On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 11:38:19 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/11/2014 at 10:54 AM, Brian wrote: > > > systemd is the default init system. That means everyone gets it. > > No - that only means that everyone gets it by default, not necessarily > that everyone gets it.
Everyone gets it. Not everyone boots with it. Not everyone who boots first time with it gets to use it on subsequent boots. > Unfortunately, no one seems interested in recognizing that people *DO > NOT AGREE* about what the word "default" means (or should mean) in the > context of "the default init system", or in having a discussion about > what it should mean - or even in figuring out what each other do mean by > that term, and possibly finding other ways to describe those meanings so > that the ambiguity goes away. > > > You can only have one init system as PID 1, so that means changing to > > an alternative involves removing systemd first. > > Only if systemd is already installed as PID 1, which is precisely what > the disagreement is about. > > You subscribe to a meaning of "default" which assumes that systemd must > necessarily get installed as PID 1 before anything else happens. That's > also what the current state of what actually happens is. > > Other people subscribe to a meaning of "default" which, e.g., assumes > only that systemd will get installed as PID 1 unless some action is > taken to prevent it from getting so installed. That seems like an > entirely reasonable interpretation, at least to me. > > It looks to me like you're assuming the consequent - building your > argument on the assumption that what your opponent is arguing against is > the truth. That's not really a good way to make progress in any discussion. Isn't the installation of systemd as PID 1 from, for example, a netinst image a fact? In all this discussion no-one has disputed this. > > "Clean" install is a bogus target. There is not a single technical > > advantage in pursuing it as a feature to add to d-i. Changing the > > init system within the package management framework works and has no > > disadvantages. > > At the very least, it has the minor disadvantage of wasting resources > (time, CPU power, write cycles, et cetera) on installing the non-desired > package to begin with. > > Other disadvantages may be more a matter of opinion, but that one at > least does exist, however negligible it may arguably be. I'd like to say it is negligible and merely a consequence of using the package management system as intended. > (Hmm. There may be a parallel here; many of those objecting to systemd > do so on the grounds that it violates what they see as clean design, and > at least one of the people objecting to the "install systemd as PID 1 > and then remove it later before ever booting into it" approach seems to > be doing so on the grounds that that is not a clean design...) Sorry, I don't do sysvinit vs systemd arguments. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
