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

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports



On 07/19/2013 06:43 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/19/2013 05:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We try to have technical reasoning, which is (one of) the reason this
list exists. This has nothing to do with voting.

If we actually did, the choice would have already been made for systemd
long time ago. Don't make yourself any illusions. It has been explained
to you by many people before that OpenRC isn't fit for the purpose at
all and I really don't think upstart will meet the criteria either.

I thought we were making software which is to be useful for our
users in the end,...

That is the case, but not using popcon as a metric to our technical
decisions.

Well, technical reasons are obviously not counted in.

...but it turns out that according to your
line of arguments, Debian is primarily made to fuel the egos
of its developers.

Now you are crossing the line.

No, I am not. How often do I have to read people claiming that systemd
is a bad project because they don't like their upstream authors?


Honestly, I do not care about upstream at all, but I'm still concerned about systemd (as well as about upstart). I had sufficient issues with upstart before - stopping to boot and not telling about its current state is from my point of view a show-stopper. And from my point of view it is irrelevant if there are underlying bugs. Important is that it helps the admin to figure out what went wrong and how this can be solved or worked-around. So upstart leaves a mostly blank screen without a console. What is systemd going to do if something fails? How does it help me if it crashes? How am I'm going to bring up a basic system then.

Thanks,
Bernd


Reply to: