Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 1:00 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a
>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>> dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or
>>>>>> possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users.
>>>>> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose
>>>>> Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types"
>>>>> place little stock in soothsaying.
>>>>>
>>>> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people
>>>> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many
>>>> companies I know of who have looked at jessie.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and
>>>>> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it
>>>>> overlooks the
>>>>> possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more
>>>>> users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators"
>>>>> manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to
>>>>> show
>>>>> that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only*
>>>>> choice lost users - quite the reverse.
>>>>>
>>>> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to
>>>> Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way
>>>> Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on
>>>> BSD.
>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as
>>>>>> hard.
>>>>> At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base.
>>>>>
>>>> I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with
>>>> sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the
>>>> wall - whether you agree with it or not.
>>>>
>>>>> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug
>>>>> reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change
>>>>> init
>>>>> systems.
>>>>> Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian
>>>>> Way" -
>>>>> and I have every confidence they will continue to do so
>>>>>
>>>> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized
>>>> pre-packaged) software to the system?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind.
>>>
>>> Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic:
>>> download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar
>>> ./configure; make; make install
>>>
>>>
>> Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software
>> they create?
>>
>> It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster to
>> just copy the files to the appropriate directories. And since they have
>> complete control over the code, they know when changes are made and what
>> has to be done when the code is updated.
>>
>>
>
> Not sure what you're arguing about here Jerry. Alien, checkinstall, and
> equivs are ways to incorporate unpackaged software into the apt
> ecosystem - for tracking and updating purposes, ./configure, make,
> install is standard installation from source, bypassing the packaging
> system.
>
>
Which is something they have decided NOT to do. And that is their
prerogative - it is their system.
Jerry
Reply to: