Re: My analysis of the proposals
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:59:58AM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-12-01 at 18:43 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > "Uoti" == Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> writes:
> >
> > Uoti> IMO encouragement for supporting alternative systems could be
> > Uoti> reasonable, but only for actual new innovation; maintainers
> > Uoti> should be explicitly permitted to remove any existing sysvinit
> > Uoti> scripts and refuse addition of similar scripts. Systemd units
> > Uoti> should be no worse a basis to bootstrap a new system.
> >
> >
> > This is what I tried to capture with Proposal B.
> > I wrote a blog post yesterday which still should be on planet discussing
> > my thoughts about this and discussing some of the risks of that
> > proposal.
>
> Based on your blog post, your technological views seem similar to mine.
> Where my view differs, and why I think Proposal B is not particularly
> satisfactory, is more about the social view of opposition to systemd.
>
> Like you, I think that from a technological point of view you shouldn't
> assume that those who want alternatives to systemd would support
> sysvinit. However, as a matter of social reality, people who oppose
> systemd almost exclusively do want to keep using sysvinit. People who
> find systemd objectionable mostly just don't want to switch to it,
> without really caring about whether their current setup is a
> technological dead end or not.
While I prefer systemd on my personal systems, I don't think this
framing is in any way correct or fair.
Sysvinit has worked for over 20 years. Yes, it has warts, but the warts
are well-known and can fairly easily be dealt with. More importantly,
the concept of how sysvinit works ("here's a bunch of scripts that are
executed" is at a certain level easier to grasp than systemd's concepts.
You may be of the opinion that systemd is strictly and obviously better,
but that is a judgment call, one which reasonable people may disagree
with. There is nothing wrong with being of the opinion that booting with
sysvinit is easier to grasp and preferable over using systemd. It is
therefore still a valid alternative for as long as Debian does not make
the use of systemd mandatory.
I therefore disagree in the strongest terms to make this be about the
position of sysvinit, except in so far as it is part of an abstract
group of "not systemd" options that we are trying to decide upon.
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Reply to: