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

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

(Apologies if this comes through as HTML: I'm using a mobile.)

On Mar 4, 2014 11:57 PM, "Uoti Urpala" <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
> The reason why pretty much
> everyone is by now either already using systemd or moving to it

Not everyone is, and the point here is that people certainly don't want to be forced to choose between sticking with Debian or being lumped with an unwanted (& on some systems crippling) systemd install.

> The most likely practical result of this
> resolution would be that people are forced to write some unreliable and
> buggy init scripts for degraded functionality under the obsolete
> sysvinit in order to fulfill the letter of the "multiple-init" support
> requirement at a minimal level. That would only be a waste of resources
> and would not help with any positive diversity.

Your conclusion clearly isn't shared by everyone.

> If systemd "hegemony" becomes a problem, there is a much better
> open-source answer: fork systemd.

By saying this, you have outlined the following competing scenarios for users for whom systemd is unsuitable...

(1) Spend time trying to live with systemd. Conclude you can't. Fork it. Hack the fork, perhaps extensively, until it becomes suitable for your system - by which time it might no longer be very compatible with anyone else's.

(2) Continue using (e.g.) SysV, which you know works.

... and concluded that (1) is preferable to (2). That seems a little perverse, to say the least.

> even if you disagree with some
> parts [of systemd] it's the best available starting point.


> Insisting that you must
> throw *all* currently systemd-specific features out in the name of
> diversity would be idiotic - it'd be like insisting that Debian must
> have various distro-specific non-FHS paths just for the sake of
> "diversity".

No, it isn't.

> If someone forks systemd, then most applications that require systemd
> functionality will presumably continue working with the fork

That's quite a big presumption to make about a project that doesn't (yet) exist, whose detailed goals are unspecified, over an unspecified timeframe.

> If nobody forks
> systemd, then apparently people don't consider systemd hegemony to cause
> that many problems - or at least not enough that they'd be willing to do
> actual work to address them.

Your reasoning here is not logically sound. See, for instance, the competing scenarios point above.



Reply to: