Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce
Josselin Mouette <joss <at> debian.org> writes:
> > Debian should continue to offer free choice of the init system
> Why? “Multiple init systems” is not a feature that any of our users
> should care of. It is not a functional goal.
• Developers are users, too.
• The upstart crowd has got valid arguments for choosing it.
• Someone might want to use cgroups for themselves instead of having an
init system to manage it, e.g. on a very light-weight VM host.
• Run kernels without cgroups support on RAM-constrained hardware.
• Your primary use case appears to be “the desktop”, whereas Debian, as
opposed to some of its downstreams and Pure Blends, is a Universal OS,
which means it’s got much more servers in use, which don’t benefit from
systemd either at all or at least not that much.
• On a VM, I might want to run very low-consuming software only, to lower
the cost of separating things into VMs of their own. (I’ll be writing a
syslog dæmon some day because sysklogd (three processes, c’mon!) is now
removed from the archive and both rsyslog and syslog-ng are waaaaaaaaay
too heavy-weight for this, for example.)
Note I’m trying to be constructive here for a change.
> > And in reality it seems to be far less modular than what the Lennart and
> > friends keep up claiming (just have a look at Tollef's post above).
> You just don’t have the same definition of “modular”.
> Systemd is extremely modular in its architecture. It doesn’t mean,
> though, that it is possible to pick random pieces to use without the
I’ll not say anything here but just let this stand of its own, complete
with context, until it sinks in…