(Earlier apology repeated.)
On Mar 5, 2014 2:21 AM, "Uoti Urpala" <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
> Sysvinit never worked well.
Nothing's perfect. The point is, there currently exist use cases for which SysV *is* acceptable and systemd *isn't* - as they stand today and as they will stand for the foreseeable future.
If that weren't the case, I doubt anyone would be terribly concerned about moving to systemd now or in the foreseeable future; but it is the case, so some people are concerned, and understandably so.
> For many years GCC was the only credible open-source compiler. Even if
> you think that the eventual appearance of LLVM as an alternative was a
> positive thing, do you really think it would have been a good idea for
> Debian to require before that that all packages must work OK if compiled
> with some other non-GCC compiler? Or that such a policy would actually
> have worked to create multiple credible compiler alternatives sooner?
That's an invalid analogy. A closer analogy would be requiring that packages not tie themselves to LLVM. But since Debian is a binary distro, this is still a poor analogy, IIUC. Not every user needs to run a compiler, but every user needs an init that works on their system.
Regards,
Sam