3 ms·

Debian also ran a poll a few months ago in order to reevaluate that choice, at least partially. Quite the hint that all is not jimmy-dandy. As a programmer in

Debian also ran a poll a few months ago in order to reevaluate that choice, at least partially. Quite the hint that all is not jimmy-dandy. As a programmer in embedded, Systemd feels like it solves problems we didn't have, and introduces problems we didn't have. I what point is it more conservatism than "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"? God only knows. Well, every time the Systemd topic pops on HN or Reddit (and even other places where you wouldn't expect it [1]), I go fetch some popcorn... It seems that different people have different needs and different experiences, hence the flamewars. [1] https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=21490 https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=21490

bkor 6y ago
Can you reference that poll? There was a GR, which is entirely different than a poll. The outcome of that was also pretty clear, Debian as a whole is ok to depend a bit more on systemd. I don't get why you use it as an example of the opposite. See https://lwn.net/Articles/808217/ https://lwn.net/Articles/808217/ for the outcome of the GR.
- astrobe_ 6y ago
  It is indeed this GR. I might be misinterpreting the result, but "Systemd but we support exploring alternatives" means, to me, that there is some unhappiness here. To begin with, I believe the GR would not have happened if there was no issue to be discussed?
  - ironlenny 6y ago
    The GR happened because it wasn't clear what maintainers should do regarding alternatives init systems. Were they required to support them? Should they just focus on Systemd? The result of the vote was maintainers are required to support Systemd, but should accept patches to support other units.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    The unhappiness was that the existing status quo made people afraid to actually use features of systemd, lest they invite flames from people about not supporting alternatives (which don't have those features). The GR changes the status quo to allow hard dependencies on systemd to actually use its features. The "but we support exploring alternatives" ensures that the GR does not preclude the possibility that people might create something better than systemd in the future.

bkor 6y ago

Can you reference that poll? There was a GR, which is entirely different than a poll. The outcome of that was also pretty clear, Debian as a whole is ok to depend a bit more on systemd. I don't get why you use it as an example of the opposite. See https://lwn.net/Articles/808217/ https://lwn.net/Articles/808217/ for the outcome of the GR.

astrobe_ 6y ago
It is indeed this GR. I might be misinterpreting the result, but "Systemd but we support exploring alternatives" means, to me, that there is some unhappiness here. To begin with, I believe the GR would not have happened if there was no issue to be discussed?
- ironlenny 6y ago
  The GR happened because it wasn't clear what maintainers should do regarding alternatives init systems. Were they required to support them? Should they just focus on Systemd? The result of the vote was maintainers are required to support Systemd, but should accept patches to support other units.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  The unhappiness was that the existing status quo made people afraid to actually use features of systemd, lest they invite flames from people about not supporting alternatives (which don't have those features). The GR changes the status quo to allow hard dependencies on systemd to actually use its features. The "but we support exploring alternatives" ensures that the GR does not preclude the possibility that people might create something better than systemd in the future.