On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:59:20AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > Whether your argument was honest or not, I think it was a bad one. OK, > perhaps you have concerns about the philosophy behind systemd and where > that might take it in the future. Such "philosophy" issues are rather > subjective. But your argument objectively fails at the "... and > therefore moving to systemd may not be the right choice" part. Your > concerns, even if taken seriously, do justify such a conclusion. If > systemd development goes in a direction you don't like, the rational > answer is to fork it and do better if you can. Leaving Debian behind > with an inferior init system is not an answer to your concerns.
Since Debian is always in need of developers and volunteers, it isn't objectively reasonable to expect that forking a project will be possible. One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the *likelihood* that upstream will take development in an undesirable direction, or in a direction that is not acceptable for Debian. For example, if an upstream expresses disinterest in supporting non-PC architectures, that may be a bad piece of software for Debian to place in an important role, even if it currently works on all our architectures, since Debian is very portable among different architectures. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
