Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Tim Watts Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: What distros *don't* use systemd ? Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:03:28 +0100 Lines: 95 Message-ID: References: <2kqldb-3h6.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 8MASb6McyE9s3Fdtm1s3/QGL22uaUsni/3sH5faaGs0y2rWsbe X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:Zc+qnYGOtjn2vIsh0240yC6/k9w= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:11938 On 04/09/14 13:15, Aragorn wrote: > As for a messaging bus, KDE had dcop, but considering that this was a > KDE innovation - read: not RedHat-originated [*] - RedHat created dbus > as an alternative. > > [*] It is no secret within the community that RedHat hates KDE. Even > long after KDE had already started using the freely licensed Qt2 > widgets - the original KDE 1 used non-free Qt1 libraries - RedHat > kept on carrying on with a hate campaign against KDE and its > developers, leading RedHat to be named HatRed by some. Or DeadRat by me. >> Taken to extremes, this approach would have had us only able to run >> KDE apps on a KDE DE and Gnome apps on Gnome. Silly example but it >> does follow as a logical extreme. > > Well, KDE is definitely not shy of interoperability and the KDE > developers have tried to play ball with everyone, but the truth of the > matter is that the GNOME developers looked at KDE and then tried > reinventing every wheel for their own purposes. It is in fact GNOME and > the GTK developers who are very strongly anti-interoperable and who > insist on doing things their way, and their way only. Perhaps I unfairly lumped KDE in there - I often preferred the KDE apps, but not the desktop as it seemed very "big" and prone to going doo-lally if one of the sub components like DCOP failed. DCOP seemed to have issues with multiple concurrent logins on different PCs sharing an NFS $HOME - but this was 2005 - maybe that's better now?) With XFCE4 of course (and many other smaller WMs) you can restart components without blowing all your apps away and the WM/DE components don't depend on much. But I did like the KDE "clean presentation" - always seemed very slick and artistically designed. If there was a "KDE-lite" WM/DE I would probably use it - if that even makes sense! >>> "the /usr move" [2], >> >> Oh god - I don't even know what that is... > > It is comprised of moving all runtime binaries off of the root > filesystem and into /usr, with /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64} only being > symbolic links to their respective equivalents under /usr. And since when did the init process dictate FS naming policy? I'm not even sure why they would want to do that or why anyone would think it a good idea. > This means that when /usr is on a separate filesystem, then one can no > longer boot without an initramfs - typically created using dracut - > which mounts /usr before systemd/udev is started. (udev is now > integrated with systemd, which is why some of the Gentoo developers > created eudev as a fork from an earlier udev version.) > > Yes, I had not seen those particular exchanges yet myself, but I was > already aware of Sievers' and Poettering's arrogance, and I > wholeheartedly agree. The odd arrogant outburst is tolerable if you are mostly usually right plus actually being very very smart (eg Linus, djb). But in this case, hmmm. > > The current philosophy of the systemd developers is that the initramfs > can provide for a rescue shell for those particular instances. > Distributions typically set up dracut to provide for that via busybox. I see where they are coming from, but I personally prefer my rescue shell to be "init=/bin/bash" and a working / where possible (sans /usr if needs be). > Yes, I'm aware of Scientific Linux, and it's a long term support > distribution, so it's still safe for a while, but eventually it too will > be yielding to the transition to systemd. It has no choice, being based > upon RedHat. Unless someone forks RHEL :) >> The only thing Centos/RHEL is good for is its hugely long support >> lifetimes of certain releases. But I persoanally find it very >> frustrating to work with compared to Debian Stable. In fact I've even >> gone to Debian on my desktop (but Mint on my laptop). It takes a >> little more effort to polish it up but not much... > > My former colleagues and I used to use CentOS on our servers back when > we were still running an IRC network, because the hosting software we > were using only supported CentOS or RedHat. However, I agree; I too > would rather use Debian Stable. >