Re: End of hypocrisy ?
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014, Slavko wrote:
> Dňa Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:17:15 -0700 Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
> napísal:
> > These are just accessible reasons. The main reason that I personally
> > voted for systemd over sysv is because systemd (and upstart) provide
> > correct boot sequencing in complex boot situations.
>
> IMO, users deserve reasons, which has value for them itself,
> not for others.
The reasoning is pretty well laid out in the CTTE decision, the
discussion, and the position statements.
> When i read first time about change default of the init, i believe (or
> hope?), that there will be choice. And don't matter if this choice
> will be at install time, or after install... I wrote to this list too,
> that this is *only* default. But now i read more and more about
> problems, dependencies from user space and this sounds bad for me. And
> i start to afraid.
Choice is expensive. Debian doesn't have unlimited developer time. If a
choice that you would want to be able to make isn't currently available,
then your only real alternative is to do the work (or otherwise cause
the work to be done.)
> I am not able to suspend this machine when boot via systemd. OK It
> seems, that it is not a systemd problem - but the difference is simple:
> without systemd it works, with it doesn't, then systemd is a problem
> for me too.
If systemd isn't working properly, please file bugs or comment on the
existing bugs to provide more information if there isn't already enough
information.
> > 1: Not impossible, but you basically end up replicating a dependency
> > boot system in shell, and necessarily introduce brittleness and
> > delays.
>
> Delays, delays... And we are back at the boot time, where we start.
Delay is a small price to pay; the real problem here is brittleness and
deadlock in a delay.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
Religion is religion, however you wrap it, and like Quell says, a
preoccupation with the next world clearly signals an inability to cope
credibly with this one.
-- Richard K. Morgan "Broken Angels" p65
Reply to: