4 ms·

SystemD was selected by the Technical committee, which was very far from unanimous in the decision. SystemD caused problems at the time and there was no reason

SystemD was selected by the Technical committee, which was very far from unanimous in the decision. SystemD caused problems at the time and there was no reason not to postpone the decision to Jessie+1, which is what Debian usually does in such cases: "more discussion needed". Debian broke their social contract, showing that their priority was no longer with their users.

bayindirh 8y ago
> SystemD was selected by the Technical committee, which was very far from unanimous in the decision. I didn't know that. I thought the poll was open to anyone to vote for the relevant time window. > Debian broke their social contract, showing that their priority was no longer with their users. Isn't this a little bold claim? AFAICS, the poll has spotted the potential problems and general grievances pretty well (like binary logs, etc.), and concluded that these reservations should be addressed before systemd has included in Debian? I'm not trying to defend systemd here. As I said in my comments, I disliked it first, and then I learnt and got used to it. My teammates has shown bigger reactions to it, and then they liked it too, after we configured it to behave the way we like. I didn't migrate to systemd voluntarily. It fell from above on me in a pretty hard way.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  If you don't know about the referral to the Debian Technical Committee, then there's a lot that you do not know (including to be wary of threads where "systemd" is mis-spelled "SystemD", as that is a common shibboleth). There was a whole Hoo-Hah. It was years long. People resigned over it. The votes and discussions are often misrepresented by people recounting the tale. (Common misrepresentations: presenting it as a two-way contest between van Smoorenburg init+rc and systemd, when OpenRC and Upstart were both included, and both favoured over van Smoorenburg init+rc; presenting it as a single vote when there were several, including some votes on Debian General Resolutions by all of the club members; presenting the wiki pages written by the partisans and ignoring the lengthy technical reports from the TC members.)
  - bayindirh 8y ago
    I'm aware of the Debian's Technical Committee, but I was unable to follow them all-along during that so-called discussion. During this period, I was a developer and so-called tech lead of a Debian derivative distro. We were working on some absurd requirement about generating system responses on some events, pulling continuous all-nighters. One day systemd packages arrived to Debian (sid or testing, I don't remember), and using it solved our problem. This is how I became aware that Debian packaged systemd, and it's gonna be the next default init, that's all. As I said before, I don't blindly support systemd or anything. I'm just using Debian for 14 years or so, and I'm riding on what comes along. I don't have time to devote serious development time to them, however I wish I was able to contribute into Debian or any serious FOSS project. Hmprhf.

bayindirh 8y ago

> SystemD was selected by the Technical committee, which was very far from unanimous in the decision. I didn't know that. I thought the poll was open to anyone to vote for the relevant time window. > Debian broke their social contract, showing that their priority was no longer with their users. Isn't this a little bold claim? AFAICS, the poll has spotted the potential problems and general grievances pretty well (like binary logs, etc.), and concluded that these reservations should be addressed before systemd has included in Debian? I'm not trying to defend systemd here. As I said in my comments, I disliked it first, and then I learnt and got used to it. My teammates has shown bigger reactions to it, and then they liked it too, after we configured it to behave the way we like. I didn't migrate to systemd voluntarily. It fell from above on me in a pretty hard way.

JdeBP 8y ago
If you don't know about the referral to the Debian Technical Committee, then there's a lot that you do not know (including to be wary of threads where "systemd" is mis-spelled "SystemD", as that is a common shibboleth). There was a whole Hoo-Hah. It was years long. People resigned over it. The votes and discussions are often misrepresented by people recounting the tale. (Common misrepresentations: presenting it as a two-way contest between van Smoorenburg init+rc and systemd, when OpenRC and Upstart were both included, and both favoured over van Smoorenburg init+rc; presenting it as a single vote when there were several, including some votes on Debian General Resolutions by all of the club members; presenting the wiki pages written by the partisans and ignoring the lengthy technical reports from the TC members.)
- bayindirh 8y ago
  I'm aware of the Debian's Technical Committee, but I was unable to follow them all-along during that so-called discussion. During this period, I was a developer and so-called tech lead of a Debian derivative distro. We were working on some absurd requirement about generating system responses on some events, pulling continuous all-nighters. One day systemd packages arrived to Debian (sid or testing, I don't remember), and using it solved our problem. This is how I became aware that Debian packaged systemd, and it's gonna be the next default init, that's all. As I said before, I don't blindly support systemd or anything. I'm just using Debian for 14 years or so, and I'm riding on what comes along. I don't have time to devote serious development time to them, however I wish I was able to contribute into Debian or any serious FOSS project. Hmprhf.