Hello, On Sun, 10 Aug 2014, Pascal Bleser wrote:
If you get to the core of it, at least from my personal opinion, it boils down to resistance to change.
Not in my case. But the "new" stuff has to offer something substantially. I used to build -test kernels, e.g. 2.4.0-test* because they offered me something substatial (and after an extended test phase, I actually used -test16 rather long, IIRC).
Some people want to keep it as it has always been, arguing that this automatically means stability and robustness, and predictability.
Not me. Not for the sake of it. But I guess I like to assess the newest and greatest for a bit longer than others.
(I don't believe that is true necessarily)
True.
Some people want things to change in order to improve, have new features that will allow better functioning.
Well, how about Xorg? My xorg.conf used to be a XF86Config and was created somewhen around 2001 for my old CRT / Matrox Mystique. With small changes, I've now switched to a TFT and a nvidia GT610 Card (with some intermediate steps), and still there is very little being probed, as my xorg.conf is rather complete, namely: - the PCI-bus is probed for the card - the nvidia-driver probes the card details - the mouse-driver probes the buttons etc. - the MCE/IR driver probes the DVB-Remote-Receiver Such is nice.
(personally I believe Linux has grown up and taken enough market share to go its own way and stop being held down by the burden of ancient UNIX compliance, stand on its own feet, just look at containers and docker -- but that is merely my personal opinion, given for contrast with the previous ones)
But you needn't exclude other stuff (e.g. other libc's).
I think that the pretty emotional component of the reactions and statements on the topic does reinforce the idea that it is mostly about that psychological aspect.
If you step back and look at the big picture, the whole process of how systemd crept up as a "just a new init" up to what it's now (and what it may gobble up next), you may reevaluate those reactions ...
What I mean to say is: I sincerely do not believe a vote would have provided any further guidance. That is not to say that the whole topic could have been approached in a more transparent manner. But transparency also requires responsible community members.
Aye.
Including not making inflammatory claims, play the vocal minority bully card, threatening to leave (*) or harm, or just downright lies and trolling, etc...
(*) bye David. seriously. claiming that in a community driven project, the opinion or preference of a single person should trump everything else is ridiculous.
Oooh, I was far from it. But I _am_ very sad to even consider jumping ship (because choice is ripped from me). I've been in the SuSE community for so long, I'd probably even keep reading and writing ... Finding systemd-shim sparked a new hope and I as I knew that the decision was "made" to use systemd, I added the PS to explain my motivation to come up with that dreaded subject "to systemd or not to systemd" once again ... I've thought about adding a '!' to the subject. Or a '?'. I thought, well, better neither. In hindsight, a '?' might have been more appropriate. Anyway: the thread is rather revealing about the character of some people ...
But it is indeed too late to revert back as that we are already depend too much on systemd and it would create a lot of havoc if we would remove it now. However I don't think that this should close the door for alternatives. As David indicated that he has been contributing a lot in the last years, maybe he is willing to work on the integration of a systemd alternative.
I am.
Contributing a lot in the last years does not give you the right to threaten to enforce your opinion upon a community.
Read my thread-starting mail again. And above. If you feel intimidated of me "enforcing" my opinion on the community ... I don't know if I should be flattered ... It never crossed my mind.
Watch the poisonous people video again for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM
TL,DW (yet, have it DL'ed). But I can guess, I have my experiences. Have you looked at LP's work yet from that angle? I've just skipped through it a bit looking at the slides. Hm. It might be quite interesting to check LP against some of those slides.
Technical arguments may be valid though. But you can't just list issues with systemd and leave out: - that other solutions have issues of their own, especially SysV init
Correct.
- that systemd does open the door to a wealth of new very useful features, that are starting to be adopted more and more, after the transition phase from init
I don't know about the "useful". A lot of stuff I find simply "poisonous".
- that the doomsday claims that were made when the discussion came up have proven to be wrong
I'll pass on that (which claims etc.).
- that whatever the init system is, programs will have a dependency on it, at the very least to its requirement and behaviour, as it was the case for init too
Nope. No program I know of has ever cared about whether it was started by sysvinit, upstart, openrc or some handcrafted shell-script or whatnot. Programs had not to change. With systemd, they have to, as evidenced by the dependencies of so many programs, that a -shim is needed to get away without systemd.
- that systemd is now clearly the actively developed solution for the majority of developers and projects, and is best option to go forward with
I doubt that.
- the many issues going with an alternative would bring -- even Canonical was forced to see the light on that point,
I guess it was that more and more of upstream just required systemd. Because they thought they had to support systemd, because distros used systemd because "it's the best thing since sliced bread". See the "creeping in"? And systemd-shim is still "brand" new, newer than Canonicals decision, AFAIR.
despite their extreme Not Invented Here syndrome etc...
For perspective.
Same, same. -dnh -- 268: MCSE Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert. (User Friendly) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org