Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
On 07/15/2013 03:00 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
My personal objections to systemd come down to the fact that I don't
trust its developers /maintainers. Part of that is bleedover from the
fact that I've so far had only poor experiences with pulseaudio
I haven't had any problems with PulseAudio for ages. PulseAudio is
installed by default by all major distributions and I have had heard
little to no complaints ever since it has matured.
Some older versions prior 1.0.x were broken or had exposed bugs in ALSA
drivers which needed to be fixed. These days, however, PulseAudio is
rock-stable.
It usually breaks only for people who tinker too much with it without
understanding the concept behind it.
(and
have heard several negative reviews of it not purely based on user
experience, mostly summing up to "why did they start a new audio system
from scratch instead of adding the missing capabilities on to JACK?"),
Because JACK and PulseAudio target completely different audiences. JACK
is designed for professional audio and is usually an overkill for most
desktop users. No one, including the PA developers, ever claimed that
PulseAudio is a replacement for JACK.
but most of it hangs from the discussion I once read in which Lennart
expressed - and, when objections were raised to it, reiterated - the
desire to eventually drop support for using udev without systemd.
While this is still not the case, I don't really see why this shouldn't
be done. udev is Linux-only and so is systemd and neither of them will
probably ever ported to non-Linux kernels.
That attitude as a whole, in fact, is the major offputting thing about
the entire systemd-et-al. project(s) from my perspective; it reminds me
of proprietarianism, and a little bit of "embrace, extend, extinguish",
and I very much want to avoid lock-in.
Which can be a good thing, sometimes, since it simplifies work for other
developers whose software builds on top of the kernel plumberland when
they know which software to expect on the target system.
I actually *like* most of what I've read about systemd's capabilities,
performance, and behavior, as compared to at least sysvinit; I'm even
reasonably willing to accept that it's superior to the other alternative
init systems in those regards. I'm just not at all sure that those
improved capabilities, performance, and behavior are enough of a benefit
to be worth the trade-off of being essentially at the mercy of
developers whose philosophies and attitudes I find so strongly
objectionable.
systemd has many independent developers and contributors. I don't think
we're at the mercy of a small group of people when using it.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: