Reactions to “Has modern Linux lost its way?” and the value of simplicity

Apparently I touched a nerve with my recent post about the growing complexity of issues.

There were quite a few good comments, which I’ll mention here. It’s provided me some clarity on the problem, in fact. I’ll try to distill a few more thoughts here.

The value of simplicity and predictability

The best software, whether it’s operating systems or anything else, is predictable. You read the documentation, or explore the interface, and you can make a logical prediction that “when I do action X, the result will be Y.” grep and cat are perfect examples of this.

The more complex the rules in the software, the more hard it is for us to predict. It leads to bugs, and it leads to inadvertant security holes. Worse, it leads to people being unable to fix things themselves — one of the key freedoms that Free Software is supposed to provide. The more complex software is, the fewer people will be able to fix it by themselves.

Now, I want to clarify: I hear a lot of talk about “ease of use.” Gnome removes options in my print dialog box to make it “easier to use.” (This is why I do not use Gnome. It actually makes it harder to use, because now I have to go find some obscure way to just make the darn thing print.) A lot of people conflate ease of use with ease of learning, but in reality, I am talking about neither.

I am talking about ease of analysis. The Linux command line may not have pointy-clicky icons, but — at least at one time — once you understood ls -l and how groups, users, and permission bits interacted, you could fairly easily conclude who had access to what on a system. Now we have a situation where the answer to this is quite unclear in terms of desktop environments (apparently some distros ship network-manager so that all users on the system share the wifi passwords they enter. A surprise, eh?)

I don’t mind reading a manpage to learn about something, so long as the manpage was written to inform.

With this situation of dbus/cgmanager/polkit/etc, here’s what it feels like. This, to me, is the crux of the problem:

It feels like we are in a twisty maze, every passage looks alike, and our flashlight ran out of battieries in 2013. The manpages, to the extent they exist for things like cgmanager and polkit, describe the texture of the walls in our cavern, but don’t give us a map to the cave. Therefore, we are each left to piece it together little bits at a time, but there are traps that keep moving around, so it’s slow going.

And it’s a really big cave.

Other user perceptions

There are a lot of comments on the blog about this. It is clear that the problem is not specific to Debian. For instance:

  • Christopher writes that on Fedora, “annoying, niggling problems that used to be straightforward to isolate, diagnose and resolve by virtue of the platform’s simple, logical architecture have morphed into a morass that’s worse than the Windows Registry.” Alessandro Perucchi adds that he’s been using Linux for decades, and now his wifi doesn’t work, suspend doesn’t work, etc. in Fedora and he is surprisingly unable to fix it himself.
  • Nate bargman writes, in a really insightful comment, “I do feel like as though I’m becoming less a master of and more of a slave to the computing software I use. This is not a good thing.”
  • Singh makes the valid point that this stuff is in such a state of flux that even if a person is one of the few dozen in the world that understand what goes into a session today, the knowledge will be outdated in 6 months. (Hal, anyone?)

This stuff is really important, folks. People being able to maintain their own software, work with it themselves, etc. is one of the core reasons that Free Software exists in the first place. It is a fundamental value of our community. For decades, we have been struggling for survival, for relevance. When I started using Linux, it was both a question and an accomplishment to have a useable web browser on many platforms. (Netscape Navigator was closed source back then.) Now we have succeeded. We have GPL-licensed and BSD-licensed software running on everything from our smartphones to cars.

But we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because just as we are managing to remove the legal roadblocks that kept people from true mastery of their software, we are erecting technological ones that make the step into the Free Software world so much more difficult than it needs to be.

We no longer have to craft Modelines for X, or compile a kernel with just the right drivers. This is progress. Our hardware is mostly auto-detected and our USB serial dongles work properly more often on Linux than on Windows. This is progress. Even our printers and scanners work pretty darn well. This is progress, too.

But in the place of all these things, now we have userspace mucking it up. We have people with mysterious errors that can’t be easily assisted by the elders in the community, because the elders are just as mystified. We have bugs crop up that would once have been shallow, but are now non-obvious. We are going to leave a sour taste in people’s mouth, and stir repulsion instead of interest among those just checking it out.

The ways out

It’s a nasty predicament, isn’t it? What are your ways out of that cave without being eaten by a grue?

Obviously the best bet is to get rid of the traps and the grues. Somehow the people that are working on this need to understand that elegance is a feature — a darn important feature. Sadly I think this ship may have already sailed.

Software diagnosis tools like Enrico Zini’s seat-inspect idea can also help. If we have something like an “ls for polkit” that can reduce all the complexity to something more manageable, that’s great.

The next best thing is a good map — good manpages, detailed logs, good error messages. If software would be more verbose about the permission errors, people could get a good clue about where to look. If manpages for software didn’t just explain the cavern wall texture, but explain how this room relates to all the other nearby rooms, it would be tremendously helpful.

At present, I am unsure if our problem is one of very poor documentation, or is so bad that good documentation like this is impossible because the underlying design is so complex it defies being documented in something smaller than a book (in which case, our ship has not just sailed but is taking on water).

Counter-argument: progress

One theme that came up often in the comments is that this is necessary for progress. To a certain extent, I buy that. I get why udev is important. I get why we want the DE software to interact well. But here’s my thing: this already worked well in wheezy. Gnome, XFCE, and KDE software all could mount/unmount my drives. I am truly still unsure what problem all this solved.

Yes, cloud companies have demanding requirements about security. I work for one. Making security more difficult to audit doesn’t do me any favors, I can assure you.

The systemd angle

To my surprise, systemd came up quite often in the discussion, despite the fact that I mentioned I wasn’t running systemd-sysv. It seems like the new desktop environemt ecosystem is “the systemd ecosystem” in a lot of people’s minds. I’m not certain this is justified; systemd was not my first choice, but as I said in an earlier blog post, “jessie will still boot”.

A final note

I still run Debian on all my personal boxes and I’m not going to change. It does awesome things. For under $100, I built a music-playing system, with Raspberry Pis, fully synced throughout my house, using a little scripting and software. The same thing from Sonos would have cost thousands. I am passionate about this community and its values. Even when jessie releases with polkit and all the rest, I’m still going to use it, because it is still a good distro from good people.

79 thoughts on “Reactions to “Has modern Linux lost its way?” and the value of simplicity

  1. I really like the simplicity of OpenBSD. One indication of its simplicity is that the same OS can be used for servers and desktops alike. A simple install command from the lean base install (suitable for server) makes the OS into a desktop.

    http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140219085851

    The project seems think new features out well before they are introduced. This sometimes make things come a little later (like KMS support), but usually have great quality when they arrive …

    http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20130812135734

    … and support excellent features (like running X in unpriviledged mode) due to the attention to details.

    http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140223112426

    It is great feeling that the same OS can be modified to anything I want, without too much effort because the system is understandable and simple from the ground and up.

    Reply

  2. I think the two key phrases here are “intransparency” and “insufficient design”. These are at least the things I see causing all of the troubles.

    Examples: Gnome threw CORBA out the door in favour of dbus, because CORBA “caused problems”. Now I google for a list of those problems so I can follow the decision. No such thing. It’s probably all on the mailing lists, but nobody took the time to make a list and do an informed decision. I don’t say the decision is bad, but they way it is communicated is absymally intransparent.

    And lack of design? It is being thought again about (d)bus activation and how that is done via systemd. Where is the comparison with COM, CORBA and .NET that all do the same thing? Why is the new version better than existing technology?

    To me the decision process is horribly opaque and so are the systems that come out of it. To this day I do not know why polkit uses Javascript (you read that right) to implement access control checks. Javascript? Seriously? Why?

    End then there’s of course the fact that some of the people involved just seem really horrible programmers :-/

    Reply

    sepp Reply:

    The decision to move from CORBA to D-Bus was made quite a long time ago. This page https://wiki.gnome.org/TwoPointThirteen/Platform mentions that Gnome’s CORBA (ORBit2, libbonobo) is “heading towards planned deprecation” and was written for Gnome 2.14 released in March 2006. Wikipedia even says that Bonobo has been deprecated since Gnome 2.4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo_%28component_model%29#Planned_deprecation ), but that might be a typo. And even at the start of D-Bus development in 2002, people from Gnome and Red Hat were involved. So the need for a “new” IPC system has been there quite early.
    Give that long span of time it’s not surprising that it’s hard to find the discussion of this change. But I suspect that you can find it somewhere in the archives of gnome-devel-list from approximately 10 years ago.
    FYI, the D-Bus FAQ contains a small comparison between D-Bus and CORBA http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-faq.html#corba .

    Concerning Javascript in polkit: I also find it weird that they thought they needed a Turing complete language for configuration. But if you accept that, then I don’t think Javascript is such a bad choice. It’s certaily better suited for this purpose than Python, Ruby or shell scripts.

    Reply

    dhke Reply:

    I do not doubt that there was a good reason for deprecating CORBA (and with it bonobo components). I just like to see a document where those good reasons are all written down. I just used dbus is an example for “opacity”, because the documentation I know of is still very much incomplete (after 9 years).

    But there are others. XDG_VIDEOS_DIR’s sole specification seems to be small C a library implementing the path lookup. And systemd handles it differently than that library. Erm, why?

    This makes me feel quite the opposite of “warm and fuzzy”. I’d like to have clear cut abstract concepts that are actually recognizable in the core components and that are documented somewhere so that things are at least somewhat traceable.

    And I stopped to have that for a part of my desktop system (I use xfce so it’s not to large a part). To the point where I started to mount my usb sticks manually again, because I am just sick and tired of trying to find out where to configure the privileges in the current incarnation of HAL/gvfs/fookit software.

    I’m also not quite so sure that I want to be able to encode an endless loop in my policy file ;-).

    Reply

  3. With respect, this is your opinion, but my opnion is totally different about systemd.
    The problem is not that we have different opinions, the problem is that I’m beeing forced to use systemd in wheezy and jessie, the problem is that I have no choice (the reason may be a bad design, the reason being one program taking it all).
    Now I’m mounting pen-drives at hand with pmount in wheezy, and waiting form Devuan to stop this crazyness in Debian. And very frustrated because the Debian lords not respected the social contract.

    Reply

    tYY Reply:

    systemd is not in Wheezy, or you put it there yourself.

    Anyway, what I wanted to say is that there _is_ choice. Look at it this way: a distribution’s job is to choose a kernel, choose user-land software, and do something that meets its goals with all of this (the goal can be stability, performance, lightness, eye-candy…). There are many distributions. You just have to choose the distribution that most closely matches your own goals. As for Debian, they pondered a lot on this issue, and they made their choice. No one is forced to use Debian.

    Of course, you could say that you wish to use Gnome, but cannot do that anymore without some amount of systemd being there. Well, if the Gnome project did this, it must be because they saw some value in this choice. If you do not agree, you can use another desktop environment.

    systemd programs are only taking the space that miscellaneous projects and distributions are _willing_ to let them take. Are all these projects and distributions suddenly blind and incompetent? Maybe, maybe not; we probably have different opinions on the matter…

    There are efforts underway to bring some order and fiability to Linux, and I do think that systemd and wayland for example are such efforts.
    IMHO, you cannot judge the results of these efforts based on observations of an _unstable_ distribution (ie: work in progress).

    Reply

    Lib Reply:

    Lately, I tend to use one of the methods of sySTEmd fanboys, saying the same thing again and again, so here it is :

    We need to evolve the way we see things

    Yes we do.
    We also need to progress in our way to talk about them.

    There’s one barebone distro becoming bigger and bigger, this distro is the Gnome-Systemd Linux (let’s call it RHGSDL) and it has quite a lot of derivatives which will become more and more similar : RHEL, Fedora, Debian, Arch, Opensuse, Mandriva …

    The core idea of this distro is that, to ‘fix’ linux, the whole system must rely on a unique process which control every other thing and that package/software dev/maintainers will work for that distro only (by making all their softwares/packages dependant on SystemD). The developpers of systemD think that most will do that because it’s ‘easier’ than to work for themselves and the whole community with other distros.
    Maybe they are right to rely on lazyness and selfishness of those who make the strengh and diversity of GNU/Linux but, on the other hand, those who chose to give their time and skills in a free softwares unpaid work have maybe other higher motivations. Time will tell.

    Time will tell also if the technical choices, and, among them, a single point of failure were good for this distro. Also their political choices. Some of the derivatives force SYSTEMd as default and do just not support alternatives, some are pretending to support alternatives while, by playing with recursive (sometimes ‘forged’) dependencies and compatibility break, they make it installed quite silently with other packages and almost mandatory once it’s installed. And they are the first distro who openly wants to either eat or destroy any other distro by orphaning them and systematically casting a slur/talking down/dissing anyone who legitimatly criticises SYStemd.

    Still, RHGSDL is only a distro and we need to help and support the others who want to offer the choice to their users. I mean : LFS, Gentoo, Slackware, PCLinuxOS, Refracta, Crux, GNU Guix, Kali Linux, Sorcerer, Source Mage, Void Linux, Plop Linux, Pisi Linux, Bedrock Linux, GoboLinux, 0Linux, 4MLinux, Puppy Linux, Tiny Core… (plus LSD Linux, Trios and Devuan, if they ever become real forks) and all their derivatives.
    There are also other kernels and, in particular, BSD. FreeBSD/PC-BSD/MidnightBSD seem to be quite good to give it a try without knowing much of it.

    Now, there’s something I would like to say to the sysTEMd fanboys.
    You say that it ‘fixes’ Linux, it handle things ‘better’, it is the only way to use the ‘newer’ functionalities, it is ‘needed’, it is ‘The Future’, it is ‘The Progress’, there’s ‘no alternatives’, no-one is able to develop alternatives following the ‘awesome development speed’ of it, others “do not respect the LSB” when sysTemd does, others “do follow stupidly the LSB” when systeMd do correct it, the users and devs who don’t think alike are just idiots or know nothing, the unix philosophy is obsolete, those who don’t follow you are of no interest etc.
    If you’re right, then the linux kernel is not able to suit your desires and -fortunately- it doesn’t depend on SyStEmD yet. If you believe in what you’re saying, the Unix way and the linux community doesn’t suit your needs.
    Then, the best way for you, SysTemD dev and al., is to take a break with the linux world, make your own kernel, going along with your system, and your own community, according with your philosophy, and it will be really easy for you as you are the ones ‘who know and do better’. You do not need, previously, to waste GNU/linux and our time.

    Reply

  4. >Why does it bother you that someone is happy with something you don’t like and recommends it as a potential better experience than having to revert silly problems that should have been resolved 10 years ago like mounting devices by hand?

    Because many times when someone has a problem with Linux or Windows there comes an Apple apologetic and recommends it as the solution for all problems. I’m not bothered that you are happy with your Mac and I can actually understand it in a way.

    But you are posting this as an answer to a post that was about “removed options in the printer dialog box” and a follow-up to a thread about problems becoming difficult to diagnose on Linux. Excuse me, ever tried to diagnose a problem under OSX? You would wish to have the Linux facilities, then. It’s about as terrible as it gets and even if you find the culprit, often times there is no workaround due to “removed options” because no one needs it.

    And funny that you mention “silly problems that should have been resolved 10 years ago”. Yes, I think selecting a standard PC-keyboard layout shouldn’t be something that I need to read threads on the internet for and install two different programs (look on the net, it’s full of threads about this). It should be under “System Preferences->Keyboard” but it isn’t since someone at Apple decided “no one will use that”.

    Or two monitors, not really a thing that became the hot shit yesterday. Why does it have so many problems with that?

    And funny that you mention automounting. Try automounting an EXT3 USB Stick under OSX. The finder will flat-out tell you it’s not possible and aks you to format the stick. That would be fine but from the command-line (you know, with becoming root and everything) it works flawlessly (and even appears in the finder afterwards). Apparently not such an easy problem to fix, eh.

    People mindlessly recommending OSX in a posting about vanishing configuration options, less options for customization and difficult to diagnose problems is probably not the right thing to do.

    But honestly, it does not bother me at all. And if I came across as rude I apologize.

    Reply

  5. I have recommended Chapter 1 of the Debian reference to those wanting to learn about the fundamental Unix system:

    https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/index.en.html

    I find the manual to be reasonably comprehensive and descriptive. Right now the manual is written with the present Stable (Wheezy) release in mind. I presume it is being updated in a repository and will be released along with Jessie.

    To anyone interested, I would guess that Osamu would be receptive to improvements and expansions to various sections of the manual.

    Reply

  6. > Because many times when someone has a problem with Linux or Windows there comes an Apple apologetic and recommends it as the solution for all problems. I’m not bothered that you are happy with your Mac and I can actually understand it in a way.

    That’s how the internet works. Someone says they have a problem that someone else notices is easily solved with a change from technology X to Y and they mention it. I didn’t say it solved all problems everywhere, and I’m not an Apple apologist what a nice straw man. I don’t even use Apple *, I’m an Android fan and I use Linux everywhere but workstations where OS X is a better fit. There’s a reason RedHat and SuSE won’t go near the desktop market, it’s a market that doesn’t make sense for GNU/Linux.

    > But you are posting this as an answer to a post that was about “removed options in the printer dialog box” and a follow-up to a thread about problems becoming difficult to diagnose on Linux. Excuse me, ever tried to diagnose a problem under OSX? You would wish to have the Linux facilities, then. It’s about as terrible as it gets and even if you find the culprit, often times there is no workaround due to “removed options” because no one needs it.

    It’s actually about “Has modern Linux lost its way?”, my response to that is absolutely yes. I also have diagnosed problems under OSX, to a degree you probably haven’t since I toy with hackintoshing in addition to owning an rMBP.

    > And funny that you mention “silly problems that should have been resolved 10 years ago”. Yes, I think selecting a standard PC-keyboard layout shouldn’t be something that I need to read threads on the internet for and install two different programs (look on the net, it’s full of threads about this). It should be under “System Preferences->Keyboard” but it isn’t since someone at Apple decided “no one will use that”.

    System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Modifier Keys. Seems to work fine with my Logitech keyboards.

    > Or two monitors, not really a thing that became the hot shit yesterday. Why does it have so many problems with that?

    My two monitors are working fine, they aren’t even thunderbolt, they are mini display port.

    > And funny that you mention automounting. Try automounting an EXT3 USB Stick under OSX. The finder will flat-out tell you it’s not possible and aks you to format the stick. That would be fine but from the command-line (you know, with becoming root and everything) it works flawlessly (and even appears in the finder afterwards). Apparently not such an easy problem to fix, eh.

    Another straw man, taking something that doesn’t belong to the OS, making an argument that it should work (when nothing says it will) then whining that it doesn’t work. You’re welcome to buy drivers though if you need them: http://www.paragon-drivers.com/extfs-mac/

    > People mindlessly recommending OSX in a posting about vanishing configuration options, less options for customization and difficult to diagnose problems is probably not the right thing to do.

    It’s not mindless, remember what I said in my first comment. Former LONG TERM Linux user, and a distribution manager. A very technical person who decided it wasn’t worth the drama or the trouble to use it as a workstation or desktop OS. Not a n00b here to preach OSX regardless of what you might want to believe.

    > But honestly, it does not bother me at all. And if I came across as rude I apologize.

    You did, but no worries, I’m used to it. It’s status quo in the Linux community.

    Reply

  7. With the obvious differences that systemd is orders of magnitude smaller than win32, that the parts systemd-shim wants to emulate (i.e. not udev, journald, the init system, …) are even smaller, that the systemd is available so it’s easier to understand than the black box of win32, that the developers can be reached easily, that there are a smaller number of (or none) consumers of obscure undocumented API behavious, etc.

    Reply

  8. > I didn’t say it solved all problems everywhere, and I’m not an Apple apologist what a nice straw man.

    You sure sounded like one in your original postings.

    > There’s a reason RedHat and SuSE won’t go near the desktop market, it’s a market that doesn’t make sense for GNU/Linux.

    But it makes perfect sense as a developer machine. But I guess we can agree to disagree on that.

    > It’s actually about “Has modern Linux lost its way?”, my response to that is absolutely yes.

    Look in the 5th paragraph of this article. I don’t need to argue about what was written in the posting.

    > System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Modifier Keys. Seems to work fine with my Logitech keyboards.

    Ok, so where does it allow me to remap the Home and End keys of my Microsoft Keyboard to “Go to start of line” and “Go to end of line”. Where does this allow me to move the “@”-character from the L-key to the Q-key? Where does this allow me to remap curly braces and brackets to where they are used to be on an ISO keyboard (this is probably not a problem for US-keyboard users). I never asked about re-mapping modifier keys.

    > My two monitors are working fine, they aren’t even thunderbolt, they are mini display port.

    Yep, I’m using one HDMI and one Mini Display port and everytime I attach them while the MacBook is sleeping (e.g. after coming in to work), there’s a big chance it will completely screw everything up when waking up. But of course, denying that someone even has these problems is also a solution :-)

    > Another straw man, taking something that doesn’t belong to the OS, making an argument that it should work (when nothing says it will) then whining that it doesn’t work.

    I’m sorry, I meant to say NTFS there instead of EXT3, which makes it even worse in my eyes. NTFS USB Stick, finder compalins about uninitialized disk. Using “mount -t nfs /dev/diskblabla /Volumes/blabla” works perfectly and even the finder finds it afterwards. Why? No idea!

    > Former LONG TERM Linux user, and a distribution manager. A very technical person who decided it wasn’t worth the drama or the trouble to use it as a workstation or desktop OS. Not a n00b here to preach OSX regardless of what you might want to believe.

    I respond by content of the comment and not by what the author claims to be.

    > You did, but no worries, I’m used to it. It’s status quo in the Linux community.

    Oh, you just had to bring that one, eh. But better than the Apple community where I am told that wanting to use NTFS USB Sticks with OSX is “using it wrong”…

    Reply

  9. I meant to say NTFS

    http://www.paragon-drivers.com/ntfs-mac/

    5 seconds with Google, literally, or scrolling to the bottom of the page of the link I already gave you. Anything to feel like you’re right.. The white knighting is strong in you. :)

    Key remapping, why, the keyboard probably works just fine. If you must though:

    http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=keylayoutmaker
    http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=ukelele
    http://www.boastr.de

    Another 5 second google. Ever need use xmodmap? Please, tell me how it’s easier.

    Reply

  10. “Unless you use a computer exactly as the company that provided it to you suggests, you’re doing it wrong”

    Ok, got it. I’ll be sure to only do things the Apple way from now on.

    Reply

  11. I did not remember asking for your assistance in doing those things. I found all of this stuff out long ago. My question is:

    1) Why do I need to download multiple programs just to use a non-MAC keyboard. And actually creating the layout takes much longer than the 5 seconds it takes to google the program.

    2) Why would I pay 19.95$ to automount NTFS, when, using the command line “mount”, the system is apparently capable of doing that just fine out of the box? Why can’t Finder just do it? And seriously? 19.95$ to mount a Windows USB stick? SERIOUSLY? It’s not like OSX or those machines come for free?

    But yes, I see. Apparently in the mind of a MAC-User it’s totally fine that setting a keyboard layout requires Googling, Downloading of multiple tools and then creating your own layout (which, btw, in Ukelele is everything but straightforward). It’s apparently also fine that the system does not come with the capability to auto-mount one of the most used filesystems without paying or going to the command line.

    Well then, anything you need to justify your purchase I guess :-).

    Reply

  12. Read: Just more Linux white knighting, in a thread about Linux losing it’s way. 1. You need to download things on any platform to do things. Sometimes that’s hidden behind yum install, apt-get, emerge, and sometimes you click your mouse in a browser. 2. For the same reason you’d purchase a game in Steam on your Linux computer. You’re always welcome to write your own GNU NTFS driver for OS X if you have the talent, or you can rely on the work of others if you don’t..or you can pay for it. Once upon a time the best audio drivers and display drivers for Linux were not free (4OSS and SciTech SNAP).

    Yes, I also see. I see comments of the entitled who thinks everything should be free and given to them for nothing. I get it. Also, I guess you’ve never had to google anything on your precious GNU/Linux platform either. Right…

    Reply

  13. You said: “Software diagnosis tools like Enrico Zini’s seat-inspect idea can also help.”

    I had to look up the definition of “seat” and found it here: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/multiseat/

    I cannot help but wonder how many use-cases there are where people actually buy or build a computer system with two screens, two mice and two keyboards attached to them. And where the USB ports are divided so that one group is reachable from chair “seat0” and the other only from chair “seat1”. Must I imagine a classroom with one computer with 20 keyboard cables, 20 screen cables and 20 mouse cables attached to it? I’m sorry but I find it hard to think of any real practical application of having more than 1 seat.

    Classrooms, in-flight entertainment, kiosks can all be done with a client-server model with light-weight X terminals (each 1 seat).

    (Now if you only have 1 screen, you could do a three-way split-screen with three people each with his/her own keyboard typing away next to each other. Is this the use-case that multi-seat is designed for?)

    And for this, all of us Linux users and developers have to:
    “Note (and this is important!) that if a device is assigned to seat0, it will usually not carry such a tag and you need to enumerate all devices and check the “ID_SEAT” property manually.”

    Except if we write stuff like pulseaudio:
    “If you are writing user-level software interfacing directly with kernel drivers (like PulseAudio), consider ignoring seat information completely, and make available to the user all devices he/she can access.”

    It is just not very developer-friendly :-(.

    Reply

  14. The practical issues of this article are in areas of GNU/Linux I never worked on. (Command line interpretation is not part of Linux, you know.)

    However, the significance of a practical issue is always based on values, and every recommendation presumes certain values.
    I noticed the person who recommended MacOS because it works”. In what sense does MacOS “work”? It won’t let users fix bugs at all. It is a nonfree system with DRM, and it transmits users’ unsaved files to Big Brother. Is that “working”?

    Reply

  15. While reading your post the only thing than came to my mind…. you have problem with new things. In a way similar in complaint as might come from Windows users who have changed to Linux.

    I have been using Linux for over 10 years.. I generally welcome change. I was a bit confused with systemd at first but after using for a month or so I love it. I started using it for two years ago and the more I use it the more I like the simplicity of it. Yes, it means I have to relearn how to do some stuff but the result is much more predictive. Journald is also more competent and makes stuff easier to find.

    So… you feel it is less predictive because it is new to you and you don’t fully understand it yet. Give it time and things will fall into place.

    Reply

    John Goerzen Reply:

    I think that is too simplistic an answer. I actually enjoy new things. But not new things that add pain for no real benefit. Please note AGAIN this post is NOT about systemd. I wasn’t even running systemd when I wrote it.

    Reply

  16. John,

    I agree with this. There are a ton of new features that I am interested in, ZFS being one of them. This is what drew me to the BSDs. I started after the issues I ran into with a systemd-ified Debian system. Then I decided to do my due dilligence to see if I was being unfair. I read articles about it, listened to Lennart interviews, etc.

    One thing that really turned me off of systemd is when I heard Lennart say that the systemd team wanted to “own everything between the kernel and the application layer.” This kind of struck me as recreating Linux in their own image. He even said that at some point in the future, they wanted to replace all package managers with a cgroup/docker-style solution. This may be a good thing or it may not. It seems that this would change the distros into one unifiied, homogenized whole. I’m really not sure I’m onboard with this. To me, it feels like the systemd team is saying “you can have any color car you want, as long as it is red.”

    To me this seems like a forced alliance.

    Reply

  17. Andrew, you’re the “well, it works fine for me on MY box” developer that everyone loves to hate. Who cares if you don’t have problems with multiple monitors on your machine, it doesn’t help the person who does have those problems.

    Reply

  18. Systemd may be the first step to commercialize Linux. After this, the minds behind this move will go for destroying Linux root access control/user permission set up to make it vulnerable like Windows OS’s such that they – antivirus makers, crapware sellers can make another Windows-like eco-system. Systemd alone will drive for unification of distros and later there will be a push for using a particular package management system pushed inorder to achieve this.
    What I and many old Linux users (and are not developers) want may be a Gentoo Linux with Debian package management. It’s literally 3 or 4 distributions commercializing and monopolizing Linux sphere in the future that includes Ubuntu, RedHat and other big shots literally reducing Linux into OS X and Darwin model.

    What many will want is a balance between rolling release and fixed release distros with a Debian package management system with the efficiency of Gentoo or such niche distros. Where do we fit?

    Reply

    Steven C. Reply:

    Apparently: commercialised Linux distros, developed by fewer people, designed only for specific needs, existed ~20 years ago and was the very reason Debian came into being:
    http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/distributions/debian-0.91/info/Manifesto

    That was written in 1994, way before my time, but maybe history is merely repeating itself now. A solution was proposed in that same document, which I interpret to involve:
    * saving users from having to find, compile and integrate software by themselves,
    (Debian still seems to do pretty well there)
    * supporting the widest variety of hardware configurations,
    (we’re starting to see older hardware or whole architectures dropped unfortunately)
    * being *accepting* of users’ specific needs and ideas, help them be involved in development, to produce something that will be useful to more people,
    (I think the systemd integration marks the peak of Debian’s failure to meet this goal)
    * making it as easy for others to install and use, as it is for you as a developer.
    (many parts of the OS are lacking here, not just the installer; documentation is important to this)

    I think those values are what led Debian to be called ‘the Universal OS’, but in recent times many seem to be renouncing this, in favour of creating the best possible niche OS for only themselves.

    Reply

  19. Well, I’m a new Jessie user but not new to linux. I installed Jessie from a DVD just a few days ago. I am nearly 60 at this time and I did install a released version. I personally see no benefit to Jessie. I did a clean install but it needs so much more stuff done than Wheezy. I use a KDE desktop environment.

    There are MANY little things I don’t like. For one thing, the moving of items to my desktop sucks. I can’t just pull someone on my visible desktop and have it copy for rme. I have to put it in my desktop ‘folder’ and then pull my item within that folder to my visual desktop and instead of just copying the folder, it asks me if I want an icon, a folder or something else. Can’t remember right now. If you are moving a folder and you choose folder, it is an open thing on the desktop displaying all the contents. I don’t like that. So you choose icon. However, if I drag something from a usb drive to the desktop, it appears to copy it but it’s really only pasting something that can’t be read unless I leave my usb drive plugged in. This is irritating as hell.

    So all the little changes like this — are making me revert backwards. It’s not a great upgrade in my opinion. I’ll wait till Debian 9 comes out and try it out. But I think Debian 8 is a flop. I mean it’s good software but not for me. I like ease of use.

    Wheezy with KDE is perfect. I’m not a tile person so KDE tempers that for me..

    Jenn

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *