Re: upgrades must not change the installed init system [was: Re: Cinnamon environment now available in testing]
Daniel Dickinson <daniel@daniel.thecshore.com> writes:
> I will add that for a distribution that claims to be about it's users,
> the systemd attitude of "We're *going* to use systemd so 'suck it up
> Buttercup' really stinks at a social level.
Debians' decision to support systemd already violates Debians' social
contract. There already are too many packages with software totally
unrelated to an init system depending on systemd packages, so the users
cannot decide anymore that they do not want to use systemd.
A distribution that depends on a single piece of software, like on
systemd, is not in the interest of the users and removes their freedom,
and it's not "high quality material". Supporting systemd has created a
design bug by which every individual package might still do their thing
technically right --- which makes it very difficult to file bug reports
because you can't tell which package to file the report against --- but
the overall outcome is a system depending on systemd. It is bad design
that a package providing a functionality that doesn't have anything to
do with an init system should depend on a (package part of a) particular
init system.
All distributions that depend on systemd are broken by design. Think
MCP, if you've seen Tron.
The decision to make systemd the future default init system was made by,
IIRC, like three or four people. How many users were asked? How
would making a decision like this in this way not violate Debians'
social contract?
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Reply to: