[Tobu]

journald was enabled in Fedora very recently, on the premises that no one would feel a thing, just an implementation detail of systemd. Now systemd's syslog compat is seen as unnecessary overhead, and at some point the goalposts will move again and alternatives to the systemd journal won't be supported.

I'm writing this because I've been seeing the same sort of shifting promises when systemd assimilated udev. At first it was a trivial repository merge, just something to make the developers more comfortable, no impact to anyone else. Now building udev without systemd is unsupported, and some “cleanups” are made to tie udev to systemd and kmod. This doesn't benefit systemd but it hurts anyone who uses an alternative.

The same kind of breakage of alternatives is pushed on gnome via logind, and the kernel via cgroups. It would be myopic to focus on promises made in a particular thread and ignore most of systemd's history.

[darklajid]

No offense, but I think you're mistaken.

1) "journald was enabled in Fedora very recently"

systemd includes journald (and - as the thread that this whole discussion is about explains - journald is really a ~hard~ dependency for systemd: That's where early boot messages go, for example).

Systemd is in Fedora for quite some time already [1].

2) "Now systemd's syslog compat is seen as unnecessary overhead"

NO! Not at all! That's going to stay, that's not even mentioned anywhere in this discussion. Really, the thread even talks about improved integration between journald and for example rsyslogd (the latter moved from the simple 'receive log messages from journald' interface to the 'let me ask journald for messages and import them as good as I can' it seems). No one, certainly not in that thread, wants to remove the syslog compatibility.

The discussion is just about _not_ installing a syslog daemon by default. It's still supported, the compatibility (from systemd/journald) is there and going to stay. You just don't run a syslog daemon without installing it explicitly.

3) The trend, what you perceive about the slippery slope of things

This is hard to argue about. There are no hard facts to prove/reject. You don't seem to like a number of recent changes in the linux ecosystem. That's - okay. Natural. But I still think that you should take a step back and reconsider your opinion on the developers' goals: Are they really trying to 'attack' stuff or are they offering something they genuinely consider superior? Are they single-handedly changing the stuff around you, or are boards/committees convinced that these ideas are worth pursuing?

1: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd#What_is_the_status_of...

[Tobu]

> 1)

Conceded.

> 2) "Now systemd's syslog compat is seen as unnecessary overhead"

I can't believe rsyslog compat won't suffer, well-meaning reassurances from a third-party can't trump the documented attitudes of core developers who aren't bound by them.

> 3) The trend, what you perceive about the slippery slope of things

I've illustrated a lot, I could easily find more.

I do in fact believe Lennart et al are developing and promoting a system (distinct from the Linux ecosystem) that they consider genuinely superior. It's what being an open-source developer is all about. It doesn't mean they aren't engaging in some ends-justifies-the-means politicking on the way to world domination. I'm fed up with the latter, and with having the bad forced with the good.