Josselin Mouette <joss <at> debian.org> writes: > > Debian should continue to offer free choice of the init system > > Why? “Multiple init systems” is not a feature that any of our users > should care of. It is not a functional goal.
Of course! • Developers are users, too. • The upstart crowd has got valid arguments for choosing it. • Someone might want to use cgroups for themselves instead of having an init system to manage it, e.g. on a very light-weight VM host. • Run kernels without cgroups support on RAM-constrained hardware. • Your primary use case appears to be “the desktop”, whereas Debian, as opposed to some of its downstreams and Pure Blends, is a Universal OS, which means it’s got much more servers in use, which don’t benefit from systemd either at all or at least not that much. • On a VM, I might want to run very low-consuming software only, to lower the cost of separating things into VMs of their own. (I’ll be writing a syslog dæmon some day because sysklogd (three processes, c’mon!) is now removed from the archive and both rsyslog and syslog-ng are waaaaaaaaay too heavy-weight for this, for example.) Note I’m trying to be constructive here for a change. > > And in reality it seems to be far less modular than what the Lennart and > > friends keep up claiming (just have a look at Tollef's post above). > > You just don’t have the same definition of “modular”. > Systemd is extremely modular in its architecture. It doesn’t mean, > though, that it is possible to pick random pieces to use without the > others. I’ll not say anything here but just let this stand of its own, complete with context, until it sinks in… bye, //mirabilos -- 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/loom.20131025t130253-...@post.gmane.org
