Re: engineering management practices and systemd (Re: Installing an Alternative Init?)
On 11/14/2014 05:26 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 14 nov 14, 08:59:11, Joel Rees wrote:
<snip>
Jumping in here as myself, not Joel's tag-team member. :)
"Debian" as an entity doesn't really do much. There are only one or
several volunteers who start doing things. Setting up a separate "port"
for systemd would have been a major waste of resources (both human and
hardware) with no real gain.
By the same token systemd is a major waste with no real gain. It
duplicates equivalent modular alternatives, and also requires
unnecessary effort to repair damage from excessive coupling.
The systemd folks claimed it wouldn't be necessary. If we had looked
at the situation with an unbiased eye, we would have known they were
being overly optimistic. We still turn a blind eye to the problems,
claiming that the only problems are a bunch of recalcitrant
noisemakers like yours-truly.
You are completely dismissing the work of Debian Developers who *did*
have a very good look at the options and decided switching to systemd is
doable and would be a good thing from a *technical* point of view.
Non-responsive to his argument. If the work was biased and
over-optimistic then it doesn't matter how much they looked at it.
And
yes, that included the costs for the migration.
Those are largely TBD ast this time.
As far as I can tell by watching debian-user, debian-devel and
pkg-systemd-maintainers the integration of systemd is mostly working
fine and remaining issues (not all in systemd itself) will be dealt with
before the release. The freeze could help with that, since the number of
variables is reduced greatly.
From the same lists, I can't tell whether non-systemd use will result
in second-class citizenship and effective vendor lock-in for most users.
However, you and several others are rejecting systemd on ideological
grounds. There's not much that can be done about that, short or
re-implementing systemd according to your vision.
Many others reject choice and the anti-choice stance is the ideological
position at issue here. It is in direct conflict with Debian policy.
The systemd upstream are the ones with "vision," ideology, rejecting
opponents as "haters" in an overt campaign to establish a Linux
monopoly. They have a financial interest in *psychological projection*
of this kind. I still cannot see what Debian stands to gain by jumping
on their marketing bandwagon.
I hope you do understand why neither the systemd developers, maintainers
or users have any interest whatsoever in doing that.
But upstreams have other interests, like establishment of a Linux
monopoly via tying and customer lock-in. Why should there not be a
rational effort to counter that?
After all, systemd
already works fine for them.
Windows already works fine for most people, and it is consistent with
the anti-choice philosophy, so why bother with Linux at all?
Kind regards,
Andrei
Reply to: