[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Lennart Poettering] Re: A few observations about systemd

Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> writes:
> > > kFreeBSD is hardly the only reason why systemd is a bad idea for Debian.
> > 
> > It's the only argument I've seen you mention. And I don't remember seeing
> > convincing arguments against it from anyone else in the thread either.
> Pfff. You're the one who wants to change the status quo, not me.

So "Pfff" is a valid answer to all attempts to change the status quo?

There have been arguments for systemd (in this thread, or if you really can't
find any, go look at upstream website for example). Those have not been refuted.
There have not been good arguments against it. Now your level of argumentation
is to say "but it's a bad idea", and "Pfff"? Do you really not have anything
less inane to contribute?

> > > > If you want to do whatever work is necessary to keep kFreeBSD working
> > > > that's fine of course. But the attitude that it's OK for kFreeBSD to set
> > > > limits on Linux development (or that developers working on Linux must
> > > > handle the BSD porting/compatibility to be "permitted" to adopt a new
> > > > technology) smells of trying to hold the project hostage, and I doubt it
> > > > can have positive effects for the project overall.
> > > 
> > > There's nothing wrong with requiring portability.
> > 
> > Of course there is when it interferes with other goals. And your claim would
> > at least require a lot of further qualifications to avoid being totally
> > absurd -
> It's always possible to read absurdity in a totally reasonable
> statement; that doesn't make the original statement absurd.

Your original statement perhaps looks totally reasonable at first sight. But it
is not reasonable and its vagueness helps hide that.

> > if you say any portability requirement whatsoever is fine,
> I said nothing of the sort.
> Currently, Debian requires that software in the Essential set of
> packages be portable to any of our kernels. It does not even require

If you had phrased your original statement as "There's nothing wrong with
requiring portability to exactly the set of kernels that I want to consider as
official Debian kernels, and which set of kernels is not subject to
re-evaluation." then it wouldn't look quite so "totally reasonable" would it?

> Of course it's true that there are issues with the current init
> implementation, and that a replacement would be nice. And yes, of course
> it's true that one can cut corners by focussing on just one kernel, and
> not caring about the rest; that way, you can get a working
> implementation quickly with much less effort than you would if you were
> to keep portability a requirement from the very beginning. However, that
> doesn't mean it's the only possible way, or indeed the most desirable
> one.

And at which point would it become desirable? I think systemd upstream's
statements about saving significant amounts of work by not considering a larger
set of OSes are quite plausible. It's easy to say that you want portability too.
And a free pony with every copy. But that work would have been lost from
something else, and the result would likely be significantly worse overall.

Even if you disagree about systemd upstream's views on portability that does not
change the quality of the software and how it performs on Linux. IMO attitudes
like "if upstream holds such heretical views then their software is not fit for
use on any platform" are not justified.

Reply to: