On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:58:34 -0700 Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote: > Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes: > > If someone comes up with good reasons to consider systemd on it's > > own merit, I'm willing to consider it. With the current approach of > > a fait-accompli "systemd is part of the GNOME dependency chain, so > > tough" then I am quite happy to dismiss systemd as an option simply > > because of this insane top-down dependency. systemd simply cannot > > be a viable choice if it has to be forced down people's throats > > like this. > > Please reconsider this. If I wrote a little GUI calculator and made it > depend on e.g. upstart, would that also make upstart unsuitable as a > default init system because of the resulting insane top-down > dependency? Yes. It is the tight coupling between desktop and init which is precisely the problem. *IF* the chosen init system is already the default, then by all means use the features provided. Desktop components cannot dictate how the rest of the system operates. The desktop is optional. Adding a desktop to a running system must not require a change of init, just as it cannot require a change of kernel or perl interpreter. I get to choose how I enable or disable mounting drives and other niceties which would require root access, not the desktop. Equally, user switching is something I've never considered useful, so that's easily omitted too. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature