Re: Has the systemd fork already happened?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 10/11/2014 11:49 PM, fsmithred wrote:
> It seems to be working, so far, but as mentioned, it may break at some
> point with upgrades. Others can try the same thing and share their
> experiences. If you're willing to accept libsystemd0, then I think you
> don't need to use older versions of dbus and libpulse0. (I could be wrong
> about that.)
And that is THE most major problem.
As a long term Debian user, I can no longer rely on things to work as
they have done so in the past; I will be forced to use packages that I
choose NOT to use -- it's bad enough getting lots of suggests by default
when installing packages; those weren't needed and they've over
complicated setups.
It is abundantly clear, the current direction means that for myself and
others like me, that we need to forfeit our investment in Debian over
many years and put a new and significant investment in something else,
such as FreeBSD -- either way, we'll have to spend considerable time
getting to know the new Debian ways with systemd or the different ways
of BSD [or another alternate option that probably won't include Linux
long term].
The one other area that helps with my direction is that I don't like
BTRFS and I would prefer native ZFS ... those two things add more to the
exit from Debian to FreeBSD. I had hoped to leverage my Debian
experience and sidestep some issues by going with kFreeBSD [less
change], but kFreeBSD is now considered not worthy of release status.
So much for stable, secure and trustworthy computing with Debian, those
times have passed ... unless you wish to embrace systemd, it's become
the systemd way or the highway. There is no doubt about it. It's just
a matter of when for myself and many others. Of course that is
amplified when we have customer servers running Debian and systems in
place that are fine the way they are right now, on the whole.
I only recently had to undergo a migration from Xen to KVM because a
server I wanted to run Xen on wouldn't work with Xen and I could not
find a way to make it work, but KVM works fine on the same server. I
also couldn't continue to run squeeze-lts on that older server because
Xen was no longer /supported/ as determined by Debian-Security-Status.
A.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlRg3OYACgkQqBZry7fv4vt3zAD/ft1U3rnnvt8U4MlsYqHEW3I6
KwzdpPjoXqkxGSafzS0BAMcVx47y4gyocJmQioH8vtiDqyEG7Ld1ZRYIzOs6EvRM
=RH7J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: