Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> writes:
> Leaving aside fears about what upstream might decide to do at some point
> (e.g. the "make udev require systemd" proposal), much of that objection
> simply comes down to how difficult it looks like it would be to switch
> *away* from systemd, once it becomes entrenched.
>
> 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.
[..]
I think this argument is way too far in the realm of hypotheticals to be
useful. You could construct an infinite number of other hypotheticals
to argue for pretty much anything. For example, what if the systemd+1
init is backwards compatible with systemd unit files, but not sysvinit
scripts? Not having switched to systemd would make the transition even
more painful.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
Reply to: