On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:26:26AM -0500, Marty wrote:
On 11/11/2014 02:16 PM, Brian wrote:
>On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:36:14 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
>>On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>>>
>>>There are no functional differences between an installation with
>>>sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
>>>installed later, this is a fact.
>>>
>>>Allowing the user to choose this at install time from the interface is
>>>a "nice to have" feature (wishlist bug) not a RC bug like you were
>>>claiming earlier.
>>
>>There is a potential practical consequence of not advertising an
>>init alternative during setup. It makes users less likely to be
>>aware of it, or even aware that the init system has changed.
>
>New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the
>choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed. By definition,
>they do not care. They want Debian. Please let them have it.
They will not care "by definition" only if they are not aware of the
change, and most won't be aware unless they are informed during the
installation.
>>They won't know they lost the choice they didn't know they had. Capisce?
>
>What choice have they lost?
They lost an *informed* choice. I think the installation program
should not take sides but just inform the user. A choice that the
user is not aware of is the same as no choice, and is potentially
coercive and disrespectful. It makes Debian seem partial to Red
Hat's business plan to take over the Linux ecosystem.
If you care so much about Redhat code, maybe you should document
yourself, and see there pay coders for glibc, gcc, the kernel ( a
ton of them, according to lwn and linux fundations reports ), on
coreutils, gnome, kde, php, python, openssh, etc, etc.
> Whatever it was, it didn't exist as you imply
> in Wheezy.
It wasn't an issue in Wheezy because the default init option had not
changed from the previous release, and any release before that.
>>They won't know, that is, until it bites them somewhere down the
>>line. Then they won't know where to look or who to blame, and will
>>blame Debian.
>
>What bites them?
Individually, probably something that requires sysvinit or one many
core services that got replaced. Collectively, getting trapped by
vendor lock-in.
You keep using those words, but you do not seems to use them correctly.
If the same system is present on more than one distributio, that's not
vendor lock-in since you can switch distribution and then reuse the same
system.
Being tied to one package format ( and so on the ecosystem around ) would
be true lock-in. And no one complained that much since Debian existed,
despites the .deb having a few shortcomings at start, shortcomings that
were fixed later such as having checksum of installed software, a feature
rpm had at a time the dpkg didn't ( around 2002, so that's really a old stuff ).
In both cases it could be the result of users being steered to the
default init by the installation program, leaving alternatives to
rot.
Alternatives will rot if no one use them, so either you recognize than
no one is interested to use them and it will indeed rot,
or that the few interested to use them are unable to fill bug reports and
help the alternatives survives.
Given that a reading of the archives here show less than 50 people by a
large margin complaining on this list, I would indeed see that as a minority.
( as I hope there is more than 100 000 to 1 million Debian users, since
Ubuntu speak of 20 millions, Fedora speaking around 2 or 3 millions. But that
doesn't matter, since 100 000 or 1 million, there would still be far less than 1%
of the user base ).
>>Installation time may be only means that most users (like me*) ever
>>would learn about it.
>>
>>* Install instructions? We don't need no stinkin' instructions
>
>Reading? You are right. Who wants it? Just spew out nonsense and hope
>nobody notices.
Isn't that where the dumbed-down install is headed? Don't worry
about the details silly, Windows tells you when it's time to reboot.
The part about Debian being a universal operating system also mean
it should aim for people who are not interested in details. Maybe you are
ok by having Debian being seen as "complicated and hard to use, spewing useless
questions on install", but that just mean than regular people will avoid it.
And if you want free software to be used, you would recognize that the setting
is advanced and do not belong to d-i.
Now of course, maybe you are fine of having people staying on Windows or Mac OS X
because they have less trouble to install them and to use them, but you kinda
lose the right to complain " why do no one use Linux ?" ( and you also lose
the right to complain when others take that opportunity and are successful ).
--
l.