how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

i've documented the process by which it is possible to run some of the
debian desktop window managers (TDE, fvwm, twm etc.) without the need
for systemd or libsystemd0 or any components related to systemd
whatsoever.

the process is not without difficulties, however out of (at the time
of writing) only two people who have followed this procedure, i was
the one that ended up having to disable udev: the other individual had
a working system (devoid of libsystemd0) purely by following only the
instructions to alter and replace bsdutils from the util-linux
package.

the reasons for demonstrating that this is possible have absolutely
nothing to do with my *personal* (technically-based) dislike of
systemd, although my reasons for actually removing libsystemd0 from
personal systems *are* based on a technical assessment (mostly with a
sysadmin eye). but, i repeat: my *personal* choice has *nothing to
do* with the reason for posting this documentation.

the reason for demonstrating that this is possible is because nobody
has yet made it clear to either the upstream developers - or to the
distro maintainers who unfortunately are caught in the crossfire -
that systemd's unilateral adoption is fast becoming an
"all-or-nothing" polarised choice that reminds me keenly of the
polarised Microsoft Monopoly power and dominance of the late 1990s.

and that *really is it*. the technical issues are completely
irrelevant: those can and will be solved. already we have evdev,
mdev, devuan, uselessd and many more, but those technical options are
*COMPLETELY SHUT OUT* by the exclusive - monopolistic - position that
systemd now has.

to illustrate the dominance of libsystemd0, if you carry out an
"apt-get --purge remove libsystemd0", *all* of the packages and many
more on the following PNG will be removed:

Loading Image...

that list is woefully incomplete, so i have generated a current list
using apt-rdepends -r libsystemd0 | some manual magic | sort | uniq.
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/list_of_libsystemd0_dependent_packages.txt

the list is a whopping 4,583 packages (from the current
debian/testing). apache2-dev, androidsdk, apt-cacher-ng,
avahi-daemon, blender, bluetooth, bochs, cairo-dock, calligra,
consolekit, cups-daemon, cups-core-drivers, cups-driver-gutenprint,
dbus - this is just a few major software libre packages i can see in
the the first 9% of the list that are affected (cannot be installed)
should anyone exercise their right to choose *not* to have libsystemd0
on their machines.

even dh is on the list. erlang is on the list! kde, gimp, xfce,
lxde, gnome, libreoffice, xine, mediawiki, mplayer, network-manager,
openjdk-7, phonon, php (??? why is php dependent on libsystemd0??),
pidgin, policykit-1, postfixadmin (??), pulseaudio, qemu, syslog-ng,
vlc, wicd (client and server), xbase-clients (??), x11-apps (??),
xbmc, xchat... those are just ones that i recognise out of the 4,500+
packages that are not permitted to be installed.

so the short and long of it is: i do not like it when people are not
given the freedom to choose... and that includes when, just like when
microsoft was so dominant in the 1990s, the choices they are presented
are not really a choice at all. what i have done therefore is to show
how to modify the debian packages for policykit-1, dbus, pulseaudio
and util-linux, such that libsystemd0 may be entirely removed.
removal of libsystemd0 from those packages trims that list of several
thousand unilaterally-excluded packages *significantly*.

this process comes with a price: i had to disable udev, and i had to
re-enable the keyboard and mouse sections in xorg.conf that i had
added years ago. however, already within hours of the report's
publication i have received word from one other person who did *not*
have the same extensive difficulties that i encountered: udev
(unmodified) worked perfectly for them. in a follow-up message they
did however explain that they have successfully installed and then
removed (at an earlier point) a source-compiled version of mdev, which
illustrates that they have some quite significant experience in
maintaining a hybrid of standard debian packages and system-critical
packages compiled directly from source.

so, in short, i have two key things to say.

to debian-users: you don't have complete choice (yet), but i have
demonstrated with a few hours work that there is a way to run
(certain) desktop environments without requiring libsystemd0 or any of
its dependencies, and after a little investigation there do appear to
be people working hard to give you your right to choose what software
to run *without* having to abandon debian.

to debian-developers: the technical issues are irrelevant (and can
always be solved over time) - it's that you are complicit in removing
people's software freedom right to choose what to run on their system:
that is why so many users are upset with you. and that really is not
a judgement, it's simply an insightful summarising statement of fact:
you have the right to choose whether the situation that you are
complicit in is something that you find acceptable or whether you do
not. i leave it entirely to you to decide.

l.

[Ric Moore]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
so the short and long of it is: i do not like it when people are not
given the freedom to choose... and that includes when, just like when
microsoft was so dominant in the 1990s, the choices they are presented
are not really a choice at all.

Excuse me? Exactly what choice did you have when installing Slackware
from a pile of floppies in the mid 90's as I did? Or when you first
installed RedHat or Caldera or Suse or Debian? You had exactly none and
you took what they gave you. Period. What software and features they
decided to include was 100% up to them. No one had a beef with that.

Today, among the same distro-systems, you still take what they give you.
You are completely free to fork or go your own direction, but you have
no more or no less the same rights we had in the beginning. You either
take what they hand out for free or go your own way. But, to raise
comparisons to MicroSoft is very much out of line. Try forking Win 10
and see how fast the suits shake down your wallet. There is that minor
<cough> difference. :/ Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
i've documented the process by which it is possible to run some of the
debian desktop window managers (TDE, fvwm, twm etc.) without the need
for systemd or libsystemd0 or any components related to systemd
whatsoever.

Alas, the resulting distribution is still hopelessly compromised by the
NSA, who might be even worse than Lennart Poettering. To see how deep the
tendrils of US government infiltration go, just try removing libselinux1,
and marvel at how much concerted malevolent effort has gone into
destroying your freedom.

Or, alternately, you could research how and why one would use shared
libraries in a binary distribution to support optional features. But
that's boring, prosaic, and nowhere near as much fun to write about.

[Marco d'Itri]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
to debian-users: you don't have complete choice (yet), but i have
demonstrated with a few hours work that there is a way to run
(certain) desktop environments without requiring libsystemd0 or any of
its dependencies, and after a little investigation there do appear to
be people working hard to give you your right to choose what software
to run *without* having to abandon debian.

I strongly recommend that the people who cannot live with libsystemd0
installed on their systems leave Debian, because their life is going to
suck more and more as we will integrate it in every important daemon
after jessie will have been released.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
to debian-developers: the technical issues are irrelevant (and can
always be solved over time) - it's that you are complicit in removing
that is why so many users are upset with you. and that really is not

Cool! It has been since my Usenet days that I have not been accused of
being part of a conspiracy. Thank you, I missed this.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
you have the right to choose whether the situation that you are
complicit in is something that you find acceptable or whether you do
not. i leave it entirely to you to decide.

I do not just find it acceptable, I thoroughly enjoy it.

[Jochen Spieker]

Post by Marco d'Itri

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
to debian-developers: the technical issues are irrelevant (and can
always be solved over time) - it's that you are complicit in removing
that is why so many users are upset with you. and that really is not

Cool! It has been since my Usenet days that I have not been accused of
being part of a conspiracy. Thank you, I missed this.

Really? I thought you already destroyed Linux with your work un udev.
:->

J.

[Lisi Reisz]

Post by Marco d'Itri

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
to debian-users: you don't have complete choice (yet), but i have
demonstrated with a few hours work that there is a way to run
(certain) desktop environments without requiring libsystemd0 or any of
its dependencies, and after a little investigation there do appear to
be people working hard to give you your right to choose what software
to run *without* having to abandon debian.

I strongly recommend that the people who cannot live with libsystemd0
installed on their systems leave Debian,

Oh, yes, please! Please. Please. You have lots of choice. There are lots
of distros and you can fork (devuan). But leave us in peace! It has been
lovely on this list without you lot.

Lisi

[Eduard Bloch]

Hallo,

Post by Lisi Reisz

Post by Marco d'Itri

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
to debian-users: you don't have complete choice (yet), but i have
demonstrated with a few hours work that there is a way to run
(certain) desktop environments without requiring libsystemd0 or any of
its dependencies, and after a little investigation there do appear to
be people working hard to give you your right to choose what software
to run *without* having to abandon debian.

I strongly recommend that the people who cannot live with libsystemd0
installed on their systems leave Debian,

Oh, yes, please! Please. Please. You have lots of choice. There are lots
of distros and you can fork (devuan). But leave us in peace! It has been
lovely on this list without you lot.

+1, please!

(And if you still want to start a crusade against system libraries,
please try practicing first with more famous targets like libselinux1 or
even libpthread... nobody needs this dependency hell, right?)

Regards,
Eduard.

[Christian Seiler]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of libsystemd0) was as a
dependency of dbus, so it is probably already installed on most desktop
systems running current Debian stable.

Christian

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by Christian Seiler

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of libsystemd0) was as a
dependency of dbus, so it is probably already installed on most desktop
systems running current Debian stable.

i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the
very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major
distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the
*exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it).

my assessment is that it's that total lack of choice that is causing
people to get so upset. but there's no need to get upset about it:
*we didn't know*. nobody could have predicted how far this would go,
so quickly.

so the question then becomes: at a fundamental level (in a
distro-agnostic way) how to go about giving people a proper choice (to
run systemd and associated components, or not)?

l.

[The Wanderer]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christian Seiler

Post by Christian Seiler

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody
complained that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of
libsystemd0) was as a dependency of dbus, so it is probably already
installed on most desktop systems running current Debian stable.

i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the
very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major
distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the
*exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it).
my assessment is that it's that total lack of choice that is causing
*we didn't know*. nobody could have predicted how far this would go,
so quickly.
so the question then becomes: at a fundamental level (in a
distro-agnostic way) how to go about giving people a proper choice
(to run systemd and associated components, or not)?

As Russ pointed out in a thread on -project last month: either revive
ConsoleKit, or reimplement logind in a way which isn't dependent on
systemd, and do either or both in a way which is acceptable to all
relevant upstreams (including PolicyKit).

Adam Borowski already mentioned consolekit2 and loginkit, which sound
like attempts to do exactly those two things. I don't know how
successful they would be, but that would be the path to take.

[Christian Kastner]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Christian Seiler

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of libsystemd0) was as a
dependency of dbus, so it is probably already installed on most desktop
systems running current Debian stable.

i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the
very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major
distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the
*exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it).

I'll hazard another guess, namely that the great vast majority of users
simply do not care. I'd be surprised if most users even know what an
init system does, much less what the differences between sysvinit /
systemd / upstart / etc are. [*]

And what do you mean by "unilateral" decision? If you want to be
involved in the design and development of a software, do what everyone
else does -- contribute. That works for everyone else, AFAICT. It's
really becoming tiring to hear this incessant, high-pitched,
full-of-entitlement whine about how the free-as-in-speech software
someone else is putting the time and effort to provide them with is not
acceptable to them. If you know something that all-the-desktops and
all-the-distros don't, then act on that knowledge.

Christian

[*] Anecdotal: the result of a quick poll among 4 Linux users in my
immediate vicinity had just this result.

[Lisi Reisz]

Post by Christian Kastner

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Christian Seiler

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of libsystemd0) was as a
dependency of dbus, so it is probably already installed on most desktop
systems running current Debian stable.

i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the
very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major
distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the
*exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it).

I'll hazard another guess, namely that the great vast majority of users
simply do not care. I'd be surprised if most users even know what an
init system does, much less what the differences between sysvinit /
systemd / upstart / etc are. [*]
[*] Anecdotal: the result of a quick poll among 4 Linux users in my
immediate vicinity had just this result.

Ditto. But 3.

Lisi

[Alastair McKinstry]

Post by Christian Kastner

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Christian Seiler

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of libsystemd0) was as a
dependency of dbus, so it is probably already installed on most desktop
systems running current Debian stable.

i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the
very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major
distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the
*exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it).

I'll hazard another guess, namely that the great vast majority of users
simply do not care. I'd be surprised if most users even know what an
init system does, much less what the differences between sysvinit /
systemd / upstart / etc are. [*]

But the developers _do_ care, and that matters.

See John Goertzens insightful blog post:

http://changelog.complete.org/archives/9304-reactions-to-has-modern-linux-lost-its-way-and-the-value-of-simplicity

An an example, i've been a long-term linux developer, DD; i've developed
and promoted Linux not just on the desktop but both in embedded systems
and in HPC systems. In all these I've been comfortable that I've been
able to adapt Linux, reconfigure, do what was needed to get it going on
any size of device, and get my changes either accepted upstream,
maintain them locally in my organisation or both. With systemd I don't
think I could do that, and thats very disempowering.

Do I really need to point out that if we lose developers, then the users
lose too?

Alastair

[Christian Kastner]

Post by Alastair McKinstry

Post by Christian Kastner
I'll hazard another guess, namely that the great vast majority of users
simply do not care. I'd be surprised if most users even know what an
init system does, much less what the differences between sysvinit /
systemd / upstart / etc are. [*]

But the developers _do_ care, and that matters.

Yes, some -- probably even many! -- developers do care. And many of them
actively contribute to a solution, be it with constructive criticism, or
sharing insights, or providing patches. And I truly, deeply value that.

However, the certain group of people my complaint was addressed to seem
to contribute only drama and discord.

Post by Alastair McKinstry
http://changelog.complete.org/archives/9304-reactions-to-has-modern-linux-lost-its-way-and-the-value-of-simplicity
An an example, i've been a long-term linux developer, DD; i've developed
and promoted Linux not just on the desktop but both in embedded systems
and in HPC systems. In all these I've been comfortable that I've been
able to adapt Linux, reconfigure, do what was needed to get it going on
any size of device, and get my changes either accepted upstream,
maintain them locally in my organisation or both. With systemd I don't
think I could do that, and thats very disempowering.
Do I really need to point out that if we lose developers, then the users
lose too?

[Matthias Klumpp]

Post by Alastair McKinstry
[...]
An an example, i've been a long-term linux developer, DD; i've developed
and promoted Linux not just on the desktop but both in embedded systems
and in HPC systems. In all these I've been comfortable that I've been
able to adapt Linux, reconfigure, do what was needed to get it going on
any size of device, and get my changes either accepted upstream,
maintain them locally in my organisation or both. With systemd I don't
think I could do that, and thats very disempowering.

Why do you think you can't do that anymore? Systemd is used on
embedded devices, reaching from the Jolla smartphone to things like
the Vocore or Raspberry Pi.
Getting changes accepted upstream is also not a hard thing, systemd is
not different from any other upstream we have. Suure, there will be
patches which are not in-scope, some will receive criticism, need to
be adapted and rewritten, but that happens basically everywhere.
For projects using systemd features, adapting them to do what you want
also shouldn't be a problem, and the systemd unit files (from the
initsystem part of it) can easily be changed and overridden to serve
custom needs.
So, do you have concrete bad experience? If so, working on that and
fixing the associated bugs would be a useful thing to do.

Post by Alastair McKinstry
[...]

Cheers,
Matthias

P.S: Does this really have to be crossposted to -user and -devel?

[Alastair McKinstry]

Post by Matthias Klumpp

Post by Alastair McKinstry
[...]
An an example, i've been a long-term linux developer, DD; i've developed
and promoted Linux not just on the desktop but both in embedded systems
and in HPC systems. In all these I've been comfortable that I've been
able to adapt Linux, reconfigure, do what was needed to get it going on
any size of device, and get my changes either accepted upstream,
maintain them locally in my organisation or both. With systemd I don't
think I could do that, and thats very disempowering.

Why do you think you can't do that anymore? Systemd is used on
embedded devices, reaching from the Jolla smartphone to things like
the Vocore or Raspberry Pi.
Getting changes accepted upstream is also not a hard thing, systemd is
not different from any other upstream we have. Suure, there will be
patches which are not in-scope, some will receive criticism, need to
be adapted and rewritten, but that happens basically everywhere.
For projects using systemd features, adapting them to do what you want
also shouldn't be a problem, and the systemd unit files (from the
initsystem part of it) can easily be changed and overridden to serve
custom needs.
So, do you have concrete bad experience? If so, working on that and
fixing the associated bugs would be a useful thing to do.

The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing
an upgrade after that one. My expectations of getting 'interesting' new
configurations such as Debian for Drones(TM) accepted are not high.

Compared to existing systems, systemd is tightly integrated by design.
Dropping components, customising components becomes much harder. If I
develop a new type of networking, for example, it might be 2-3 years
before my code is accepted into mainstream kernels/ setups. In the
meantime, i'm maintaining a fork myself.
With the current modular design the amount of code I need to maintain
is small. In a systemd-type world, I have to learn to integrate it with
systemd, and maintain a fork of systemd.

I have real problems with this lack of modularity.

Alastair

Post by Matthias Klumpp

Post by Alastair McKinstry
[...]

Cheers,
Matthias
P.S: Does this really have to be crossposted to -user and -devel?

[Marco d'Itri]

Post by Alastair McKinstry
The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing

systemd introduces no such breakage. Also, /usr on a separate partition
was partially broken even before systemd.

Post by Alastair McKinstry
I have real problems with this lack of modularity.

Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.

As usual, the systemd critics are just misinformed. This comforts me.
because it means that their views can be easily ignored.

[Lisi Reisz]

Post by Marco d'Itri

Post by Alastair McKinstry
The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing

systemd introduces no such breakage. Also, /usr on a separate partition
was partially broken even before systemd.

Post by Alastair McKinstry
I have real problems with this lack of modularity.

Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.
As usual, the systemd critics are just misinformed. This comforts me.
because it means that their views can be easily ignored.

I just installed Jessie with systemd for the first time. It rained here today
when I had to walk down to the Post Office. This was clearly the fault of
systemd.

Lisi

[Dan Ritter]

Post by Lisi Reisz

Post by Marco d'Itri

Post by Alastair McKinstry
The breakage of compatibility of existing systems (e.g. with /usr on a
separate partition) has left a sour taste. I spent a weekend repairing

systemd introduces no such breakage. Also, /usr on a separate partition
was partially broken even before systemd.

Post by Alastair McKinstry
I have real problems with this lack of modularity.

Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.
As usual, the systemd critics are just misinformed. This comforts me.
because it means that their views can be easily ignored.

I just installed Jessie with systemd for the first time. It rained here today
when I had to walk down to the Post Office. This was clearly the fault of
systemd.

The worst effect of systemd is that it appears to make its
partisans feel free to act like five year olds who have had
too much caffeine.


-dsr-

[Ric Moore]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Christian Seiler

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

It's funny that when Wheezy (not Jessie!) came out, nobody complained
that libsystemd-login0 (which is now part of libsystemd0) was as a
dependency of dbus, so it is probably already installed on most desktop
systems running current Debian stable.

i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the
very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major
distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the
*exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it).
my assessment is that it's that total lack of choice that is causing
*we didn't know*. nobody could have predicted how far this would go,
so quickly.
so the question then becomes: at a fundamental level (in a
distro-agnostic way) how to go about giving people a proper choice (to
run systemd and associated components, or not)?

And why would their unpaid selves go to the bother? Those that DO get
paid, are jumping on systemd with both feet. Clearly there must be
advantage to do so, so they do it. Simple. It computes. What you suggest
means more work for people who do not get paid, and that doesn't
compute. Not even a little. If I were a computer, I would have a
segfault now. :) Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[Richard Owlett]

Post by Ric Moore

[*SNIP*]
so the question then becomes: at a fundamental level (in a
distro-agnostic way) how to go about giving people a proper
choice (to
run systemd and associated components, or not)?

And why would their unpaid selves go to the bother? Those that DO
get paid, are jumping on systemd with both feet. Clearly there
must be advantage to do so, so they do it. Simple. It computes.
What you suggest means more work for people who do not get paid,
and that doesn't compute. Not even a little. If I were a
computer, I would have a segfault now. :) Ric

I suspect that more describes an effect rather than a cause.
The roots of *nix are are in Unix.
Unix was, at least in part, a response to need for a "large"
number of persons to access an expensive resource - a CPU.
A side effect was breeding geeks , errrr... support staff ;)
When hardware costs fell, those fascinated by a new field could
afford to explore.

Now, instead of a computer occupying a building, I have four
computers on my desk and one in the glove-box of my car.

Computer OWNERS are now much more diverse. My parents knew Model
T's and travel to the moon. Times change.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

ok, so there's been quite a discussion, both on slashdot, where
amazingly the comments that filtered to the top were insightful and
respectful, and also here on debian-devel and debian-users. as i
normally use gmane to reply (and maintain and respect threads) but
this discussion is not *on* gmane, i apologise for having to write a
summary-style follow-up: if people would like me to reply (thank you
christian) please cc me in future, but (see last paragraph) i think
the software libre community's interests are best served if i wait for
replies to accumulate for a few days.

after thinking about this yesterday, a random sentence popped into my
head, which i believe is very appropriate:

"i disagree with what you are saying, but i will defend your right
to say it".

i believe it was someone famous who wrote that, and it applies to this
situation because this really isn't about the technical merits of the
available software: solutions will come in time (and already are:
eudev, mdev, uselessd and many more). the reason why i've joined this
debate is because i feel that closing doors on choice in ways that
force people to have to make extremely disruptive and risky decisions
that could adversely affect their livelihoods - i have a *really* bad
feeling about that, and i cannot sit by and let it happen without
speaking up.

in the past two days i've seen a lot of people on this list make it
clear (by saying for example "you have the source, go modify it") that
they do not truly appreciate the responsibility and duty of care that
they have. in saying that i can say that *i know* how you feel: i've
been the leader of many software libre projects where people would
expect me to feed them answers for no financial reward - and all those
other nuances that we frequently encounter. but i learned in the past
few years that even if you are not being paid, you *still* have a duty
to those people less intelligent or with less time or less money than
you. we're *serving others* with our skill, time and intelligence.
it's a really awkward and delicate situation, i know, but answering
"go away and modify the source yourself" is to do both yourself and
the recipient of that answer a very strong disservice.

anyway - down to it.

Post by Marco d'Itri
Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.

marco: understanding or otherwise how systemd works is not the point:
the point is that there has been a unilateral decision across
virtually every single GNU/Linux distro to abandon and remove *any*
alternative to having libsystemd0 installed. historical precedent in
the software industry and beyond tells us that placing so much power
and trust in a single system and a single group should be ringing
alarm bells so loudly in your head that you should wake up deaf after
having first passed out with dizziness! :)

so could i ask you, as i really genuinely don't understand, why is it
that the lack of choice here *doesn't* bother you? i'm not asking for
a technical review or a technically-based argument as to "why
libsystemd0 is better" - that has been debated many many times and is
entirely moot. i'm asking "why does *only* having libsystemd0 as the
sole exclusive startup method, removal of which prevents and prohibits
the use of a whopping FIFTEEN PERCENT of the available debian software
base, and where that exclusive exclusionary process is being rapidly
duplicated across virtually every single GNU/Linux distribution that
we know; why does that *not* make you pause for thought that there
might be something desperately and very badly wrong?"

Post by Marco d'Itri
You are completely free to fork or go your own direction,

indeed we are, and in fact one person mentions further in the thread
so far that they did exactly that. they also outline quite how much
work it is. on the slashdot discussion, someone pointed out that it
was really unconscionable that people have to go to such extreme
lengths. GNU/Linux distros should be a place where people can make
happy and convenient choices, not extreme decisions! the extreme
absurd version of what you suggest is to do what very very few people
in the world have ever done (one of them being richard lightman, an
amazingly intelligent and reclusive individual), namely to create an
*entire* linux distribution - on their own - from source. i take it
you can see, from that example, quite how much of a disservice it is
to say what you said, ric?

no, the very fact that this *doesn't go away* - that discussions about
libsystemd0 are *continuous and ongoing*, should tell you that there
is something very, very badly wrong with what's going on. and that's
what i want to get to the bottom of. like... *properly* understand.

the second thing, ric, is that i have to point out, respectfully, that
there are signs that you didn't read the slashdot article summary, nor

Post by Marco d'Itri
But, to raise comparisons to MicroSoft is very much out of line.

that is a conclusion and an insight that i reached with some care and
consideration, and unfortunately it appears that you reacted badly and
emotionally to that without reviewing the logical reasoning by which i
arrived at that insight. as a general rule, asking people to retract
a conclusion without first showing that you have read, acknowledged
and understood their rationale is ... well... i won't make judgements
but i _am_ going to ask you to be more conscientious in future, ok?
can i leave it with you to read further and to respect that request?
the reason i say that is because i did actually forsee the argument
about "anyone can fork or patch code", and provided insights as to why
that is not true, both in the slashdot article as well as the report.

Post by Marco d'Itri
Alas, the resulting distribution is still hopelessly compromised by the
NSA, who might be even worse than Lennart Poettering. To see how deep the
tendrils of US government infiltration go, just try removing libselinux1,
and marvel at how much concerted malevolent effort has gone into
destroying your freedom.
Or, alternately, you could research how and why one would use shared
libraries in a binary distribution to support optional features. But
that's boring, prosaic, and nowhere near as much fun to write about.

ahhh russ - good maaan :) here we have a hint of a possible solution,
one where i'm going to need to speak to the systemd team for a feature
request / design decision (and can i ask you and anyone else to do the
same?). you've hit on what i believe is *the* perfect and acceptable
decision that is hinted at by the ridiculousness of the drastic
demonstration that i made [to modify and recompile debian packages].
of *course* libsystemd0 should be dynamically loaded, and the
userspace applications make the decision *at runtime* as to what to
do!

yet the staggering thing is that you are quite literally *the* only
other person whom i've *ever* encountered - in this entire aggressive
storming bloody mess - who has proposed this so simple and respectful
design concept! why is that, because i really don't know.

now that just leaves the mention of the dreaded NSA and the dreaded
libselinux1 to contend with, which eduard also raises as being a
potential target of ire. i have the advantage of having answered this
before in other conversations, as well as having worked closely with
libselinux, so have some key insights into both how it works as well
as _why_ it was developed.

SE/Linux is an implementation of a well-researched (independently
researched) security model known as FLASK. FLASK was developed around
very very good principles that are often implemented right across the
security and defense industry as actual *physical* measures. the
example i typically give here is when a 5 star General goes to a base,
his papers are *taken away* (preventing and prohibiting him from being
able to travel), and he is given a security badge that *only* allows
him access to the absolute specific locations in the building that he
is there to visit. on leaving (if he leaves...) that badge is *taken
away* and he is handed back his papers. but those two transactions of
paper-swapping are actually independent, in SE/Linux (and in the
physical security world) it has to be pointed out.

the key question though is _why_ did the NSA sponsor SE/Linux? the
reason for that is because the adoption of GNU/Linux in secure
environments and in USA government departments and military
establishments was progressing at an alarmingly high rate, and the NSA
became concerned about how to validate its security. i don't know if
you're aware of this, but in the intelligence community, *not knowing*
if something is secure *or insecure* is *much worse* even than knowing
that something *is* insecure. the "not knowing" is their absolute
worst nightmare, because if you *know* something is insecure, you can
at least avoid it or do some risk assessment. in other words, in the
risk assessment of "things unknown", they are forced to put "infinite
probability of attack" into the equations, and that they really don't
like doing!

however given that the FLASK model is actually a formal mathematical
language, and given that the SE/Linux m4 macros may be likewise
mathematically analysed, the NSA *really can* make formally-provable
statements about the security of computer systems within their care
and responsibility. and that makes them - and their clients - very
very happy.

so to summarise:

* the use of libselinux1 is dormant (i.e. whilst you can't remove it
without inconvenience, its use is entirely optional, right from the
kernel level)
* its development and documentation is rational and well-researched
* the timeline behind its introduction was done in a respectful and
reasonable way
* it would be *counter* to the NSA's *own remit* for them to compromise it!
* there are several independent people who have reviewed it

now let's compare that to the situation that we find ourselves in with
libsystemd0:

* the use of libsystemd0 is MANDATORY and EXCLUSIONARY (everywhere
except slackware and FreeBSD)
* its development is a moving target and the documentation of the
roadmap is informal and sparse.
* the timeline behind its introduction indicates that it is being
rail-roaded through
* there have been similar conspiracy theories about libsystemd0 but it
is too early to make rational assessments
* the people who have reviewed libsystemd0 and systemd and found
really good technical as well as sysadmin work-related reasons as to
why it is lacking have been *COMPLETELY IGNORED*.

so from that can you see why libselinux is, far from being a "bad"
example that many people should feel compelled to rip out at the
roots, is in fact a *good* example by virtue of helping to demonstrate
how libsystemd0 *should* have been introduced and most definitely has
not?

the summary is that the process by which SE/Linux was introduced was
done in a respectful way, where people were invited to review the
papers as well as the code at every step of the way. objections may
have been raised, however we see from the lack of past and ongoing
fuss (in direct contrast to libsystemd0) that those objections must
have been dealt with.

by complete contrast, the shit-storm behind libsystemd0 is *not going away*.

... that's quite a lot, there - did i make the point clearly, russ? :)

Post by Marco d'Itri
Cool! It has been since my Usenet days that I have not been accused of
being part of a conspiracy. Thank you, I missed this.

any time, marco - you clearly enjoyed reaching that conclusion, and
whilst i wouldn't wish to take that away from you, i do feel compelled
to point out that the perception of a conspiracy really is in your own

Post by Marco d'Itri
i'll hazard a guess that it's because they had no idea that, in the
very near future, all the major desktop developers and all the major
distros would make the unilateral decision to hard-code the
*exclusive* use of systemd (or parts of it).

in other words, it's *not your fault* marco. .it's *not your fault*.
it's *not* your fault. you didn't do anything wrong, ok? you made
the best decisions that you could with the information available to
you at the time. nobody could have predicted how this would turn out.

TheWanderer mentions, in response to the question "how to give people choice"

Post by Marco d'Itri
As Russ pointed out in a thread on -project last month: either revive
ConsoleKit, or reimplement logind in a way which isn't dependent on
systemd, and do either or both in a way which is acceptable to all
relevant upstreams (including PolicyKit).

russ seems to have a clue, i believe: he's the one that's also raised
the idea of dynamic-loading optional libraries (that may, clearly,
then be packaged as separate optional .debs). we are, however,
talking not about distro-maintenance but are now talking about making
proposals of design decisions to the upstream developers.

would it be worthwhile starting a separate discussion about doing
that, and where would it be best to do that (where is the best
*public* place to do that, i mean, where the most number of people
with a stake in the outcome would be able to review and contribute?
let's learn from the good example that libselinux1 set, in other
words).

Post by Marco d'Itri
And what do you mean by "unilateral" decision?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unilateral
this came up on slashdot. the relevance is best answered by this post, here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6972495&cid=49063619

Post by Marco d'Itri
If you want to be
involved in the design and development of a software, do what everyone
else does -- contribute. That works for everyone else, AFAICT.

this is not about you, or me. again, like ric, you appear to not
have read (or you did, but you didn't acknowledge *that* you had
read), the points made both in the report as well as in the text of
the slashdot article. as you are the second person to have implicitly
indicated that you haven't read what i wrote (in which i foresaw and
forestalled exactly the argument that you make), i will repeat it
here:

" We aren't all "good at coding", or paid to work on Software Libre:
that means that those people who are need to be much more
responsible..."

there's a more detailed version of that on the report, and it was very
interesting to see that people on slashdot agreed with me. this
*isn't about* you or me. we *can* (and i have - as you can see from
the report) contribute, we *can* code. what do you think i'm doing,
here?? :) i'm letting people know that their right to choose has been
violated, i'm showing them (if they are brave enough) that they *do*
have a choice, and i have provided instructions on how to get that
choice back, i'm mulling over ways in which that right to choose can
be reinstated in ways that the upstream developers can understand and
appreciate, and i'm finding that i am not the only one (Russ for
example) who has thought of these ideas, which is great!

so i am a bit puzzled, and would really appreciate your insight and
answer: what is it about what i am doing is sufficiently unclear that
you do not perceive it to be a contribution?

Post by Marco d'Itri
If you know something that all-the-desktops and
all-the-distros don't, then act on that knowledge.

i cannot claim to know everything - none of us can - but i *am*
acting on the insights that i am able to perceive, highlighting as
best i can the issues that i perceive to be important. and i *have* -
and am - taking action. exactly as the quote hints at, right at the
beginning of this message, i take my duty and responsibility to defend
software freedom - even on behalf of those people who do not
understand why software freedom is important - very seriously. why do
you think i dedicated four years of my life to bridging the yawning
gap between the microsoft and UNIX worlds - without adequate financial
compensation and without the kind of recognition and awards that
*everyone else* in the samba team received at the time?

Post by Marco d'Itri
I'll hazard another guess, namely that the great vast majority of users
simply do not care.

and then the NSA was discovered, through the publication of a huge
mountain of undeniable evidence in direct violation of local and
international law, to be doing exactly what all the people who had
been scoffed at and ridiculed for decades, with accusations of them
being "paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists", had said that the NSA was
doing, all along.

at that point, suddenly two things happened:

* the vast unwashed majority of users suddenly cared
* the people who provide service *to* those users took action.

and that's really why i'm pursuing this, cross-posted on these two
mailing lists (yes alasdair, we don't want to lose good developers,
and yes matthias, i believe that both the debian devs and users should
listen.... to each other). the vast majority of users don't care
because they *don't know*, so it is up to us to make a proper
assessment as best we can on their behalf. but what i find to be
completely overwhelmingly incomprehensible is how little it is
appreciated to be extremely alarming - by the upstream developers as
well as the GNU/Linux distribution maintainers - the imposition a
monoculture boot system is for software freedom.

and, as mentioned above, i'd genuinely very much appreciate people
explaining to me why they do not perceive this to be a really,
*really* serious problem. as i can see so clearly why it is such a
severe problem - that has absolutely nothing to do with the technical
merits of any of the available solutions - it's critical for me to
understand why this is so unclear to everyone else.

ok that's enough. again, apologies for the summarising-nature of the
above (and for its length, in answering everyone as best i can). if
it's ok i will do the same again next time, leaving it for several
days for the debate to bring out the best from everyone.

l.

[Andrew Shadura]

Hi Luke,

On 17 February 2015 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

<265 lines of text and counting snipped>

In short, this is TL;DR. We've all got better things to waste our time
on. Please go away. Nobody's interested in this any longer regardless
of their position on systemd.

Thanks.

[claude juif]

Post by Andrew Shadura
Hi Luke,
On 17 February 2015 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

<265 lines of text and counting snipped>

In short, this is TL;DR. We've all got better things to waste our time
on. Please go away. Nobody's interested in this any longer regardless
of their position on systemd.
Thanks.

Hi,

Really rude answer. Really bad.

Post by Andrew Shadura
--
Cheers,
Andrew
--
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

[Reco]

Hi.

Post by Andrew Shadura
Hi Luke,
On 17 February 2015 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

<265 lines of text and counting snipped>

In short, this is TL;DR. We've all got better things to waste our time
on. Please go away. Nobody's interested in this any longer regardless
of their position on systemd.
Thanks.
Hi,
Really rude answer. Really bad.

It is customary to suggest using 'Report as spam' button in cases like
this. So, can I suggest using it on the e-mail you've just replied? And,
for the future cases like this - using said button is sufficient.

Reco

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by claude juif

Post by Andrew Shadura
Hi Luke,
On 17 February 2015 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

<265 lines of text and counting snipped>

In short, this is TL;DR. We've all got better things to waste our time
on. Please go away. Nobody's interested in this any longer regardless
of their position on systemd.
Thanks.

Hi,
Really rude answer. Really bad.

thanks for pointing that out, claude - it helps that it was someone
else who pointed out that being uncivil by asking a *person* to go
away doesn't make the *problem* go away.

andrew: i will go away only when i am satisified that the problem
which i believe it is my duty and responsibility to help highlight and
fix has, in fact gone away.

if you feel that this is sufficiently beyond your psyche's limits,
there are a number of ways in which you may deal with that, but
*demanding* of people that they violate their principles, as well as
inconveniencing many other people and increasing _their_ stress levels
by voicing such demands... can you see how that that really will not
work out very well, for everyone involved, including yourself?

short answer: no, i will not accede to your unreasonable demand. i
have the right to speak up, and, just to make it clear: like that
famous person said, which i find myself quoting within a couple of
hours for completely different reasons, "i do not agree with you, but
i will defend your right to say so".

so thank you for making it clear that you find this difficult to cope
with, but please do take a relaxing holiday or something, ok? :)

anyway, in other news, i'm delighted to have been made aware (very
recently) of the work by adam borowski, which i have to say is
completely unknown and underappreciated at this point. links are
here:

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=119836

it would appear that one person has managed to achieve what the
devuan team are endeavouring to duplicate, and what my report has only
begun to scratch the surface on. i find this to be incredibly funny.

*but*... we are *not done yet*. the work by adam is amazing and
everything that i was hoping would be done as an interim measure, so
adam THANK YOU, you have made it possible for the average end-user and
sysadmin to continue to manage their machines in a convenient way
*and* still make the choice to not have libsystemd0 present, and
that's just... words fail me to express my gratitude.

*but*... the next phase is to tackle upstream and to pursue the
design concept advocated by russ: dynamic loading. there really
should be no need to use what adam's done (or what devuan want). it
*really should* be possible to install (or remove) a few packages that
are *part of debian*, and have libsystemd0 enabled or disabled *at
will*. even with editing an /etc/ config file.

that this is not even possible *is* why i will not stop - andrew -
until it is. have i made myself clear?

l.

[Andrew Shadura]

Hi,

Post by claude juif
Really rude answer. Really bad.

I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
total. Extremely rude.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by Andrew Shadura
Hi,

Post by claude juif
Really rude answer. Really bad.

I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
total. Extremely rude.

i did apologise in advance, and explained why i took the steps that i
did,. if you are unable to accept that apology, i cannot help you
with that, andrew (as in: i recognise that i have no right to
interfere with your choice of mindset): it is your decision to choose
what to think and what to react to (positively or otherwise), and i
have to respect that.

however as this is a public forum for discussing debian, and there
are thousands of people reading this and many more in the future,
apart from apologising for taking up so much time in distractions of
this kind i am not going to get involved further into discussions of
ettiquette, if that's ok.

l.

[Ric Moore]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Andrew Shadura
Hi,

Post by claude juif
Really rude answer. Really bad.

I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
total. Extremely rude.

i did apologise in advance, and explained why i took the steps that i
did,. if you are unable to accept that apology, i cannot help you
with that, andrew (as in: i recognise that i have no right to
interfere with your choice of mindset): it is your decision to choose
what to think and what to react to (positively or otherwise), and i
have to respect that.
however as this is a public forum for discussing debian, and there
are thousands of people reading this and many more in the future,
apart from apologising for taking up so much time in distractions of
this kind i am not going to get involved further into discussions of
ettiquette, if that's ok.

I think that the list moderator has thankfully killed this thread in the
past. The goal has already been set, most of us are for it, the ship has
left the dock. It serves no further need of discussion. Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[Nathan Schulte]

Hi Andrew,

Post by Andrew Shadura
I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
total. Extremely rude.

I for one am grateful Luke took the time to write the email he did. I
understand it was long and I believe that most won't even take the
time to read it. That is unfortunate, as I feel it is extremely
level-headed and Luke actually wants to work at a resolution, which is
much more than I can say for some of the other discussions I've been
reading to try and keep up and stay informed.

The issue is that your reply does not contribute, and instead only
detracts from the conversation. I think everyone agrees that the more
time we spend discussing the less time we spend developing a solution,
but there is that saying about slowing down to speed up; I think it's
applicable here.

Please, next time, either disregard the email and keep silent, or make
your reply relevant to the conversation.

Understanding, addressing, and resolving these issues is *not a waste
of time*. If you feel that way, you are welcome to contribute in
other ways.

These are just my thoughts.

--
Nate

[claude juif]

Post by Nathan Schulte
Hi Andrew,

Post by Andrew Shadura
I find it really rude to send emails of about 300 lines of text in
total. Extremely rude.

I for one am grateful Luke took the time to write the email he did. I
understand it was long and I believe that most won't even take the
time to read it. That is unfortunate, as I feel it is extremely
level-headed and Luke actually wants to work at a resolution, which is
much more than I can say for some of the other discussions I've been
reading to try and keep up and stay informed.

I agree with this. This discussion is really valuable, and i see no flame
here. Just a discussion.

And that's what i find really wonderful with open source. You can speak
about things, say you are agree or not, and with every single part of
discussion, learn. Learning is the most important things in Linux world IMO.

I will use systemd because i like many of the improvements of it, (even if
i'm a system administrator lol) but i want to know why some people don't
want to use it.

I learn a lot with that.

Post by Nathan Schulte
The issue is that your reply does not contribute, and instead only
detracts from the conversation. I think everyone agrees that the more
time we spend discussing the less time we spend developing a solution,
but there is that saying about slowing down to speed up; I think it's
applicable here.
Please, next time, either disregard the email and keep silent, or make
your reply relevant to the conversation.
Understanding, addressing, and resolving these issues is *not a waste
of time*. If you feel that way, you are welcome to contribute in
other ways.
These are just my thoughts.
--
Nate

[Andrew Shadura]

Hello,

I'd like to apologise for my mail I sent about two hours ago. I have
overreacted mainly because of the length of the email, CAPS INSIDE and
also because it's a topic which is being discussed for more than a year
and which many of people here are already tired of.

I however still think that such lengthy writeups do really belong
somewhere else, maybe to a blog, with a short post with a link being
posted here.

Luke, Claude and everyone else, I am really sorry.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by Andrew Shadura
Hello,
I'd like to apologise for my mail I sent about two hours ago. I have
overreacted mainly because of the length of the email, CAPS INSIDE and
also because it's a topic which is being discussed for more than a year
and which many of people here are already tired of.

i know, andrew. i've been following it from a distance, staying away
until i had a better handle on what's going on, and a clue about
possible solutions. i'm writing to the systemd developers now.

Post by Andrew Shadura
I however still think that such lengthy writeups do really belong
somewhere else, maybe to a blog, with a short post with a link being
posted here.

.... yehh, i wasn't expecting it to be that long - i lost track of
time, but also i wanted to make sure i addressed and included everyone
who responded over the past couple of days.

Post by Andrew Shadura
Luke, Claude and everyone else, I am really sorry.

not a problem andrew.

[Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:28:04 +0000

"i disagree with what you are saying, but i will defend your right to say it".
i believe it was someone famous who wrote that,

Attributed to Voltaire; but does not appear in his writings.

Cheers,

Ron.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
-- Edward R. Murrow

-- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --

[Eduard Bloch]

Hallo,

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
* the use of libselinux1 is dormant (i.e. whilst you can't remove it
without inconvenience, its use is entirely optional, right from the
kernel level)
* its development and documentation is rational and well-researched
* the timeline behind its introduction was done in a respectful and
reasonable way
now let's compare that to the situation that we find ourselves in with

Talk only about you, please. The "yourselves" of yours seems to lack
basic research skills.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
* the use of libsystemd0 is MANDATORY and EXCLUSIONARY (everywhere
except slackware and FreeBSD)

Wrong. It is also dormant, except for a little function that
applications call.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
* its development is a moving target and the documentation of the
roadmap is informal and sparse.

And that little piece of code had just six commits according to:
git log ./src/libsystemd/sd-daemon/sd-daemon.c | grep commit
and most of them are minor changes.

That's a HELL OF MOVING TARGET, yeah. Now, enjoy the feel of being my
personal hero, take a cookie, STFU and go away. Thanks.

Deleted the rest of unfunded crap.

Regards,
Eduard.

[Tanstaafl]

Honest question...

What exactly is libsystemd0?

Maybe a simple solution would be to just rename it to something less
'offensive' to some, like:

libinit - or libinit0

?

[Martin Read]

Post by Tanstaafl
Honest question...
What exactly is libsystemd0?

It's a shared library maintained by the systemd maintainers. It provides
a variety of (mostly fairly simple) utility functions such as:

sd_notify (etc.) - Notify service manager about start-up completion and
other service status changes
sd_booted - Test whether the system is running the systemd init system
sd_listen_fds - Check for file descriptors passed by the system manager
sd_is_fifo (etc.) - Check the type of a file descriptor
sd_journal_print (etc.) - Submit log entries to the journal

[The Wanderer]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Marco d'Itri
Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.

marco: understanding or otherwise how systemd works is not the
point: the point is that there has been a unilateral decision across
virtually every single GNU/Linux distro to abandon and remove *any*
alternative to having libsystemd0 installed. historical precedent
in the software industry and beyond tells us that placing so much
power and trust in a single system and a single group should be
ringing alarm bells so loudly in your head that you should wake up
deaf after having first passed out with dizziness! :)
so could i ask you, as i really genuinely don't understand, why is
it that the lack of choice here *doesn't* bother you? i'm not asking
for a technical review or a technically-based argument as to "why
libsystemd0 is better" - that has been debated many many times and
is entirely moot. i'm asking "why does *only* having libsystemd0 as
the sole exclusive startup method, removal of which prevents and
prohibits the use of a whopping FIFTEEN PERCENT of the available
debian software base, and where that exclusive exclusionary process
is being rapidly duplicated across virtually every single GNU/Linux
distribution that we know; why does that *not* make you pause for
thought that there might be something desperately and very badly
wrong?"

libsystemd0 is not a startup method, or an init system. It's a shared
library which permits detection of whether systemd (and the
functionality which it provides) is present.

There's certainly an undesirable ambiguity about what is meant by any
given use of the term "systemd", since it can refer equally to the
/lib/systemd/systemd binary, to the PID1 process (which is exactly the
same as the previous thing AFAIK, except running as PID1 rather than as
a more ordinary system citizen), to more-or-less the entire collection
of software which is provided by the systemd project, or to the systemd
project itself. But as far as I'm aware, this is the first time I've
ever seen anyone refer to the PID1 process or the entire collection of
software as 'libsystemd0'.

You only harm your case by misusing and confusing terminology in that
way.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Marco d'Itri
Alas, the resulting distribution is still hopelessly compromised by
the NSA, who might be even worse than Lennart Poettering. To see
how deep the tendrils of US government infiltration go, just try
removing libselinux1, and marvel at how much concerted malevolent
effort has gone into destroying your freedom.
Or, alternately, you could research how and why one would use
shared libraries in a binary distribution to support optional
features. But that's boring, prosaic, and nowhere near as much fun
to write about.

ahhh russ - good maaan :) here we have a hint of a possible
solution, one where i'm going to need to speak to the systemd team
for a feature request / design decision (and can i ask you and anyone
else to do the same?). you've hit on what i believe is *the* perfect
and acceptable decision that is hinted at by the ridiculousness of
the drastic demonstration that i made [to modify and recompile debian
packages]. of *course* libsystemd0 should be dynamically loaded, and
the userspace applications make the decision *at runtime* as to what
to do!

libsystemd0 _is_ dynamically loaded, precisely so that userspace
applications can make the decision at runtime as to what to do.

systemd (in either of the first two senses, above) is not, but unless
I'm greatly mistaken, making that runtime detection possible is most if
not all of the entire reason why libsystemd0 exists.

[Tony van der Hoff]

<sigh> Oh, dear, it was so nice to have a break from the systemd flame-wars.

Could the troll-feeders please desist?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

adam, i apologise for not being in a position to reply in-thread: as
mentioned previously i tried (via gmane) but the entire discussion is
completely missing, and i forgot to ask people in the original post to
cc me if they would like an ongoing threaded reply.

i also notice that you removed debian-user, so for those people on
that list who (like me) were completely unaware of the fantastic work
that you've done, here is a link to the archives containing what you
wrote:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/02/msg00189.html

all i can say is, HOORAY! and thank you for doing properly what i
only hinted at was possible. i wish i had known of what you've done,
even a few days ago. i would have:

(a) not have had to mess up my system
(b) would not have written the slashdot report
(c) would not have heard from so many people who have put links to my
report onto their site
(d) not been in a position to further advocate your fantastic work (to them)

so... actually.. if you think about it, it's a good thing.

if you don't mind i'm going to contact several people who maintain web
sites and lists in order to have them add your work to them.

which should help answer the question you asked: your work - fantastic
as it is - was *impossible to find*. it doesn't even remotely come up
on the radar of queries. *nobody knows what you've achieved* and
that's something i would like to help correct.

now, exactly as you, i and russ point out, the next phase is to do
dynamic library loading. i'm absolutely delighted to note that you
have a handle on this, already, and i see you make it clear that
you've thought it through already.

i plan to write directly to the systemd developers, taking at face
value the recent announcement that they listen to users. is there
anything that you would recommend in particular that i include?

well done, and thank you for making my hacks completely irrelevant in
under 24 hours.

l.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
which should help answer the question you asked: your work - fantastic
as it is - was *impossible to find*. it doesn't even remotely come up
on the radar of queries. *nobody knows what you've achieved* and
that's something i would like to help correct.

ok done: http://neofutur.net/systemd-vault
also i've edited http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
adding a sentence that, i hope, allows what you did, adam, to be
easily distinguished from all the "forks" and rather challenging
alternatives to consider (including the inconvenience of moving away
from debian entirely).

l.