(Earlier apology repeated.) On Mar 5, 2014 2:21 AM, "Uoti Urpala" <uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi> wrote: > Sysvinit never worked well.
Nothing's perfect. The point is, there currently exist use cases for which SysV *is* acceptable and systemd *isn't* - as they stand today and as they will stand for the foreseeable future. If that weren't the case, I doubt anyone would be terribly concerned about moving to systemd now or in the foreseeable future; but it is the case, so some people are concerned, and understandably so. > For many years GCC was the only credible open-source compiler. Even if > you think that the eventual appearance of LLVM as an alternative was a > positive thing, do you really think it would have been a good idea for > Debian to require before that that all packages must work OK if compiled > with some other non-GCC compiler? Or that such a policy would actually > have worked to create multiple credible compiler alternatives sooner? That's an invalid analogy. A closer analogy would be requiring that packages not tie themselves to LLVM. But since Debian is a binary distro, this is still a poor analogy, IIUC. Not every user needs to run a compiler, but every user needs an init that works on their system. Regards, Sam
