Debian Init System Coupling Vote Results

[Marc Driftmeyer]

lolwut

This was not a Technical Committee vote. The Debian Project just had a general referendum with over 400 voters. Ian Jackson proposed the referendum to override the technical committee decision which was made months ago. He just lost, and by a lot.

The winning option was an amendment that basically said "This is stupid and Ian Jackson is wasting our fucking time."

The best news I've read all day. Ian Jackson has wasted hundreds of hours of Debian Technical Committee time. Perhaps he'll have the balls to resign?

[terrywang]

Debian moves at the speed of the US government, by the time they're done deciding what init system to use we'll be on SystemZ.

System Z is IBM. Probably systemX? LoL

[drspinderwalf]

*As was discussed once before I am writing "System D" in the way in which proper nouns have been written in English for the last few hundred years, and not the way that the System D creators do it, because I think their way is stupid. Moving on!

Languages change. That's why we don't speak in a similar dialect as two hundred years ago. It's fine if you don't like the name systemd, but 'that's the way it's always been' (which is a lie) remains a silly fallacy.

[rikkinho]

hm

the majority wins and is the end of it, these guys need to learn to lose and stop this nonsense

[Chaz]

I never totally understood that thread but I think this whole affair WAS the rearguard battle. The original battle was System D* versus Upstart. Ian lost but he is not willing to accept total defeat. In his eyes total defeat is System D taking over Debian and exterminating all other init systems and therefore ruining Debian, and he believes that will happen if tight coupling with System D is allowed. So after he lost his primary objective of Upstart (and tight coupling of Upstart), he retreated toward the position of loose coupling. But others on the Committee were not satisfied with this and wanted tight coupling, so Ian fought a "rearguard action" (a battle you fight to defend yourself against a pursuing enemy while you are retreating) to stave them off. He lost that too when the Committee did not adopt loose coupling, so Ian fought another rearguard battle with the referendum. So he has been defeated in the original battle and also in his attempt to retreat to his Plan B position, so to complete the analogy we could say that Ian has now been not just defeated but annihilated.

*As was discussed once before I am writing "System D" in the way in which proper nouns have been written in English for the last few hundred years, and not the way that the System D creators do it, because I think their way is stupid. Moving on!

Er, never mind. Ian said he's predicting rearguard battles in the future.

[raulb]

There is nothing 'nonsensical' about it. Dissent and difference of opinion is supposed to be healthy but there seems to be a concerted effort to cast dissent as 'troublemaking' and demonize Ian Jackson as some sort of a villian which is a bit sad coming from a Linux community.

If you do not want dissent or difference of opinion then the Debian constitution should be amended without the possibility of raising GRs. There is no need to demonize other points of view. Presumably these structures exist so that these discussions can happen, and now that the discussion has happened and a democratic choice has been made, it shows everything is working as intended, healthily. What's not to like or dislike?

It's clear now the majority within the Debian community that can make the decision have made it in favour of systemd. While before there may have been the slightest doubt because it was a split vote 4:4 with the chairman's vote deciding, its now clear where the community stands, and continued efforts to change this will have little impact beyond bitterness and anger.

Redhat and derivatives and Debian and derivatives are firmly in the systemd bandwagon. This effectively makes systemd the defacto init for 99% of Linux systems. Even if you fork Debian a lot of future linux developments will presumably be made with systemd in mind, meaning compatibility will become a continuously growing effort. A lot of developers will target systems that have systemd, and you will have to request devs to support non systemd versions and they may not have the time or inclination to do that. So maintaining an up to date fork will be a time consuming affair.

Yesterday I had suggested Alpine linux as a project with potential for a lot of Debian server users since the main point of anger was about lack of choice and Alpine linux uses openrc and is focussed on networking, security and hosting VMs and containers. But this potential is in the context that a lot of future Linux developments will be made with systemd. Instead of arguments of a political nature discussion should be on if it's possible or feasible to have any sustainable engineering alternative to systemd that can be maintained for servers at least, and since these discussions can be had outside the heated theatre of pro and anti, they can be more productive.

[nanonyme]

There is nothing 'nonsensical' about it. Dissent and difference of opinion is supposed to be healthy but there seems to be a concerted effort to cast dissent as 'troublemaking' and demonize Ian Jackson as some sort of a villian which is a bit sad coming from a Linux community.

If you do not want dissent or difference of opinion then the Debian constitution should be amended without the possibility of raising GRs. There is no need to demonize other points of view. Presumably these structures exist so that these discussions can happen, and now that the discussion has happened and a democratic choice has been made, it shows everything is working as intended, healthily. What's not to like or dislike?

It's clear now the majority within the Debian community that can make the decision have made it in favour of systemd. While before there may have been the slightest doubt because it was a split vote 4:4 with the chairman's vote deciding, its now clear where the community stands, and continued efforts to change this will have little impact beyond bitterness and anger.

Redhat and derivatives and Debian and derivatives are firmly in the systemd bandwagon. This effectively makes systemd the defacto init for 99% of Linux systems. Even if you fork Debian a lot of future linux developments will presumably be made with systemd in mind, meaning compatibility will become a continuously growing effort. A lot of developers will target systems that have systemd, and you will have to request devs to support non systemd versions and they may not have the time or inclination to do that. So maintaining an up to date fork will be a time consuming affair.

Yesterday I had suggested Alpine linux as a project with potential for a lot of Debian server users since the main point of anger was about lack of choice and Alpine linux uses openrc and is focussed on networking, security and hosting VMs and containers. But this potential is in the context that a lot of future Linux developments will be made with systemd. Instead of arguments of a political nature discussion should be on if it's possible or feasible to have any sustainable engineering alternative to systemd that can be maintained for servers at least, and since these discussions can be had outside the heated theatre of pro and anti, they can be more productive.

Well, as a summary the results of this vote was technical matters should not be made into politics. However, though Ian has already made several poor judgement calls on this systemd matter, I do hope he will be capable of cooling his head and providing his expertise in matters not involving systemd. I'm perfectly sure TC has a lot of real work to do now that it can stop getting stuck on debating systemd.

[sunweb]

System Z is IBM. Probably SystemEX? LoL

fiexed for more appeal

[prodigy_]

Instead of arguments of a political nature discussion should be on if it's possible or feasible to have any sustainable engineering alternative to systemd that can be maintained for servers at least, and since these discussions can be had outside the heated theatre of pro and anti, they can be more productive.

Such an "alternative" can never be a true alternative if everything either depends on systemd or is incorporated into it. So the answer is no, you can't remove politics from this discussion.

[curaga]

fiexed for more appeal

But FooEx is Microsoft. Dammit we're running out of letters.