Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
On 11/13/2014 3:42 PM, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jo, 13 nov 14, 11:28:57, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> Yes, apparently because someone actively sabotaged any possibility of
>> OpenRC being considered by giving improper bad information on how to use
>> it...
>
> OpenRC was "represented" by its Maintainer in the init debate (Thomas
> Goirand). Are you saying he intentionally sabotaged it to not be
> considered?
I'm not, but that seemed to be what someone else said - although when I
asked for clarification, none was forthcoming:
On 10/24/2014 7:07 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:> On
10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
> <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> wrote:
>> Tanstaafl:
>>> And why was OpenRC not a contender?
>> Your question takes a falsehood as its premise. It actually was,
>> contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated. Several members of
>> the technical committee took it and tried to use it themselves,
>> just as they did the other systems; and it was included on the
>> formal ballots and in the votes.
> I actually do remember reading a fleeting mention of it somewhere in
> the vast sea of stuff I read when trying to catch up on this issue...
>
>> Contrastingly, the people who were propounding OpenRC at the
>> time provided a good example of how NOT to go about doing so. Their
>> several mistakes are worth learning from.
>
> Not sure I understand what you are saying here...
>
> Are you saying that some of the people who suggested OpenRC actually
> provided BAD examples - meaning, examples that were destined to result
> in problems - of how to use it in Debian? If so, maybe that was on
> purpose, to decrease the chances of OpenRC being a real contender?
>
> The fact is, OpenRC has been the default init system on gentoo since I
> don't know when, and I have *never* had an init problem on any of my
> gentoo systems - although I admittedly never use unstable/testing for
> system-critical packages either...
Reply to: