Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

[Daniel Campbell]

On 02/17/2014 06:17 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Thanks to all who chimed in...
>
> On 2014-02-16 3:27 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> You may have lost it in the link that Volker posted (thanks Volker),
>>> but this
>>> comment from HaakonKL probably sums it up:
>>>
>>> "... I will give Upstart this though: Should something better come
>>> along, you
>>> could replace upstart. I guess this holds true for OpenRC as well.
>>>
>>> You can't say that about systemd."
>
>> I had read that blog entry before. Is full of errors, like believing
>> that everything that systemd does is inside PID 1.
>
> Maybe it is 'full of errors', but is the primary point true?
>
>> There is actually little code inside PID 1;
>
> The quoted text said nothing about this, so please stay on point.
>
> As to the point raised:
>
>>> Can you surgically remove systemd in the future without reverse
>>> engineering
>>> half of what the LSB would look at the time, or will its developers
>>> ensure
>>> that this is a one time choice only?
>
>> You guys talk about software like if it was a big bad black magical
>> box with inexplicable powers.
>>
>> If someone is willing and able, *everything* can be "surgically
>> remove[d]". We got rid of devfs, remember? We got rid of OSS (thank
>> the FSM for ALSA). We got rid of HAL (yuck!). GNOME got rid of bonobo,
>> and ESD. KDE got rid of aRts (and who knows what more).
>
> I think you are being a little disingenuous here.
>
> The obvious unspoken meaning behind the 'can you surgically remove' was:
>
> Can you do it *easily*? I'm sure you would not suggest that getting rid
> of the above were 'easy'?
>
> It simply doesn't matter if systemd boils down to one monolithic binary,
> or 600, if they are tied together in such a way that they can not
> *individually* be replaced *easily and simply* (ie, without having to
> rewrite the whole of systemd).
>
> That said, it seems to me that, for now at least, it isn't that big a
> deal to switch back and forth between systemd and, for example, OpenRC.
>
> So my main concern is - will it still be possible - *and* easy - in a
> year? Three years? Five? If the answer to *any* of those is no, then I
> think the best solution - for gentoo at least - is to make whether or
> not systemd is to be used more like a *profile* choice - a decision that
> you can make at install time, similar to choosing between hardened or
> not (not easy/simple to switch to/from after a system is up and running).
>
> In fact, it seems to me that, since (from what I've read) the primary
> reason that systemd was written in the first place was to provide
> extremely fast boots *in virtualized environments*, having it be a
> choice made by selecting a corresponding *profile* is the *ideal*
> solution - at least for gentoo. At least this way everything could be
> documented, and switching between a systemd and non-systemd profile can
> be supported for as long as possible, understanding that at some point
> in time it may have to become an install time choice - kind of like
> choosing between hardened or not is mostly an install time choice now.
>

That's actually a really smart idea. It would allow for the integration
that systemd-fans desire and still respect the choice of people that
don't want systemd on their systems. Combined with USE flags and the
PORTDIR_MASK variable (iirc), it should create a "best of both worlds"
situation for Gentoo and a decision wouldn't need to be made. Despite my
distaste for systemd, I think this is a great middle ground that
everyone could, with some considerations or compromises, agree to.