Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
Le 23/11/2014 20:09, Brian a écrit :
> 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.
>
>
If "functionnally" is the only criteria, then its time to flee. You may
have same functionality (and I am not sure systemd is functionnaly
equivalent to sysvinit) witheg proprietary and free software : would you
then acceot the proprietary software ? You have also different secuity,
different audit, etc...
if you consider only functionlaity for equivalence, then windows is
equivalent to debian.
Reply to: