Debian Init System Discussion Is Still Unsettled

[GreatEmerald]

Yeah, there was some pretty heated argument on that... apparently the committee member who started the vote shouldn't have done so without further discussion of what they were voting for.

Seriously, the way things are going, I don't expect a decision this year. There's a slight leaning towards systemd over upstart, but having followed this thread over the past two months, I'm pretty sure they've got plenty more "further discussion" still to come. They've been arguing over the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems, they've been arguing over what kind of transition plans they need, they've been arguing over what the committee is actually authorised to rule on, and arguing over the minutia of any ruling that they might theoretically issue. All important things to consider, but there's very little sign of progress...

Yeap. The original vote was kind of an attempt to get things rolling ? if they vote on the system to choose, they can then start thinking about further plans of transitioning etc. since they have a point of reference. But now Ian Jackson wants the vote to include several other things at the same time, making things more complicated (talking about something called "facts on the ground", I have no idea what that means). And so people are now arguing about what points the vote should include, and how the points should be worded... And whatever happens, a GR seems to be inevitable anyway.

[tomegun]

I remember when ArchLinux had introduced systemd, they lose 30% of users Good Luck

I really had the opposite impression. Where do you get those numbers from?

Cheers,

Tom

[intellivision]

Only about two of them are actually going over the technical details, while one clearly showed that he's only backing upstart because of Ubuntu and nothing else.

I'm glad that I switched my Debian systems to Fedora after Fedora 20 was released.

So you switch your stable distro choice to... an unstable system choice?

I'm glad I don't use you as a hosting company, LOL.

[justmy2cents]

So you switch your stable distro choice to... an unstable system choice?

I'm glad I don't use you as a hosting company, LOL.

one doesn't need to be rocket scientist to solve this enigma. run fedora with all the bling for development and testing while keeping eye on stable bounds, run centos on non-critical and rh subscription on mission critical.

by running fedora not only you get damn stable distro even though it publicizes it self as bleeding edge, you also get a preview into things to come in rh world. same reason as damn lot of ppl end up running debian sid, stable simply comes too late for some needs. but, unlike sid, fedora is actually stabilized bleeding edge for every release.

[Delgarde]

And whatever happens, a GR seems to be inevitable anyway.

Oh yes, and that's one of the things they're arguing about, over whether their decision should follow the usual rules over what size majority is needed for a GR to overturn it...

[interested]

Oh yes, and that's one of the things they're arguing about, over whether their decision should follow the usual rules over what size majority is needed for a GR to overturn it...

The weird thing about this is, that Ian Jackson, who protested that the original voting proposition didn't have a clause about how a GR could overturn the technical committee with a simple majority, now a making counter proposals without any trace of such clause.

Another crazy thing is, that instead of breaking the complex questions down into simple simple questions, resolving one problem at a time like chairman Bdale suggested, they now have an extremely complicated ballot, wide open for different interpretations.

[Akka]

I remember when ArchLinux had introduced systemd, they lose 30% of users Good Luck

I think Arch got a influx of user after the switch to systemd. Partly because of all the media attention. Of course some of the more odd users probably disappeared, including the troll at the mailing list. That was hardly a loss....

[Ouroboros]

So you switch your stable distro choice to... an unstable system choice?

I'm glad I don't use you as a hosting company, LOL.

Debian sid --> Fedora. Mainly used as build environments for various things.

[Guest]

New questions from the latest Debian ballot:

1) Are you sure that you are not sure that you don't want to Debian not to switch to systemd?

2) Do you think it will not be good to not switch from sysvinit to something other than upstart?

3) Did you considered to switch or not to switch from sysvinit to sysvainit before switching to initng?

...

I wonder when they will choose new init.

[DeeK]

by running fedora not only you get damn stable distro even though it publicizes it self as bleeding edge, you also get a preview into things to come in rh world. same reason as damn lot of ppl end up running debian sid, stable simply comes too late for some needs. but, unlike sid, fedora is actually stabilized bleeding edge for every release.

You're forgetting Debian jessie, for a stable bleeding edge distribution. Never mind that you can also use pinning with Debian apt, to keep your base system as the stable distribution, while cherry-picking packages from testing, unstable, and experimental for installation. Works beautifully, and is a great way to keep your system rock stable, while enjoying the latest versions of whatever you need. That's something Fedora cannot do, from my knowledge.