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

Re: Wouter and Gergely: software monopoly vs diversity

(this is getting increasingly off-topic for -vote, so this'll be my last
post on the subject on this mailinglist)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:36:22PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> AFAICS one is requesting to change the default to a dependency based
> boot system as the early boot gets less and less reliable (networking as
> the key example). The remaining issue seems to be choosing between
> upstart and systemd as default. Obviously making sure initscripts keep
> working will get harder and it's up to the ports that don't support the
> default init system to choose the lesser of two evils (porting the
> default init system or making sure initscripts keep working) IMHO.
> Opposing evolution because some architectures don't follow it, will
> probably only result in more tension. All ports have to evolve due to
> changed circumstances. It's only when they do not that the cry to not
> support them officially anymore gets louder and louder AFAICT.

In and of itself, this is correct and reasonable.

However, there's more to it than that. The systemd issue is not a
simple matter of "systemd doesn't work because it's not been tested
upstream". I agree that in such matters, the burden should be on the
port. Instead, this is a matter of "systemd doesn't work because
upstream doesn't care about the architecture and won't even accept

As a result, if you're going to make systemd the default, you're
virtually forcing the kFreeBSD developers to write and maintain an init
implementation that is compatible with another init implementation
written by someone who is hostile to their cause. I think you'll find
that that's a lot of work, the usefulness of which (at least in my
opinion) is questionable for the maintainers of a port.

The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: