| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-uno@××××××.ru> wrote: |
| 2 |
[ snip ] |
| 3 |
> Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of |
| 4 |
> systemd? ;) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why |
| 9 |
the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into any |
| 12 |
> existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just practical |
| 13 |
> uselessness? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If it's "practically useless", why so many distributions keep choosing |
| 16 |
it? Why GNOME started using it? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the Linux |
| 19 |
> kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of |
| 20 |
> kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has much |
| 21 |
> in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us it |
| 22 |
> provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft |
| 25 |
becomes moot. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the |
| 28 |
> questions: |
| 29 |
> 1. Is the software standards-compliant? |
| 30 |
> 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation? |
| 31 |
> 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal? |
| 32 |
> 4. Does the software achieve the goal? |
| 33 |
> 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"? |
| 34 |
> 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be like? |
| 35 |
> 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or group? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care |
| 38 |
if Emacs is "standards-compliant" (whatever that means for a text |
| 39 |
editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible |
| 40 |
implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be |
| 41 |
yes. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are dubious |
| 44 |
> if just plain "no". |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
From your point of view. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to switch |
| 49 |
> to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and the benefit, |
| 50 |
> if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and |
| 53 |
unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd, |
| 54 |
then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start |
| 55 |
maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
That's how free software works. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. Time |
| 60 |
> is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, twice the |
| 61 |
> money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the users' opinion. To |
| 62 |
> be a realist, one has to admit that in near future 90% of new distro |
| 63 |
> versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx emerge and take over |
| 64 |
> Red Hat... |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I don't think neither time nor money had to do with Debian's (nor |
| 67 |
Arch's, nor OpenSuse's, nor Maegia's, nor Sabayon's) decision. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
It's just technically superior. But's that's just my opinion, and what |
| 70 |
I believe ;) |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
So, amen? :D |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Regards. |
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 77 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 78 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives