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

Re: engineering management practices and systemd (Re: Installing an Alternative Init?)

On Vi, 14 nov 14, 08:04:00, Marty wrote:
> 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.

I challenge you to come up with a configuration that duplicates 
systemd's features with a combination of other software.


> >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.
This argument cuts both ways :)
> >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.
At least some of people rejecting systemd demand that it be removed 
completely, including libsystemd. How is it pro-choice to forbid me from 
being able to use a software at its full potential?

> >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?
In my opinion the best "defence" against a monopoly[1] of any kind is to 
develop competitive alternatives.

[1] which I don't believe applies, but will ignore for the moment.

>    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?

Doesn't work fine for me. At $dayjob I'm forced to use it and I can tell 
you my private laptop with a Dual Core 1,8 GHz and 2 GB RAM runs circles 
around a Core i5 with Windows 7. But this is off-topic for d-u.

Kind regards,
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: