On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 12:48 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Why? “Multiple init systems” is not a feature that any of our users > should care of. It is not a functional goal. Well I guess users *do* care... just look at the posts from the last few days. We had users who said "stick with sysvinit", the *ubuntu-fraction prefers upstream, some people like file-rc for their needs and we have systemd. Personally I also tend towards systemd, but even for my use cases it's a no-go (at least yet). But now we're in the unfortunate position that GNOME already forces the installation of at least the package... and we've basically heard that no-one can guarantee whether the parts needed will actually work in all cases when it is not used as init=. And I think it's also a political question: Just look around the posts in this thread, you will find many people who are absolutely unhappy with both, political/philosophical behaviour (look at Gunnar's post, where he brings it down to "antithetical to the Unix culture IMO") of GNOME and technical and/or design issues (NM, GNOME Shell, too little features). Sure there are always some people who rant, but that's a minority here, most people actually bring up good arguments. When I say I can't live with GNOME Shell, I don't just simply say that because I want to spread hate - I tried it for a week or so, it absolutely didn't fit my work schemas... so for *me* it does not fit. It's fine if it does for others. Same with NM - I don't have nothing against NM per se,... but there are so many issues with it (which I've reported upstream, and which they've simply closed because of obscure reasons) What I try to tell is, one can't just always come a long and say that people who don't like some things, live in the past or have no idea what they're talking about. And that's the actual political point... if the community more or less silently accepts this all the time, things will get worse and worse. Take the NM example... the idea of having an abstraction of networking for GUI is nice... but in reality,... integration of NM with the native tools (ifupdown, vpnc, ppp/chatscripts) sucks or is non-existant... all that should have been fixed by upstream *before* NM was made mandatory... now it is more or less mandatory and we can't get easily rid of it anymore and upstream has apparently little to no interest to fix the issues. > 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 > others. Well sure,... but you can always find a definition of modular that just fits your purpose... And I guess what most people expect is that you can really use components of it independently of others. Cheers, Chris.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature