also sprach The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> [2014-10-16 15:12 +0200]: > 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.
I don't think this is the case. The CTTE's decision was IMHO based largely on the trust that we, as Debian, could help systemd reach our standards. There were/are very strong arguments for some of the technology and innovations around systemd. The main counter-arguments were IIRC the monolithic design, and the unapproachable upstream team. The CTTE ruled that those could be overcome and then the benefits would win. > 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. I hear your cries, and we could howl together if you want. And I really wish systemd would exist in Debian experimental and nowhere else for now. But the reality is that progress is driven during the Debian release cycle. And while this might mean that jessie will hurt a lot of people, ultimately, it'll advance us. You can just stay with wheezy for now. I will. There is hope! https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00001.html And even if this GR doesn't get voted, or ultimately won't have much of an effect, I am going to bet you a beer that jessie+1 will be a massive improvement over jessie, especially wrt init systems, or just systemd. > > 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. You know, Debian could just do that and it'd mean something to the world. Before doing so, I agree it would be necessary to carefully assess the existing forks first though. However, I would be surprised if the possibility of a fork wasn't part of the consideration of the CTTE when they made this (awefully difficult) decision. We are Free Software (or Open-Source, whatever), we try to avoid duplicate work through the reuse of code. A lot of interesting work is being done based on the systemd innovations. Believe me, I *don't* like systemd and what it forces me to do, but it'd be silly to forego all this derivative work by deciding to split from the herd. Instead, let's make our way to the front and lead the herd. This is what Debian has done in the past, and what we should do again in the future. We haven't been able/motivated to do this with all the *Kit software, while it was mostly optional. Systemd currently isn't optional. I hate that. But maybe this is what's required for us to assume the steering wheel again? -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "man kann die menschen nur von ihren eigenen meinungen überzeugen." -- charles tschopp
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
