On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200 Matthias Klumpp <mak@debian.org> wrote: > 2013/10/25 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>: > > It's not about whether the GNOME developers or maintainers should > > have chosen one init system or another based on activity of that > > system, it's about whether GNOME developers even have the option of > > making that choice. I submit that they do not. Their decision to do > > so is presumptive and disruptive. Debian does not have to respect > > that decision and should not follow blindly. > No, but GNOME has a mission to create a great desktop-environment > which is easy to use and "just works". And logind (in combination with > systemd) offers features to accomplish that goal and provides some > truly awesome features for session-management, multiseat etc. which > GNOME decided to support. Thereby overstepping the remit of GNOME. It's not up to GNOME to decide that these features *require* the rest of GNOME to only support a single init system. Those features could have remained optional, dependent on systemd support. Instead, GNOME actively decided to assert that GNOME knows best and assert that everyone wanting GNOME had to have systemd instead of simply adding these features *if* systemd was around. That is my gripe, that's the core problem in GNOME. It's why I stopped trying to develop code to work alongside GNOME and only work with XFCE and Qt. GNOME upstream are toxic. > So, GNOME did not make a decision "for an init-system", but a decision > for a set of features they assume should be integral part of a > well-working Linux desktop. And there's nothing wrong with doing that, > IMHO. Features are fine, I agree. There was nothing stopping GNOME from making those features optional on the presence of systemd. Let others fill in the gaps as GNOME has consistently done in previous releases. No, this is a simple land-grab by GNOME. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature