On 2017-07-06 at 06:54, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:57:14PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >> Since it is not even conceptually possible to install Debian with >> no init system at all (even if an option to do so existed, what >> would it *do* in practice?), having there be an option to select >> which of the available init systems should be installed - rather >> than having to let the system install one, then clean it up later >> on if that one is not the one you wanted - > > You are arguing from a false premise: that the only way to install > Debian is to first install systemd, then replace it with sysvinit. Am I? Certainly there are ways to set things up in advance so that the installer will never install the systemd-sysv package (or at least there are reported to be - I've never tried any of them myself, so I can't speak from personal experience, but I also have no reason to doubt the people who say that they exist). But that is not the scenario I am discussing. I am discussing the experience which an ordinary user, who simply selects from the options which the installer lists, will have. (My use of the term "option" in the quoted paragraph, as well as the one preceding it in my last mail, was referring to the options which the installer presents.) If there is a way to achieve the result you describe in that limited context, I am not aware of it. If my argument is based on that premise in some other way, I'm not seeing how; could you clarify? >> can seem like the solution least biased in favor of any particular >> init system. > > It seems quite proper that there *is* a bias here: towards the system > that Debian recommends, that is judged to be the best choice for the > majority of users, and will receive the most testing. There's still room to argue about the degree to which that bias should be manifest, however. It seems hard to dispute that that bias should extend at least as far as determining which init system will be installed if the user does not take action to select an alternative one. That's more or less the definition of "default" in this context. It also seems hard to dispute that the bias should *not* extend as far as actively impeding the ability to install and make active another init system. Fortunately, Debian does not actually do that, and I'm not sure I've seen anyone argue that it should. That would establish the outer bounds; in between, disputing any specific proposition becomes easier, and arguing against such becomes harder. For example, it seems considerably harder to argue that the bias should extend as far as refusing to present the (few) mature, established alternatives to be selected - and yet that is exactly what people arguing against having the installer include an option for this seem to be doing. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature