Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sunday, March 02, 2014 09:10:44 PM Joel Rees wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:00 AM, <yaro@marupa.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 02, 2014 09:20:44 AM Joel Rees wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:43 AM, <yaro@marupa.net> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:00:41 AM Volker Birk wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 02:17:05PM -0800, Leslie S Satenstein wrote:
> >> >> > I am a casual Debian user and a person who has 50 years in IT. My
> >> >> > first comment is that the direction that other Linux distributions
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > taking is not the system V direction. I am not a Linux Internals
> >> >> > person, but there are many who are. The consensus is that systemd
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > better and the right approach for now and the future. I realize
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > the author of this email to which I am responding is upset. But,
> >> >> > what
> >> >> > should be done? Do a fork of Debian and that fork remains with Sys
> >> >> > V?
> >> >>
> >> >> There will be a split in Debian community for this decision for sure.
> >> >> The split goes through Linux community in total.
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't make the decision to drop SysV Init, a system even its own
> >> > maintainer says is a pile of garbage, in favor of systemd, any less
> >> > technically sound.
> >>
> >> flame away, flame away
> >
> > Call it a flame all you want,
>
> It was a flame, and a flame empty of reason.
>
> You provided a much more reasonable, if short-sighted, description of
> your position in another post. You can do that. If you're going to
> respond to the kind of post that started this thread, you should
> respond with reason. Unless you really don't care for reason.
>
> If you couldn't respond with reason, why bother responding?
>
I responded with technical reasons. Shortsightedness has nothing to do with
it. The fact you disagree with it and call it a flame doesn't make my reasons
any less technical. You still haven't listed one TECHNICAL reason why systemd
is a bad idea.
Yes, yes, I can see how REASONABLE your arguments are.
Flaming's more fun when the person disagreeing with you can't even present a
decent case for their side of the debate.
I'll challenge you again. Name me one, valid TECHNICAL reason why we should
stick with initscripts and SysV over systemd (Or even other init
replacements.).
Hint: "You'll be sorry" is not a valid technical reason.
> >> >> I for myself will switch to DragonFly BSD if possible. The problem is,
> >> >> that Linux today has the drivers. And because the political program of
> >> >> the systemd guys to conquer the whole Linux world is successful,
> >> >> everyone will be dependent on their APIs there in near future.
> >> >
> >> > Oh please, grow up.
> >>
> >> You grow up. Technically inferior stuff always seems to get the money,
> >> but you get to live in the results of your choices.
> >
> > Oh, how will I ever live with a faster boot, more reliable process
> > control,
> > unit files that are easier to write and maintain than initscripts, socket-
> > activated daemons, concurrently-launched dependency-based service startup,
> > the fact that I use Archlinux and it actually went FROM a BSD-style init
> > TO systemd, a logger I can actually efficiently navigate with metadata,
> > and a more unified device and configuration infrastructure?
> >
> > Life is so horrible for me thanks to how easy systemd makes maintaining my
> > system. I have seen the light!
> >
> > Conrad
>
> Yeah, it works fine for you for now.
>
And it shows absolutely zero signs of turning into a technical issue down the
road.
> You will understand what I have said soon enough. <shrug/>
Sure I will, because you say so without a single moducum of proof it will be a
problem in the future.
Conrad
Reply to: