Debian Is Back To Discussing Init Systems, Freedom of Choice

[Luke_Wolf]

My reaction:



I really need to return to my PW/AA Debian cases now. In fact, I'm about done with one project, so it's a good time to do so!

Please do. Also could you make a thread to post links to all the ones you've done, and Michael could you make it a sticky?

[carewolf]

Choice was never a problem for the last 18 years - it was sysV or sysV. Why is having the choice of a plethora of init systems so important now?

Actually Debian has supported multiple init systems for as long as I remember. At least sysv and filerc were both fully supported, but there is also a working openrc package.

[Delgarde]

Reminds me of the US congress.

On the contrary... these people are making Congress look good...

[Baconmon]

Ian jackson is cancer!!..

Ian jackson is such a sore loser.. Of course he couldn't throw this question up to general resolution right after the init-system debate, because that would be been ridiculous.. But he did it pretty much as soon as he possibly could..

He acts like an absolute baby, crying and whining that his dearly beloved upstart lost to systemd.. He just WON'T let it go.. He does NOT care about what is best for debian, he only cares about getting HIS way.. Don't believe me?.. Think about it: He knows how much extra work it will be for all the maintainers if some thing ridiculous like this passes, but he STILL doesn't care!.. He will be like "Thanks for all of you maintainers having to eternally do tons of extra work on every package update, just so I can still have every package work with upstart! MUHAHAHAHA"

Doesn't he work for ubuntu or some thing?.. He is probably just trying to make it easier for ubuntu to use their own in-house upstart thing..

An other sneaky thing he is doing is: The WORDING of his proposal.. It has been very carefully crafted to try to corral all of the people voting on the general-resolution.. He uses phrases like this:
"This GR seeks to preserve the freedom"
"and the project's freedom to select"

He is basically trying to SPIN every thing in his stupid proposal to try to make it seem like a boon for debian's priciples and values.. When in reality it would destroy debian (to some extent)..

This is the same type of tactic that governers and politics use to try to get people to vote for some thing that is actually bad for them.. They make it seem like "Vote for Freedom! Vote for Liberty! Vote Yes on bill 37207456 that will give corporations the FREEDOM to set the minimum-wage as low as they want to for their employees!"

You see?.. ANY THING, no matter how stupid or evil, can be spun in to sounding like some thing GREAT! and WONDERFUL!..

That is why I am worried about the wording of ian jackson's stupid proposal going to a general resolution to be voted up on by many many people.. I am worried that those people will just think "Yes, I want debian to have freedom! I want to be able to have CHOICE in my init system! This resolution will empower me to be able to use what I want!", and then they will vote for it, and ian jackson will win.. −＿−＊

I honestly think ian jackson has done enough damage..or at the least, tried to.. And look, he is STILL trying.. He doesn't belong in debian any more.. He is selfish and only cares about his own ulterior motives, and he isn't even that good at hiding it.. He will make work for EVERY maintainer tons more difficult, and he knows it.. He needs to be forcefully removed from debian for ever....

....If you're a sheep herder, and there's a snake taking away your sheep, what do you do to the snake?....

[Artemis3]

I don't care as long as I?m not forced systemd. And i intend to avoid any package that depends on it. A base system should be functional without it, and a desktop (without gnome) should as well.

[curaga]

You see?.. ANY THING, no matter how stupid or evil, can be spun in to sounding like some thing GREAT! and WONDERFUL!..

Yes, just like the decision to go with systemd

[finalzone]

I don't care as long as I?m not forced systemd. And i intend to avoid any package that depends on it. A base system should be functional without it, and a desktop (without gnome) should as well.

You are free to not choose systemd but you cannot impose your choice to other increasing amount of projects (including KDE) adopting systemd components for their needs.
Feel free to make your own distribution or use non-systemd version and good luck maintaining them.

[Stauffen]

sarcastic response to sarcastic response

You are free to not choose systemd but you cannot impose your choice to other increasing amount of projects (including KDE) adopting systemd components for their needs.
Feel free to make your own distribution or use non-systemd version and good luck maintaining them.

If we had the money and the power of RedHat we not only would do as well as "forcing" the adoption of our Operating System for all major Distro. For now only the RedHat can do this.

[TheBlackCat]

If we had the money and the power of RedHat we not only would do as well as "forcing" the adoption of our Operating System for all major Distro. For now only the RedHat can do this.

Again, distros were not "forced". Pretty much all the distros that switched, switched long before any major projects depended on systemd. That includes Red Hat's biggest competitor, Suse.

And again, systemd is not Red Hat project. It is a project contributed to be Red Hat, Suse, Arch, and many, many other groups.

[gamerk2]

Stupid question: Why are upstream projects relying on functionality from the Init system? Seems to be there's a more fundamental problem at work here: one of basic kernel design.