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

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

Thomas Goirand wrote:
> We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
> modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
> reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
> re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes effective.
> That's a very different picture... :(

Your argument is complete nonsense. First, you're confusing modular
architecture with the existence of alternative implementations for every
part that can be freely switched without extra work. You've made similar
fallacious arguments before - see this post for my earlier reply to one:

Second, the earlier discussion was in the context of using systemd as
the init system (NOT about trying to use some tools from systemd without
actually running systemd the init). Surely you won't claim that tools
depending on systemd as init is an argument to not use systemd as init!

> Also, things like the the boot loader (syslinux, lilo, grub...), the GUI
> login (kdm, gdm, xdm...), or the system logger (with even some remote
> server syslogger available), have all for a long time, been
> interchangeable very easily with just an apt-get install. It used to be
> very simple and easy, and it should continue this way.
> We're now being told that we wont be able to choose *anymore*. This last
> word is the most important of them all: anymore. I (and AFAICT others
> too) see this as a regression (and this has absolutely nothing to do
> with the quality of the components of Systemd), and a possible way to be
> locked-in.

People have been "locked in" to using sysvinit as the init system on
Debian. If they are now "locked in" to using systemd, how is that a
regression? And what can they not choose "*anymore*"? Not that I'd value
arbitrary infrastructure choice for its own sake, but it seems that
every single part you listed as having been choosable before would
remain so with systemd as mandatory init.

> Since there's a Ubuntu patch, why not?

Because the patch is not free to carry and guaranteed to keep working as
software is updated. In fact, it's already known that it does NOT keep
working without significant extra work.

Reply to: