[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.

Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de> writes:

> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> > First of all, I do not agree Debian community is hurt because of
>> > split about init system,
>> I disagree strongly. Please read through every flame thread over the
>> last 4 years and try to say this with a straight face.
> That’s why I say let’s just support them all.

Please no. That's a maintenance nightmare. I'm fine with one on
GNU/Linux, another everywhere else (but I'll treat everything else as
secondary), but supporting all of them, everywhere they're available, is

> Do remember that this is not about the (freeness of the) software but
> of the users.
> http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/freedom-for-users-not-for-software
> Hence why I insist on freedom of choice, even though I’d never choose
> systemd for myself, since I see that others would want it.

Freedom of choice remains even when there's a default. We have a default
desktop, default syslogd, default MTA, default-this, default-that, yet,
we have alternatives for all of those. We have a default init now, and
alternatives to that too.

If we choose a different default, the alternatives can still co-exist,
like they do now. Freedom is not lost.

>> One of those freedoms is to use the software commercially, just FYI.
> I think that’s not his point. I read Marko’s mail as an argument against
> vendor lock-in, and, let’s face it, systemd is company-backed (RedHat,
> mostly),

systemd is company-backed only as much as glibc or GNOME is.

>> 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.
> NO! We’d be silly to take them, because they lead to vendor lock-in,
> and *especially* the systemd side has shown, time and time again, that
> they won’t stop there. They intend to wholly change the ecosystem, to
> get away from Unix and GNU and towards this thing some people now call
> “FLOS” (one ‘s’).

And change is bad, because...? I'm not sure about you, but I prefer to
improve my systems instead of holding them hostage to ancient
technologies, just because there's only one implementation of a
particular solution.

> But sometimes, they do – an æroplane is the perfect tool to transport
> several dozen people from Europe to the Americas, for example (other
> than a ship). Which is another reason for us to actively support both
> sysvinit and one of the newcomers (such as upstart, since it’s much
> less hostile). This way, people (actual users!) can choose. It’s not
> necessary to install the whole systemd stack on a small one-purpose
> VM, for example. Or on a tightly secured, small VM _host_ (when the
> guests have all the power).

This is a misguided reasoning. Just because we select *one* default,
does not mean that all alternatives will be dropped. We have systemd and
upstart in Debian, they're usable, yet, sysvinit is the default.
Switching to systemd/upstart/OpenRC will not mean the rest will be

The choice will remain.

>> "without deviation from the norm progress is not possible"
>>   -- Frank Zappa
> Without competition, progress is not possible either. A systemd
> monoculture – which clearly is what “the systemd/GNOME crowd” (they
> really mesh together) want – will not help anyone.

See above.


Reply to: