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

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:00:09 -0500
Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote:

> What? Sorry, what? Are you disagreeing with yourself? If it's so
> important to a UNIX system, why do you say it's not technical ...

I said it's not *only* technical.
> > Big companies all over and over again show they care much more about their economic interests than about interests of free software community. As of my understanding, Debian should be an independent project, devoted to interest of its community (users), and not the interests of any companies. However, it is obvious companies push their software because they control their development, but then if such software becomes essential for Debian, they control Debian. If you read free software principles elaborated by Richard M. Stallman and FSF, it is clear that the point is exactly in having control over your life, i.e. being independent (or in other words not under control) of any companies.
> No, that's not what RMS and the FSF means. They claim, by ensuring
> software you use is free, you can ensure that you retain your rights
> when using your computer by granting you basic freedoms (the four
> freedoms).
> One of those freedoms is to use the software commercially, just FYI.

I didn't say I am against commercial usage of software. RMS did say something like I said:

"That’s the fundamental issue: while non-free software and SaaSS are controlled by some other entity (typically a corporation or a state), free software is controlled by its users. Why does this control matter? Because freedom means having control over your own life."


> We shall not stand in the way of progress. logind, systemd (such as
> socket based activation, dependency booting) in particular, and friends
> are technical wins. We'd be silly to not take them.

We are not standing in the way, if Red Hat wants to test systemd it can do it in Fedora. systemd is obviously more powerful than sysvinit, but I am afraid of implications. UNIX philosophy is to do only one thing right. They replace login system and it can obviously have even security implications.

> > And SysVInit just works well and it is simply enough. It has much less dependencies than systemd. Do not make unneeded weight on people to learn systemd in addition to shell scripts, if systemd is powerful that also means there is a lot to learn. I really doubt non-standards task can be solved with systemd without shell scripts (or similar), and every serious UNIX admin must know shell programming anyway.
> This is like saying "A horse drawn carrage works well enough, why do you
> need an airplane".

You need an airplane because Earth is 40,000 km in round and because you have a reason to travel to a distant location. Or just you want to do some sport? But I know my possibilities and I wouldn't spend my money on an airplane just for sport, to produce an airplane you have to take raw materials out of this planet, you have to spend power, human time, make pollution, etc. 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: