Re: Init system deba{te|cle}
Le 29.10.2013 21:55, John a écrit :
Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over
init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency?
Is it provoked by systemd's effort to be adopted having at least
found
a home with gnome, made urgent by gnome's status as our default?
Couldn't we just make XFCE the temporary default and stay with
sysvinit until the technical dust has settled and we have a clearer
view of the long-term merits of openrc, systemd, and upstart?
I agree that considering recent debates about gnome3, gnome3 should no
longer be the default DE in debian.
Do not take me wrong here: I do not even use a DE, so I just do not
care about which one is the default one.
I simply have read lot of things, being on the mailing list or the
whole Internet (it includes lot of trolls) and it seems that most
gnome2's users just hate the 3rd major version, for various reasons.
Since I think gnome2 was the default because the most used by Debian's
users, then it does not makes sense to use gnome3 as the default.
And my opinion is reinforced by the fact that gnome's softwares have
dependencies on some systemd parts, when gnome should be a simple DE and
so, should not have hard dependencies about system utilities.
On the other hand, those applications already had dependencies on
softwares that were not mandatory, like policykit. Those are simply
replaced by the systemd-based variant, so does it really adds a problem?
There were bloated soft using *kit as dependencies and are now bloated
with systemd-* dependencies instead.
I honestly do not mind that much. The day I'll really want to get rid
of those dependencies, I'll hack their source code myself for that. For
now, if I really like the soft, I can do with design choices that I
think wrong.
Now, since there is a popularity contest for packages installed, why
not simply use it to choose the default DE? It would avoid flame wars to
use those numbers, since it will show what users prefers, in the users
which want to contribute their package list.
I'm not close to DD status, so reluctant to ask on -devel.
I think it have it's place on devel- ml, because in Debian, the rulers
are the devs :)
I mean, Debian is a meritocracy, if I am not wrong. We, as simple
users, can have opinions, but when only using Debian, we know that our
opinions may, or may not, be listened.
On devel ml, you will find lot of people with more merit, and so more
weight, than us, simple users.
I don't fit
any of the categories of that debate: 1) systemd advocates with few
reservations about forcing their way, 2) near-adolescent emotional
responses to anything that looks like forcing. Luckily there have
been a few posts by 3) sensible and emotionally moderate folks; it's
reassuring to see how many of them also hold office in Debian.
As I.
I can only remember about 3 valid arguments in the systemd debates:
_ easier to maintain configuration files ( simple configuration files
for systemd versus shell scripts with lot of cross references for
sysVinit )
_ tools which should do only one thing depends on some of it's module
when it is not needed ( I guess I could use the dbus / libsystemd-login0
example )
_ it uses linux special features, and so, is not portable.
The 1st one is a pro, the 2nd one a con (at least for me), and the 3rd
one is neutral: using kernel features can be a good thing, but
compatibility is always a good thing too.
About the 2nd argument, I think that the problem is not from systemd
itself, but from tools which depends on it. In my example, it's dbus'
developers' choice which is questionable, not systemd itself. When a
programmer use a tool, it is his job to choose it carefully, not the
tool's author's job.
Reply to: