e7620

> I think Linux has an edge in driver support, and corp vendors -- especially for gaming with things like Steam.

Still, remember when using linux meant compiling the kernel ten times, editing some .c file, changing some obscure flag. And then you needed to open that .doc, .ppt or use msn messenger. You tried dual booting, but windows kept rewriting the bootloader...

Now, with VMs and tech like PCI pass-through this is just SO easy, that issue is less relevant and will result in more popularity for other OSs and a reversing of the consolidation trend.

What government are you talking about? Does "free" education implies the obligation to give all your life work output to the government? This seems very foreign, please name at least one country that implements those ideas.

Even if only one person can't use the internet because of this tax, that's more than enough reason to avoid it.

There have been some schemes in Europe to tax Internet-related services, but they were mostly a result of lobbying and at least benefited some group, like unionized film makers or ISPs. But the difference is nobody welcomes this tax.

> I don't think Hungary will return to pre-industrial times because of an Internet tax.

It will not return but they'll be stuck there. This will have a chilling effect on the economy, and about all new jobs enabled by the internet? no new job will be created, they'll go to other countries without imposed tax barriers.

    The Internet, while most of us don't care, has negative externalities
    as well:

    - killing hundreds of thousands of businesses such as bookstores, movie
    rental stores, record stores;
    - makes it possible through IP telephony,
    email, the web, collaboration tools etc. to outsource millions of jobs;
    - is a time consumer like no other before;

With that philosophy, agriculture would still comprise 100% of the economy. Yes, everybody, even kids, would have a job, but who wants that standard of living?

Also, about wasting time on the internet, maybe for you socializing or gaming is a waste of time, but before internet people also did this, additions already existed back then you know.

    Yes, the Internet creates businesses as well but I don't think I've ever
    used a Hungarian Internet business. Also, the outsourced jobs go mainly
    to Asia. I could see why a conservative government would tax the Internet.

That's because you don't live there. When you know several languages, you see there are huge properties outside the five eyes Internet.

Absolutely not, only if they depend on systemd. If they follow UNIX conventions, they don't need to edit a single file. Writing a daemon init script was a solved problem decades ago, and that script will serve for every init system.

Mr. Snowden's revelations prove that "a smell of conspiracy theory" is not a strong enough argument. Obviously Red Hat is interested in widespread systemd adoption, and that message might offer an explanation as to why debian only considered 3 alternatives and unprecedentedly rushed the adoption process. So this angle is definitively constructive.

The problem is that systemd is taking a lot of work better spent in other parts of the project. Instead of testing systemd, it's better to user simpler components, systemd is evolving, introducing more bugs, and people like that packager have to make a Herculean effort instead of using other init system, even sysv! and improving other applications.

> GNOME doesn't rely on systemd, it wants an API

The problem is the following: GNOME depending on GTK+? Just an API.

Of course, it's not your fault, the problem is systemd developers don't want to separate the components as individual programs. So if you want to use logind you also have to install the whole systemd, requiring linux to boot. (pun not intended)

I agree completely, those operating systems are great, as good or better than GNU/Linux. But with that phrase I was thinking people without prior experience, like Windows users, FreeBSD install is fairly involved for them, there's PC-BSD, but it seems to me, distros like Mint are easier for beginners and useful as a stepping stone to those OSs.

> You think the systemd debate is bad?

I think the debate is good and necessary, I don't like any software imposed without a debate.

Yes, I know, I was referencing partly that. Again, my position may be shocking to you: 1) I like change 2) I use a dozen init systems (!), each for a different situation, and I'm interested in keeping it that way.

You'll also be surprised to know that I use varios OSs! Never used ReiserFS, though.

I agree with everything you said, my point was that it's necessary to be prepared, in case systemd becomes a hard dependency for Debian, which is likely given that more software is depending on systemd, and the lead developer is trying to "merge" linux with systemd. And in that case, I think only Gento is willing to fork.

I didn't downvote you, but I want to audit it myself, thanks.

> From the perspective of the average linux user ( one that knows little to nothing about linux internals ) the entire discussion is the real waste of energy.

If all distros adopt "systemd/linux", a future plan for systemd according to lead developers, what happens if systemd collapses? It would take GNU/Linux with it. Remember how pulseaudio adoption by ubuntu drove users away. I want others to have access to UNIX, the best OS in the world, just like I had the opportunity.

> The idea of a Unix where you get rid of bash/csh/whatever and just run a lua/python/ruby prompt and have your apps implemented largely in that same language

systemd doesn't help with that AT ALL. Other init systems do support this notion much better.

> 90% of Red Hat's revenue is from servers

just a correction, red hat revenue is from support contracts.

> If systemd is bad for servers, why did RHEL[1] and CoreOS adopt it? Are we to believe that these companies work against themselves?

I know of two theories:

1) making systemd a dependency for gnome and the rest, red hat is trying to exterminate *bsd, which is considered better for servers.

2) "Software that ain't broken doesn't sell $$$upport. "

Not really, I use a dozen init systems, each for a different situation, and I'm interested in keeping it that way. The problem is that systemd is that is being forcefully pushed to all distros. For instance, by merging udev with systemd.

Maybe those forks don't add nothing for you, but for me they're beneficial, because I think Darwinian evolution also applies to software.

I happen to like modern daemontools-like init systems a lot, (runit, s6) but I use various init systems depending on what I want, and that's great IMO.

The problem is that systemd is that is being forcefully pushed to all distros. For instance, by merging udev with systemd. We want to keep all the alternatives open.

Come on, this horse has been beaten to death already...

I'll just say, a GNU/Linux distro has many components, but they're not monolithic because they integrate well, you can do ls|grep etc, you know this. But if we want to change one component of systemd, we can't do it! You see? A lot of components, but they comprise a blob and can't be separated or used individually.

Okay, I was saying, just because some people doesn't know, it doesn't have to be FUD, that'd be just an ad hominen attack. I've been a user of Arch back before systemd and I know your points are mostly right, but as you admit, in some cases you're true only technically, so don't attribute all errors to malice.

I think most people don't care how much of systemd is pid 1, there are components like udev that systemd is assimilating, we just want choice, I happen to like modern daemontools-like init systems a lot, but I use various init systems depending on what I want, and that's great IMO. However, read this:

Unless the systemd-haters prepare another kdbus userspace until then this will effectively also mean that we will not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call.

The factually incorrect statements stem from such messages from lead developers, they've stated that in the future systemd will be sort of "merged" with linux, and that's no good. We know because we've been using great OSs and this is clearly a regression.

systemd-journald is only one component, there are more than 50, and if you only want one piece of that, tough luck!

> Opponents of systemd have spread a LOT of FUD and misinformation about systemd

Well, obviously there's another, more charitable interpretation.

> I discovered that much of it was misleading or inaccurate after my main distro switched to systemd.

Systemd is a continuously-varying project, and just because your distro smoothly switched, doesn't mean there were no problems for early adopters. Or that just because your configuration works, no difficulty with the multiple systemd components have, do or will arise.

We'll see how this develops, but this ain't Gentoo, I wouldn't count on Debian to keep supporting sysv. Quote from Debian forums:

it's very unlikely that SysVinit will continue to be supported, because writing init scripts for SysVinit is hard work, and if it isn't used as the default on Linux they'll rot.

> It'll only grow, though. Most certainly.

Only up to a point. Systemd is getting too bloated, and software engineering tells us that the effort to maintain this will grow exponentially.

So we have two options: if systemd improves and decides to follow UNIX principles, good. Otherwise it'll be replaced like consolekit et al. It's great that we have so many init systems to choose from. The only problem now is software that hard depends on systemd when a single line of code could avoid that.

To say that this is not fair would be an understatement. systemd-journald is only one component, there are more than 50!

Not really, remember daemontools? There are almost a hundred init systems very superior technically compared to sysv and systemd, the truth is that sysv has NEVER been considered the best.

Here is the message:

There has been no General Resolution amongst debian package maintainers. Red Hat has instituted a regulatory capture of the "bug squashing" committee within debian (the "Technical Committee") by having current or former (but stock holding) employees moonlight in debian and gradually gain membership in that comittie.

Once their numbers were sufficient they proceeded to file a bug report on the fact that systemd was not standard in debian.

This is illicit abuse of process and they need to be prosecuted.

Debian is an unincorporated association. It has bylaws, trade practices, and dealings by which it was governed. The RedHat associated members of the Technical Committee have illegally and in bad faith abused their positions in-order to realize financial and strategic gain for their employer.

Do you really believe this is hate speech? Hate speech attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

I've been also using systemd since Arch switched over, I've discovered bugs and vulnerabilities. But the thing is, if you're happy with systemd and works well for you, great! I've seen this very prevalent attitude in systemd users, the less they know, more fervently defend systemd, even if they think it sucks, they tell you it's the best thing ever because they're using it, and they always have to use the best.

Arch is bleeding edge, if you've never seen a bug, you haven't been paying attention. So, again, you've never suffered a problem with systemd. Now do a web search, and in less time it takes to write "[citation needed]", you'll see that this is real. Sorry, but systemd has bugs, just like every other program, but by being so intermingled with the kernel, the consequences are much worse.

Before throwing such accusations, at least search Google or HN itself.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May...