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

Re: Really, ...

Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
> > Yes, I do accept vocals against systemd, but only if these are actually
> > valid arguments. Because I want software development to be driven on
> > technical merits and not on sympathies against or for certain people
> > neither the stance to reject any modern developments.
> Free software is a social activity.  The past history of qmail should be
> informative here (or, for that matter, both gcc and glibc, which had to go
> through disruptive forks to sort out long-term issues).  One of the
> determiners of the long-term success of a free software project is the
> social skills of the primary maintainers, regardless of their skill as
> software designers.

Systemd does much better than its competitors as a social activity.
Neither OpenRC nor Upstart (with its highly questionable form of
contributor agreement) can match systemd. You shouldn't confuse the
existence of a group of vocal naysayers as the lack of a thriving

> I'm on the side of wanting to support a variety of different choices in
> the archive so that people can experiment and evaluate and choose what
> works best for them.

I question the usefulness of this approach for init systems. Yes,
developers do need a degree of familiarity to evaluate the merits of the
systems. But personalized init systems don't make much sense; everyone
deciding what works "best for *them*" is not a good approach. And when
talking about a larger number of people and how well things work in
their personal use in practice (as opposed to more in-depth technical
evaluation), what matters is largely the amount of effort spent on
polishing the most typical cases. Sysvinit has "worked well" for a
significant number of people; but that's not because it wouldn't suck,
but because a lot of effort has been used to paper over the problems.

>   But to the extent that we have to pick winners and
> losers (and, to be clear, I think it's premature to do that for init
> systems),

I think there's already enough evidence to show that systemd is clearly
the best choice. How much more would you expect to have before it would
not be "premature" any more?

Reply to: