Hi, On 03.01.2016 12:25, Marco d'Itri wrote: > "I have always done this in a different way" is not a valid use case, > sorry. "Compatibility" is a very valid use case. Debian is famous for backwards compatibility and trouble-free upgrades. I can certainly see the allure of a tightly integrated system and that certain trade-offs have to be made for that. It is also good that the systemd maintainers are drawing clear boundaries of the scope of their project, which is sensible project management. However, this also means that systemd can never fully replace sysvinit, except on desktops, laptops and servers that follow a standard layout. However, we do have a huge installation base outside of that. In most of my embedded systems projects, Debian has been the starting point for the customized installation, simply because before jessie, you could simply call "debootstrap --foreign" and get a working root filesystem, where all you need to add is a kernel that matches your hardware. This mechanism is already broken, and Debian's reputation has suffered for it. We can bootstrap an oldstable system and upgrade from there, but that is a cumbersome hack. Honestly, I am starting to believe that forking is a good choice, into a Debian that provides excellent supports for PCs, and an "universal operating system", because we obviously cannot have both in the same project. Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature