On 25/03/2014 22:08, »Q« wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:37:20 -0400 > Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: > >> On 3/20/2014 5:48 PM, »Q« <boxc...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> Why should Gentoo have a default? >> >> Defaults are always a good idea - as long as they are reasonable and >> rational. > > In that case, Gentoo is missing a lot of "good" things, from a default > system logger to a default desktop environment. > > AFAICS, the benefit of defaults, provided they're reasonable, is that > they remove the burden of making choices from the user. But I keep > reading that Gentoo is all about user choice.
You are conflating two things, it's actually quite disingenuous. Gentoo provides choice so you can do what you want. That doesn't preclude providing a default that suits people who see no need to make *that* choice for *them*, particularly when the thing being chosen is necessary or almost so. > >>> ISTM the only good reason is that not having a default would make >>> the documentation a lot more complicated. >> >> Documentation, *and* the install process itself. > > I'm not seeing that at all. You have to have *something* to be pid 1. the stage 3 might as well provide one of those somethings that suits the common case You can make it /bin/bash if you want, but that would be a very niche usage. The large majority of new installs will want a conventional init system whether SysVinit-based or systemd based. Traditionally SysVinit was the only real contender and baselayout/openerc were originally written for Gentoo. So those are still the defaults. Without a default, the user must set one up manually for things to work at all on first reboot. The install docs try hard to get the user through the necessary steps to get a bootable system, a lot of effort went into making the steps to accomplish that fewer, no more -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
