Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
On Sun 23 Nov 2014 at 13:27:55 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 12:43 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 November 2014 17:23:15 Tanstaafl wrote:
> >> 'installing systemd, then removing
> >> and installing sysvinit' - was absolutely not and never could be
> >> considered the *equivalent*
> >> of doing a *clean install with sysvinit*,
> >> where systemd is never installed in the first place.
> >
> > The equivalent, yes. Identical, probably no.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Ignorance reigns supreme.
>
> Lisi - they are purely and simply *not* equivalents, and never can be.
>
> They can result in the same set of files being installed - but that does
> not and never will be 'euiqvalent'.
Earlier in this thread we had
[🔎] 20141111180749.7e240530@fornost.bigon.be">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20141111180749.7e240530@fornost.bigon.be
The claim there is that the two processes are *functionally* the same;
different routes are taken but the same end result is achieved.
In an attempt at injecting some software neutrality into this discussion
let's consider netcat-traditional, which d-i automatically installs.
Some people prefer netcat-openbsd so they preseed its installation. In
what way is a system *functionally* different from one which d-i gave
netcat-openbsd automatically.
It would be nice if you regarded the word "functionally" as an essential
qualification of "equivalent" or "identical" and not dismiss it.
Reply to: