Debian and upstream choices (was: Re: Keep using Debian without GNOME and SystemD)
Am Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, 13:40:49 schrieb Jochen Spieker:
> Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis:
> > after spending two days trying unsuccesfuly to have a usable Jessie
> > with one of the defaults DE and with no systemd utilities, i decided
> > the following. In the companie's pc's i support, i'll continue with
> > Wheezy and if there is no a clear path to Jessie without a trace of
> > systemd until Wheezy's support lifetime then bye - bye Debian.
>
> Good luck finding *any* distro with a current Gnome that does not depend
> on systemd.
>
> I really don't get why Debian receives so much hate in this discussion.
> Upstream software depending on systemd is not Debian's choice.
I wouldn´t call above hate. More frustration with the current situation.
Anyway thats why I tried putting this upstream and even challenged subscribers
here to do so as well in quite direct words.
I tried putting it upstream in this thread:
[systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and
resistance
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023290.html
But I have given up on this.
I have been called names on systemd-devel – Lennart personally called me
"being a dick" – while trying hard to describe, explain and interpret my
obversations regarding systemd as PID 1, as umbrella project for quite a lot
of different functionalities and as a community project. I think I didn´t
personally attack anyone, while… still using clear words to channel some of
the concerns about systemd I read here and elsewhere upstream.
But I didn´t get it across. Lennart and other devs reacted as if I attacked
them personally. I bet its understandable given the history of bashing Lennart
and other devs of systemd and systemd in general has received. Yet as I see
it, I didn´t attack personally, but was attacked personally in return.
Since that does not work for me, I unsubscribed from the systemd-devel mailing
list.
One of the main reasoning for putting it all into one git repo and one big
package I read before that was: Because it is easy for development and
splitting things would add considerable cost.
While I agree with that… I also think that not splitting it, adds considerable
cost to downstreams and porters and actually harms adoption of systemd as
init. So I still think that just doing it the easy way does not necessarily
mean doing it the best way possible.
And from the reaction I received while talking, in quite direct words
admittedly, but without calling names and without assuming any bad intentions
as I repeatedly and explicetely stated there, I know better understand on why
systemd triggers the uproar, the polarity, and the split tendendencies and
tend to agree that Aaron Seigo has a point with:
Aaron Seigo, four paths, 7th of October 2014:
http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2014/10/four-paths.html
And while I have been repeatedly asked to stay on a technical level only
there… I see more than a technical issue here.
I am sad about the friction and cost it creates.
But I am also sure Debian as a project will manage.
I will stay with systemd on my personal systems for the time being. At least
the mean ones, except the server VM which is still Wheezy. Partly due to
learning things with systemd so I can prepare training slides for my Linux
trainings for it. Partly for helping that as long systemd remains the default
of Debian, it will be tested and work nicely.
But I am more open now to also look to alternatives as I think there are dire
issues with the path systemd upstream developers are choosing with developing
and advocating their project as well as with handling feedback and bug
reports.
I have seen it otherwise.
In the end I felt like being in a hostile environment and thus I finished my
reporting it upstream. Maybe systemd will be seriously forked, maybe uselessd
will be packaged, maybe someone steps up with a completely new init or
whatever…
… but I agree that it would be wise to ensure support for mutiple inits in
Debian for the time being. To restrict dependencies to it so that there will
be a good exit path in case it will be needed. So I am in favor for the GR Ian
started.
And well regarding GNOME: Its not GNOME 3 for me for various other reasons
already. I tried using it for one day during my trainings and then was so
happy being back at KDE / Plasma again. I still want to define how I want to
work with my computers. I don´t need developers deciding for me. For me KDE /
Plasma still gives me that choice to a very great extent.
Maybe I failed at avoiding personal attacks, but I still think I didn´t. On
any account, my attempt to bring this upstream did not produce the outcome I
wanted to produce, so I stopped it.
That said I never tried putting things upstream with GNOME so far… but my
hopes currently aren´t high that this would produce a desirable result. And… I
am not using GNOME. So I don´t care about GNOME upstream decisions as long as
they don´t affect the KDE / Plasma I am running adversely.
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Reply to: