From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF12138BF3 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8788CE0C06; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31A44E0BF4 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:19:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q8so10688252lbi.14 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:19:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NPOzPWbo8cG+uWPDOvNYWmtbPuSl4Eq9fXTPgFeEHVo=; b=TPKvRlWN0yIN99X3pzSqIly3ZCLqgcjB4CWf9TFYr9FOQ64Wm5ut4RREnXImCdg/cu rU7l4g7PIbpdflqKnGSElmmVIgAUeN/MfOhfBnPKMoc22ayrkiZ+u8wwzz/fsSQTtz3D ksfMPjLrk/TPbVmNeq5HG4Ma9pS4O8bUhmZc71mWF/julv1QhRO6+IKh7cZzwRfJSIKl jkVlwSWI3Ab5yUxBDJ3DH9rYUh7ATz/YiI5iiab/em7NgQ9eb+BfA4pvzgov/sXqrH8w D3ck/VUSwUn1ZRYaoxnka67Brss5QVBD6ZbGaBFlnXjjlnc6VDrhGn0XlhtzEFA05EEq PMWA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.64.37 with SMTP id l5mr2845895lbs.49.1392581948105; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.67 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:19:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <53010ADB.2070708@yandex.ru> References: <52FF84CE.2050301@libertytrek.org> <52FF9D58.3000608@libertytrek.org> <201402152023.10543.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <5300DD51.5060207@libertytrek.org> <53010ADB.2070708@yandex.ru> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:19:08 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d3d0225a-10c7-4eab-b65b-b39ea7500b65 X-Archives-Hash: 38b89c4c4c896fa1c50f91a6aa648eb6 On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote= : [ snip ] > Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of > systemd? ;) As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical. Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion). > I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into an= y > existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just practi= cal > uselessness? If it's "practically useless", why so many distributions keep choosing it? Why GNOME started using it? > Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the Linux > kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of > kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has muc= h > in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us it > provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc. All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft becomes moot. > A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the > questions: > 1. Is the software standards-compliant? > 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation? > 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal? > 4. Does the software achieve the goal? > 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"? > 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be li= ke? > 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or grou= p? That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care if Emacs is "standards-compliant" (whatever that means for a text editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be yes. > AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are dubi= ous > if just plain "no". >From your point of view. > I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to switc= h > to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and the benef= it, > if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold. That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd, then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it. That's how free software works. > But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. T= ime > is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, twice t= he > money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the users' opinion. = To > be a realist, one has to admit that in near future 90% of new distro > versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx emerge and take ov= er > Red Hat... I don't think neither time nor money had to do with Debian's (nor Arch's, nor OpenSuse's, nor Maegia's, nor Sabayon's) decision. It's just technically superior. But's that's just my opinion, and what I believe ;) So, amen? :D Regards. --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico