On 10/16/2014 at 06:17 AM, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach David L. Craig <dlc....@gmail.com> [2014-10-14 00:16 > +0200]: > >> Jessie may need to be widely considered the Vista of Debian >> releases before a majority of DDs are willing to revisit the init >> default. > > Meanwhile, everyone who thinks this was the wrong decision should > work to ensure that sysvinit continues to work, and should try to > break dependencies between software and what some people think are > essentials for the desktop. > > Or engage with upstream and help shape systemd so it eventually > reaches Debian standards…
But what are "Debian standards"? The people who voted to make systemd the default init system presumably think that it already does meet Debian standards, at least to within acceptable tolerances. The people advocating for systemd on the Debian lists presumably think similarly. From my own perspective, I don't know about "Debian standards" in any detailed and specific way, but "shaping systemd" so that it meets *my* standards in that regard would involve changes which have been explicitly pre-rejected by upstream - and would quite possibly require either major re-architecting or even redesign, and maybe even dropping some of the features and/or functionality which it currently provides. None of that is likely to ever happen, so it is unlikely that systemd will ever come to meet my standards in these regards, whether anyone engages with upstream for that purpose or not. > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/09/msg01640.html > >> The is currently no means to garner meaningful data about Jessie's >> approval ratings, which likely means the release team will, as >> usual, just guess what will fly. They've had an enviable run, to >> be sure. > > The benefits of Debian, its policy and this community still far > outweigh the problems imposed by systemd. And most alternatives also > (will have to) incorporate systemd, so the only thing you can argue > is that systemd is currently weighing down the quality of Linux in > general. But it's open-source and we can make it ours and better. Not without forking or reimplementing it, I'm pretty sure. It appears that some people have already done that, in two or three different projects at least; I've heard of uselessd and systembsd, among possibly others, though I'm not following (or more than peripherally aware of) any of them specifically yet. I think it's unlikely that any of them will be able to meet the standards which I would find appropriate while also retaining all the features / functionality on which upstreams have chosen to depend, but I would be very glad to be wrong. Working to support and improve those forks would indeed probably be a good, and potentially productive, idea. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
