Thomas Goirand wrote: > We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's > modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're > reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to > re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes effective. > That's a very different picture... :(
Your argument is complete nonsense. First, you're confusing modular architecture with the existence of alternative implementations for every part that can be freely switched without extra work. You've made similar fallacious arguments before - see this post for my earlier reply to one: https://lists.debian.org/<1370925376.18948.33.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid> Second, the earlier discussion was in the context of using systemd as the init system (NOT about trying to use some tools from systemd without actually running systemd the init). Surely you won't claim that tools depending on systemd as init is an argument to not use systemd as init! > Also, things like the the boot loader (syslinux, lilo, grub...), the GUI > login (kdm, gdm, xdm...), or the system logger (with even some remote > server syslogger available), have all for a long time, been > interchangeable very easily with just an apt-get install. It used to be > very simple and easy, and it should continue this way. > > We're now being told that we wont be able to choose *anymore*. This last > word is the most important of them all: anymore. I (and AFAICT others > too) see this as a regression (and this has absolutely nothing to do > with the quality of the components of Systemd), and a possible way to be > locked-in. People have been "locked in" to using sysvinit as the init system on Debian. If they are now "locked in" to using systemd, how is that a regression? And what can they not choose "*anymore*"? Not that I'd value arbitrary infrastructure choice for its own sake, but it seems that every single part you listed as having been choosable before would remain so with systemd as mandatory init. > Since there's a Ubuntu patch, why not? Because the patch is not free to carry and guaranteed to keep working as software is updated. In fact, it's already known that it does NOT keep working without significant extra work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382627323.1856.42.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
