[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/12/2014 at 10:43 AM, Brian wrote:

> On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 23:18:56 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:

>> systemd being "the default init system" can/could mean many
>> different things.
>> One of those things would mean that all of the things you say must
>> necessarily be true. That possible meaning is embodied in the
>> current implementation of the package dependencies and of
>> debian-installer.
>> There are other possible meanings which would not mean that. From
>> the perspective of such a meaning, the current debian-installer
>> implementation is incorrect, and therefore buggy.
>> The entire reason I responded in the first place is that you were
>> making an unqualified statement about the meaning of the phrase
>> "the default init system", without supporting that statement with
>> arguments or evidence, when the question of the meaning of that
>> phrase is - at some important level - the very thing which is under
>> dispute.
>> That sort of implicit assumption is not conducive to good argument,
>> or to fostering even the possibility of understanding and agreement
>> between the sides of a disagreement.
> The reality is that d-i in jessie installs systemd. I labelled this
> reality with the phrase "default init system". I could change to
> using another phrase but it will not alter the reality.

Your original statement was that "systemd is the default init system.
That means everyone gets it."

I understood that statement as meaning "the reason why d-i in jessie
installs systemd-sysv unconditionally is because systemd is the default
init system".

I was trying to point out that systemd being the default init system
does not automatically imply that d-i must necessarily install
systemd-sysv unconditionally. It could, for example, only mean that d-i
must install systemd-sysv unless some configuration setting is in place
to tell it to do otherwise. This would be a weaker sense of "default",
but still an entirely valid one.

If you assume that "because X, therefore Y", when the discussion at hand
is specifically based on the fact that other people believe "X does not
necessarily mean Y", then there is very little chance of anything
productive or conclusive (or even persuasive) being said - at least in
your part of the discussion. I think that would be unfortunate, and that
is why I felt it worth posting in this thread to begin with.

   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: