1 |
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:34:35 -0600, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > How is putting systemd setting in a profile that a user has to |
4 |
> > consciously choose to use forcing anything on anyone? Profiles are |
5 |
> > the essence of choice but it appears you only want the choices you |
6 |
> > approve of to be available. |
7 |
|
8 |
> Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly. Logically, a "non systemd" |
9 |
> profile would necessitate either a systemd profile, or require the |
10 |
> default to already ship systemd. I hadn't considered the prior |
11 |
> existence of systemd profiles, which we currently have, so afaict the |
12 |
> issue is mostly moot. |
13 |
|
14 |
We already have non-systemd profiles. Until recently that is all we had. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Choices are great until the existence of other choices infringes on |
17 |
> mine. Profiles prevent that, so I have no problem with systemd |
18 |
> profiles. The problem lies with evangelists who aren't happy with |
19 |
> systemd being *a* choice. They want systemd to be *the* choice, *the* |
20 |
> default. That is what I take issue with. |
21 |
|
22 |
Why are you so concerned about the default, not that anyone in this |
23 |
thread has suggested making systemd the default, not even Canek? If you |
24 |
cannot use eselect profile set, Gentoo is not for you anyway? The |
25 |
handbook tells you to select a profile quite early in the installation, |
26 |
there is no default - portage complain loudly if you haven't chosen a |
27 |
profile, so I fail to see how anyone can force systemd (or openrc for |
28 |
that matter) on users when the choice must be made. |
29 |
|
30 |
There are technical arguments for and against systemd, which is why this |
31 |
thread was started, rhetoric about forcing default profiles on people |
32 |
when there is no such thing as a default profile only serve to cloud the |
33 |
real issues. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Neil Bothwick |
38 |
|
39 |
System halted - hit any Microsoft employee to continue. |