Re: Bug#727708: personal views of Debian users
Christoph Anton Mitterer dixit:
>- At most upstream projects (the kernel, wayland, X, etc. pp.) people
>seem to at least think first about systemd...
Only those that have strong ties to Poettering, Red Hat, GNOME.
>if they support upstart at all.
Right, upstart is, right now, a Canonical solution. But upstreams
in general support SYSV init scripts (especially since LSB), whereas
systemd is rarely seen across all upstreams (not just those already
poettering’d’.
But if Debian were to support Upstart, I could see this change.
(And I never thought I’d see the day where something from *buntu
can rescue Debian.)
>Just look at recent developments like kdbus, which are clearly strongly
>"influenced/triggered" by systemd.
Or by people abusing the “message bus” for things it never was
intended. And also, the kdbus “movement” comes from the Poettering
crowd.
>- Most other major distros (except *buntu) have decided for systemd,...
>so again here,... with upstart we'd sit on a lone island, which
>ultimately would lead to many problems for sure.
Yes, but this is a very good reason to *not* join others, so we
do not share their deficiencies either.
>- In my opinion (and I'm sure some people will agree and others will
>contrary): RedHat has proven to be more "neutral" to projects it
>"governs" than Canonical.
[…]
>- With upstart there is the contributor license agreement issue... which
>I think is a major political problem.
Mh. This clearly is a problem, unless they’d be willing to open up
this thing.
But there’s also sysv-rc and OpenRC still as contenders. (I think
file-rc – sadly – left the train.)
>- Last but not least... there are people (including myself, I guess),...
>which are concerned about the Debian/*buntu relationship in several
>ways... so having upstart the default init system, would give Canonical
>for sure some bit more of influence on Debian (and if it was just by
>technical decisions they make upstream).
I consider myself as one of these people too, but they’re influencing
enough already, yet still the danger from Canonical (when balanced by
the rest of the Debian mass) is perceived as much less than the danger
from Poettering and Co.
>Of course one can argue, that this kind of influence might now be taken
>by RedHat.
This is something I have been seeing more and more recently. The RedHat,
“freedesktop”, GNOME people *are* trying to force everyone to do things,
and not just some but everything, their way *only*. With *buntu, other
things are at least just not supported commercially, modulo sponsoring
the spin-offs to some degree. They try to promote their way, which may
work well for a large percentage of the “average user”, but do not cut
off experts entirely (granted, it becomes harder and harder to run a
*buntu in a nōn-default configuration, but it’s not impossible, plus,
Debian is not to become another *buntu just for supporting upstart.)
Note I’m still in favour of supporting multiple init systems. (And there
is absolutely *zero* reason anything like *kit (console, policy, package
or whatever) or logind to use a system as a desktop. This is only used
by some fancy additional optional and rarely used features. And never in
your typical centrally-managed company desktops, for example.)
>- I do have a big problem with projects (especially like GNOME) which
>sometimes seem to have an agenda of enforcing people to use the
>techniques they want. IMHO, open source IS about choice. But reality is
>probably, that one cannot do much about it.
And that’s where Debian is stong: ensuring the freedom of its *users*
from people wanting to prescribe them things. Honestly, sometimes, the
GNOME people are worse than Microsoft®…
bye,
//mirabilos
--
22:59⎜<Vutral> glaub ich termkit is kompliziert | glabe nicht das man
damit schneller arbeitet | reizüberflutung │ wie windows │ alles evil
zuviel bilder │ wie ein spiel | 23:00⎜<Vutral> die meisten raffen auch
nicht mehr von windows | 23:01⎜<Vutral> bilderbücher sind ja auch nich
wirklich verbreitet als erwachsenen literatur ‣ who needs GUIs thus?
Reply to: