Re: Issues upgrading Wheezy --> Jessie (was ... Re: brasero requires gvfs)
Slavko <linux@slavino.sk> writes:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:15:59 +0200 lee <lee@yun.yagibdah.de> napísal:
>
>> Supporting systemd violates Debians' social contract.
>
> Can you be more verbose about this, please? Why? How? By what?
I'm finding it pretty obvious. The social contract says:
"Our priorities are our users and free software
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
kinds of computing environments. [...] we will provide
an integrated system of high-quality materials"[1]
Debian has decided to make systemd the default init system, and
apparently they are going to decide that even on mere distribution
upgrades, systemd will be the default init system without the users
at least being given a choice.
I claim that it is *not* in the interest of the users or of "the free
software community" to make something the default init system which is
broken by design, is encumbered with serious issues and raises a lot of
concern amongst the users.
The developers of this init system, or at least some of them, apparently
have a reputation for thinking that their software can break whatever
they want and to leave it up to others to modify their software to fix
what the systemd-people broke. I am warning of relying on software made
by developers with an attitude like this because it's prone to cause
trouble. It may cause the more trouble the more Debian depends on this
software, and trouble like that is *not* in the interest of the users.
Debian is not only making a very troublesome init system the future
default. They also allow a great number of packages providing software
which is totally unrelated to an init system to depend on this init
system, effectively making the whole distribution depend on a particular
init system, or parts thereof.
I claim that a Linux system, or distribution, as a whole *must not*
depend on a particular init system and that in doing so, choices are
being taken away and users' freedom is diminished. Designing a Linux
system/distribution this way makes the system/distribution broken by
design. This state of broken design may be a reflection of the
brokenness-by-design of the init system many people have pointed out.
I fail to see how it could be in the interest of the users or of "the
free software community" to turn Linux systems, or Linux distributions,
into systems or distributions that are broken by design and which
abandon substantial ideas that have contributed greatly not only to the
quality and reliability of Linux systems but also to the freedom of
their users: the idea being that a particular software shall do one
thing according to its purpose, do that well and no more. This idea has
resulted to choices being available to users which allow them to pick
which software to use and to the reliability of their systems, and it
has given them control over their systems.
AFAIK, users have had no saying whatsoever in the decision about the
future default init system, and they still have none. I claim that
Debian *does not* make its users their priority by making such a
decision without consulting their users, especially not when they leave
them no choice but to use the default init system, no matter whether
through dependencies or through forcibly installing it in the process of
upgrading from one distribution to another.
I see that delivering a distribution which is broken by design does
*not* mean that Debian provides "an integrated system of
high-quality"[1]. However, it's arguable what this part of the social
contract is supposed to mean: Providing a distribution which is broken
by design doesn't make it impossible to provide "high quality
materials"[1] as part of it. Yet I would assume that the intention is
not only to provide some material of high quality but to provide a Linux
distribution which is of high quality.
When Debian is truly "guided by the needs of"[1] their "users and"[1] of
"the free software community"[1], and when Debian places "their
interests first in"[1] their "priorities"[1], then would Debian not have
to strive to make /a distribution of high quality/ rather than striving
to make /a distribution that has some material which is of high
quality/?
There may be more points in their social contract or otherwhere that are
violated by the decision to make systemd the default init system and by
simply accepting that virtually the whole distribution depends on it.
Feel free to point them out --- so far, my reasoning seems to have been
ignored, and I might actually have to make a bug report (against Debian
itself) to get a response to these concerns.
I'd be happy to see some support. I cannot speak for "the users" or for
"the free software community". You users, and the community members,
whoever they are, need to speak as well.
[1]: https://www.debian.org/social_contract
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Reply to: