Re: [Lennart Poettering] Re: A few observations about systemd
Peter Samuelson <peter <at> p12n.org> writes:
> [Uoti Urpala]
> > IMO letting kFreeBSD block a technology like systemd (or even letting
> > it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's
> > desirable to introduce the technology for the main Linux case) would
> > only be justifiable if there were very solid arguments why kFreeBSD
> > is a big net win for the project, or after a vote showing significant
> > support for the port.
>
> IMO letting systemd block a technology like kFreeBSD (or even letting
> it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's
> desirable to introduce the port for Debian releases) would
> only be justifiable if there were very solid arguments why systemd is
> a big net win for the project, or after a vote showing significant
> support for the package.
Are the differences really so hard to understand? Well, since you seem to
honestly believe that would work as an argument I'll try to explain.
Even if systemd did not exist at all, kFreeBSD would not have become a core
Debian technology. There was a discussion about whether future Debian would be
based on kFreeBSD, and kFreeBSD failed that on its own merits, not due to any
consideration of systemd (or actually there wasn't much of a discussion, but
that was only because kFreeBSD's failure was so obvious). Future Debian will not
be based kFreeBSD, nor will it even be an important alternative.
Linux is the core of Debian, what almost all users use and where most of the
development that keeps Debian running happens. It's clear that kFreeBSD will
have very little if any positive contribution to that core. systemd deserves to
be evaluated on its overall benefit, without giving undue weight to
irrelevancies like kFreeBSD. And if it's determined to be beneficial on Linux,
then harm to the few potential users of Debian/kFreeBSD is irrelevant compared
to the majority using Linux. Surely you could find MUCH bigger groups of users
who could benefit with a smaller amount of effort.
kFreeBSD is also mainly a developer toy with little general user demand. Using
the existence of such a toy as a reason to block other developers from working
on systemd integration would be especially questionable: you'd keep other
developers from working on something that benefits the majority of users, for
the sake of a toy that exists primarily for the developer's own amusement.
Reply to: