Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:41:23PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Marty wrote:
> >On 11/15/2014 07:45 PM, Ludovic Meyer wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >I meant that one vendor seeks to control the Linux ecosystem.
> >Whether that plan is viable or even sane, is another issue, but I
> >am not eager to see if their plan will succeed or be a guinea pin
> >in the experiment.
>
> As much as I dislike systemd, I'm not sure that it's a vendor
> conspiracy to "control the Linux ecosystem." Yes, redhat pays
> Lennart Poettering's salary (among others). But... I'm hard pressed
> to see how turning a collection of free distros into functional
> equivalent's of redhat, or increasing the resources applied to free
> distros, is really to their benefit. If anything, it would seem to
> dilute the competitive advantage of paid RHEL.
>
> Personally, I think it's more a matter of one, prima donna
> developer, who has the advantage of a salary, who has a vision and
> design philosophy that he's promoting in a very aggressive and
> single minded way. And he's very overt about it. (Somebody posted
> an email from Poettering last week saying, roughly, 'first we're
> going to get kdbus into the kernel, then we're going to make udev
> depend on it, and then everyone will have to eat systemd to get
> udev.' As I recall, the message closed with 'gentoo, be warned.')
>
> I figure this is more a case of redhat management not wanting to
> tick off valued prima donna, and maybe seeing what he's doing as a
> contribution to the open source community (to date, redhat has been
> pretty good about contributing to the community in lots of different
> ways). Still, if I were in their shoes, I'd be trying to reign the
> guys in.
Why would the management of a external company care about what
happen in Debian ?
People keep wanting the project to be free of corporate influence, but
it seems that some wouldn't be against having a bit of corporate influence if the
influence was in the way they want..
> Given that RHEL's main selling points are enterprise
> capabilities, quality control, and (for the government market)
> security accreditation and lots of support, I'd much rather see
> diversity and weak code spread across competing distributions.
Canonical was criticized for keeping their code for their ( mir, unity ),
and Redhat would be criticized for not keeping the code only for them.
I guess there is no good way for a company to make free software that
change something in the core of existing ecosystem.
--
l.
Reply to: