan, which explicitly sets out to be
> Debian-without-systemd?

Because, on the Raspberry Pi - PiOS is the best match for the hardware
when you are using the Pi's interfaces extensively. And I wanted to be
able to run the setup on other versions of Pi board.