[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Replace systemd

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

Reply to: