Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
The Wanderer wrote:
> On 07/21/2013 05:04 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le samedi 20 juillet 2013 à 19:21 -0400, The Wanderer a écrit :
> >> Making the switch away from the entrenched sysvinit is visibly very
> >> difficult, at least as a social matter, even in the environment we
> >> have. systemd et al., by virtue of the integration which is
> >> apparently one of their selling points and the "proprietary"[0]
> >> interfaces they seem to use, look like they would create an
> >> environment where a similar switch to "whatever comes next" would
> >> be even harder - at least partly as a technical matter, rather than
> >> a social one.
>
> > Hey guys, I know this “Linux” thing is better than Minix, but it
> > brings a lot of new features that we will be growing accustomed to.
> > If we ever want to switch to Hurd one day, this is going to be much
> > more complicated.
>
> My objection has nothing whatsoever to do with "growing accustomed to
> features". (The line further down about "without losing other
> functionality" might have hinted at that fact.)
I think the Minix comparison is still a very valid one, whatever the
exact reasons are that you fear will make a future switch harder. Let's
assume there are very valid technical reasons why you think switching to
Linux will make a future move to Hurd harder than switching directly
from Minix would have been. Is this a good reason to stay with Minix for
now?
I think the above is a good parallel for the systemd situation. The
current alternatives are simply much worse than systemd. Staying with
them in the hope of some possible benefit in the far future is not sane.
> > This has to be one of the most twisted and bad faith arguments I ever
> > heard in a situation of change resistance.
>
> My argument may perhaps be twisted (that's at least partly a matter of
> perspective), but it is absolutely not in bad faith.
>
> I made my previous post partly in hopes of drawing attention to my
> honest concerns, and partly in hopes of having those concerns
> convincingly shot down - and of thereby being reassured about the idea
> of going forward with systemd. (As I've said, I actually like what I've
> read about its functionality and so forth; if those concerns could be
> eliminated, I'd be greatly looking forward to seeing it adopted.)
Whether your argument was honest or not, I think it was a bad one. OK,
perhaps you have concerns about the philosophy behind systemd and where
that might take it in the future. Such "philosophy" issues are rather
subjective. But your argument objectively fails at the "... and
therefore moving to systemd may not be the right choice" part. Your
concerns, even if taken seriously, do justify such a conclusion. If
systemd development goes in a direction you don't like, the rational
answer is to fork it and do better if you can. Leaving Debian behind
with an inferior init system is not an answer to your concerns.
Reply to: