4 ms·

> Why do the anti-choice people refuse to recognize that other people might have different requirements. Go build your own LFS systems if you want ultimate cho

by rodgerd 13y ago

> Why do the anti-choice people refuse to recognize that other people might have different requirements. Go build your own LFS systems if you want ultimate choice. You don't get to force upstream authors (who like systemd) and distribution developers (who like systemd) to do what you want. > I'm sticking with what already works. sysvinit works only if you combine incredibly low expectations with a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pekk 13y ago
But you get to force upstream authors and distribution developers who would like to be able to use something else? Sure. That is not a real argument on the merits of permitting this choice. It is just saying "nyah nyah I have the power and you do not."
- vidarh 13y ago
  Where did he indicate he wanted to force anyone? Upstream authors are free to use whatever they like. It may impact which distributions wants to include their applications the more repackaging the distribution needs to do to include it, as a resource availability issue, but that's it. Distribution developers already often substantially rework or write init scripts from scratch anyway, and that is exactly one of the reasons systemd is attractive: It drastically cuts down the scripting boilerplate that otherwise has to be done or adapted to their distro for huge numbers of packages. It also contains most of the distro specific stuff outside of init.d, opening the door for lots more reuse. But if you're an upstream developer and wants to ship sys-v init scripts, nobody has the power to stop you. Downstream will either simply write a systemd init file, or you might choose to add one if you like, or if you put LSB comments in your sys-v init file downstream might opt to use that with Systemd if they want to. How exactly is upstream being forced to do anything? How exactly are distribution developers being forced? If they are against their distributions decision, then they have the choice to package something else anyway and either ship it separately or fork the distro.
- rodgerd 13y ago
  > But you get to force upstream authors and distribution developers who would like to be able to use something else? Sure. How is any upstream developer forced to rely on systemd? How is any distribution developer forced to rely on systemd? The only people who are forced to use it are people (like me) who aren't prepared to put in the work of doing something else.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by rodgerd 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pekk 13y ago

But you get to force upstream authors and distribution developers who would like to be able to use something else? Sure. That is not a real argument on the merits of permitting this choice. It is just saying "nyah nyah I have the power and you do not."

vidarh 13y ago
Where did he indicate he wanted to force anyone? Upstream authors are free to use whatever they like. It may impact which distributions wants to include their applications the more repackaging the distribution needs to do to include it, as a resource availability issue, but that's it. Distribution developers already often substantially rework or write init scripts from scratch anyway, and that is exactly one of the reasons systemd is attractive: It drastically cuts down the scripting boilerplate that otherwise has to be done or adapted to their distro for huge numbers of packages. It also contains most of the distro specific stuff outside of init.d, opening the door for lots more reuse. But if you're an upstream developer and wants to ship sys-v init scripts, nobody has the power to stop you. Downstream will either simply write a systemd init file, or you might choose to add one if you like, or if you put LSB comments in your sys-v init file downstream might opt to use that with Systemd if they want to. How exactly is upstream being forced to do anything? How exactly are distribution developers being forced? If they are against their distributions decision, then they have the choice to package something else anyway and either ship it separately or fork the distro.
rodgerd 13y ago
> But you get to force upstream authors and distribution developers who would like to be able to use something else? Sure. How is any upstream developer forced to rely on systemd? How is any distribution developer forced to rely on systemd? The only people who are forced to use it are people (like me) who aren't prepared to put in the work of doing something else.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]