Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100, Peter Nieman <gmane-acct@t-online.de> a écrit :On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:Using the threat of forking to make people change their mindI didn't threaten anybody.do not send 100 mails to ML'sI didn't. I don't even know what "ML's" are.That was not directed to you, but a more generic statement about people talking about forking debian. (ML's == Mailing List's)I don't see that as a "threat". I see it as an attempt to determine if there are enough others interested to make it a viable project. And lists like this one are a perfect place to find out of there are other users interested in such a project.
And beyond that, the level of interest in a fork might, hopefully, provide some useful feedback into the Debian decision making process. (And in turn, the response to such feedback, or lack thereof, might further inform interest in a fork.)
Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced that those of us who deploy and manage servers would really benefit from a fork that retains the "flavor" and philosophy of pre-systemd (and maybe pre-udev) Debian. Apt-based packaging remains (IMHO) the class of the field, and the primary distinguishing feature of Debian and its derivatives. Beyond that, sticking with modularity and choice, and a far more basic (i.e., configurable, systemv compatible) init system would be very attractive.
Then again, from a server-side perspective, the BSDs (traditional), and illumos-derived distributions are starting to look very better and better - given that they remain focused primarily on server-side and data center applications.
I really do wonder what upstream developers think about all of this - it remains a perspective that is conspicuously missing from most of this discussion.
Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra