On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: [ snip ] > well or does better than other init process start up systems. The main > objection from what I understand is the removal of choice that systemd > developers have forced upon users, by making certain architectural decisions. > These are decisions which may look optimal for RHL, but appear to be less so > for the rest of the *nix ecosystem given the objections to systemd across the > populace.
I'm sorry, but what is being forced on whom? Everything is Free Software, anyone can choose to use SysV, OpenRC, or Upstart if they so do desire. *Someone* needs to support that software, though. In the case of SysV and OpenRC, I don't think they will have problem; they will probably live forever. Upstart, on the other hand, could be easily be dead in a couple of months: its original author actually endrses systemd [1]. > For some Gentoo users in particular, removing the choice of running /usr on a > separate partition (without *forcing* the use of initramfs) created the first > pain point, or wakeup call. That has nothing to do with systemd, nor udev; they actually work with /usr in another partition, they just print a warning. And presently OpenRC also requires an initramfs if you have /usr on another partition. Again, that is not *forcing* anything on anyone. It's just maintainers (Gentoo devs in the case of Gentoo's council decision) limiting the total number of supported combinations, because the number of developers/maintainers we have is finite. Again, if anyone wants *every*, possible combination, *someone* has to write the software to support them. > Many complaints were posted on this M/L, > centering on this removal of choice. Unlike binary distros Gentoo is all > about choice, so the complaints were perhaps louder than elsewhere. Gentoo and Linux in general are about choice, as long as someone is willing and able to write the software to support that choice. > People speaking of *nix design philosophy are not necessarily having a rant, > but can be legitimately concerned that architectural decisions to hardwire > systemd into Linux will remove choice from its wider user base. *Any* choice will be *always* available as long as someone willing and able to write the software to support that choice. > I am similarly concerned that a monoculture has less success of survival. I think that's a legitimate concern, but it's again kind of philosophical; all the software it's out there: systemd, Upstart, OpenRC, SysV, the kernel (including all the versions from the last 22 years), GNOME, KDE, etc., and it's libre. If systemd dies, we will replace it with something cooler. I'm willing to bet the functioning of all my machines to that (as I'm currently doing). > The fact > that Debian decided to embrace the systemd option will no doubt have an impact > on what Gentoo follows. For sure. > I am not educated in init start up systems to know why other options were not > considered as part of the Debian debate. Is it that runit, or epoch or what- > else are not even close in terms of functionality, versatility and choice? > Framing a question can narrow the answers. I don't know those init systems enough to give you an answer. What I do know if that none of them has the momentum of systemd, or as many developers (and their undeniable talent), as systemd. But who knows, if someone willing and able keeps punching at it (with code, not rants), maybe from there it will come the next big thing. > I hope that whatever the Gentoo decision may be one day, it will not > irreversibly remove choice from us Gentoo-ers. The only way a choice will be always available, is that someone is willing and able to write the software to support it. It's really that simple. Regards. [1] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ScottJamesRemnant/posts/4eHMc2tvp7C -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
