On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:41:23PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Marty wrote: > >On 11/15/2014 07:45 PM, Ludovic Meyer wrote: > >>On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:26:26AM -0500, Marty wrote: > >>>On 11/11/2014 02:16 PM, Brian wrote: > >>>>On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 12:36:14 -0500, Marty wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>There are no functional differences between an installation with > >>>>>>sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is > >>>>>>installed later, this is a fact. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Allowing the user to choose this at install time from the > >>>interface is > >>>>>>a "nice to have" feature (wishlist bug) not a RC bug like you were > >>>>>>claiming earlier. > >>>>> > >>>>>There is a potential practical consequence of not advertising an > >>>>>init alternative during setup. It makes users less likely to be > >>>>>aware of it, or even aware that the init system has changed. > >>>> > >>>>New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the > >>>>choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed. By definition, > >>>>they do not care. They want Debian. Please let them have it. > >>> > >>>They will not care "by definition" only if they are not aware of the > >>>change, and most won't be aware unless they are informed during the > >>>installation. > >>> > >>>>>They won't know they lost the choice they didn't know they > >>>had. Capisce? > >>>> > >>>>What choice have they lost? > >>> > >>>They lost an *informed* choice. I think the installation program > >>>should not take sides but just inform the user. A choice that the > >>>user is not aware of is the same as no choice, and is potentially > >>>coercive and disrespectful. It makes Debian seem partial to Red > >>>Hat's business plan to take over the Linux ecosystem. > >> > >>If you care so much about Redhat code, maybe you should document > >>yourself, and see there pay coders for glibc, gcc, the kernel ( a > >>ton of them, according to lwn and linux fundations reports ), on > >>coreutils, gnome, kde, php, python, openssh, etc, etc. > >> > >>>> Whatever it was, it didn't exist as you imply > >>>> in Wheezy. > >>> > >>>It wasn't an issue in Wheezy because the default init option had not > >>>changed from the previous release, and any release before that. > >>> > >>>>>They won't know, that is, until it bites them somewhere down the > >>>>>line. Then they won't know where to look or who to blame, and will > >>>>>blame Debian. > >>>> > >>>>What bites them? > >>> > >>>Individually, probably something that requires sysvinit or one many > >>>core services that got replaced. Collectively, getting trapped by > >>>vendor lock-in. > >> > >>You keep using those words, but you do not seems to use them correctly. > >>If the same system is present on more than one distributio, that's not > >>vendor lock-in since you can switch distribution and then reuse the same > >>system. > > > >I meant that one vendor seeks to control the Linux ecosystem. > >Whether that plan is viable or even sane, is another issue, but I > >am not eager to see if their plan will succeed or be a guinea pin > >in the experiment. > > As much as I dislike systemd, I'm not sure that it's a vendor > conspiracy to "control the Linux ecosystem." Yes, redhat pays > Lennart Poettering's salary (among others). But... I'm hard pressed > to see how turning a collection of free distros into functional > equivalent's of redhat, or increasing the resources applied to free > distros, is really to their benefit. If anything, it would seem to > dilute the competitive advantage of paid RHEL. > > Personally, I think it's more a matter of one, prima donna > developer, who has the advantage of a salary, who has a vision and > design philosophy that he's promoting in a very aggressive and > single minded way. And he's very overt about it. (Somebody posted > an email from Poettering last week saying, roughly, 'first we're > going to get kdbus into the kernel, then we're going to make udev > depend on it, and then everyone will have to eat systemd to get > udev.' As I recall, the message closed with 'gentoo, be warned.') > > I figure this is more a case of redhat management not wanting to > tick off valued prima donna, and maybe seeing what he's doing as a > contribution to the open source community (to date, redhat has been > pretty good about contributing to the community in lots of different > ways). Still, if I were in their shoes, I'd be trying to reign the > guys in.
Why would the management of a external company care about what happen in Debian ? People keep wanting the project to be free of corporate influence, but it seems that some wouldn't be against having a bit of corporate influence if the influence was in the way they want.. > Given that RHEL's main selling points are enterprise > capabilities, quality control, and (for the government market) > security accreditation and lots of support, I'd much rather see > diversity and weak code spread across competing distributions. Canonical was criticized for keeping their code for their ( mir, unity ), and Redhat would be criticized for not keeping the code only for them. I guess there is no good way for a company to make free software that change something in the core of existing ecosystem. -- l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116144834.gb25...@gmail.com