7 ms·

Nobody said you had to futz with it. Ideally packages would ship with the correct init scripts and things would work exactly as you expect them to, or as they d

by feld 12y ago

Nobody said you had to futz with it. Ideally packages would ship with the correct init scripts and things would work exactly as you expect them to, or as they did. Unlike with systemd. Why the hell would you have a choice in kernels? Why the hell would you have a choice in filesystems? Why the hell would you have a choice in sound systems? Why the hell would you have a choice in desktop environments?

IgorPartola 12y ago
To clarify: why would you want a choice in init systems in a single distro? To me, a distro is a package manager+packages and an init system. You add a different init system, you have a different distro. Everything else is modular, but the init system is something that is at the very core of the OS. This is why most distros support multiple kernels, file systems, etc. but only one init system.
- toast0 12y ago
  Debian lets choose between the Linux, FreeBSD, and Hurd kernels, but choosing an init system is too much? P.S. What happens for packages in Debian for FreeBSD and Hurd where systemd isn't available?
  - LeonidasXIV 12y ago
    > Debian lets choose between the Linux, FreeBSD, and Hurd kernels, but choosing an init system is too much? Unless you actually want to use one of these kernels that are not Linux. Hurd has nerver made it into a stable release and kFreeBSD is on the verge of being dropped as well. There is only so much manpower and supporting every possible init system on every possible architecture on every possible kernel is getting out of hand.
zanny 12y ago
There needs to be a distinction between Linux distros for us, and Linux distros for everyone else. For us, we care about all that stuff, because we are engrossed in it daily. For everyone else, they will never touch or understand and / or should never need to understand what a kernel, filesystem, sound system, or desktop environment is. To them, the computer is a tool, not an environment, and to use it is to press buttons to get some tangible result you want from it, and the buttons you have are not buttons you are going to know how to change. So I want a choice in kernel, filesystem, etc because I care about the semantics, performance, ethics, and implementation of these things because I interact with, code for, and code against, them on a near daily basis. Everyone else does not know they exist, and thus don't care, so choice is irrelevant to them, in the same way the existence of Linux as an OS "choice" does not matter to them - if it is not on the notebook on the shelf at Best Buy, it might as well not exist.
- icebraining 12y ago
  There might or might not have to be a division between distros - personally, I think you can serve both demographics by having choice and good defaults - but I don't think Debian has ever been the distro for the "inner workings don't matter" crowd. That's why Ubuntu was made.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  To them, the computer is a tool, not an environment, and to use it is to press buttons to get some tangible result you want from it, and the buttons you have are not buttons you are going to know how to change. Your general point is correct, but the analogy you're using is incorrect. It's not tool/environment, but rather, it's tool/appliance. The fundamental cultural shift going on between many anti-systemd and pro-systemd people is that the former want the computer to be a tool, something that with proper discipline and skill can yield great things, whereas the latter want it to be an appliance - something that you fire and forget, and is meant to be inflexible and that "just works". The problems, as always, are that tools have learning curves and often need to be composed into more complex configurations to yield more powerful results. Whereas appliances, although they "just work", they work only for predictable and formulaic configurations that the appliance explicitly expects, and proceed to break down and reveal their opaque innards when used for more esoteric or unusual situations. In summary, the anti-systemd side wants to do things with their computer, and the pro-systemd side wants their computer to do things for them. This is why there will never be a consensus. It's also why systemd opponents will often resort to stupidity like defending the messy hairball of SysV initscripts, while proponents will just casually look at unit file configuration being outwardly simpler and not think of the bigger picture.
  - LaSombra 12y ago
    What's the big picture on this case?
- nullymcnull 12y ago
  Thing is, Debian is already effectively (since Ubuntu) a Linux distro that's supposed to be for us. People who want a nice desktop experience go with Ubuntu, people who want a server reach for Debian. If the higher ups at Debian really think they're going to be a player in desktop and are making decisions along those lines, then they must be seriously oblivious to the niche that Debian has actually settled into post-Ubuntu.

by feld 12y ago

IgorPartola 12y ago

To clarify: why would you want a choice in init systems in a single distro? To me, a distro is a package manager+packages and an init system. You add a different init system, you have a different distro. Everything else is modular, but the init system is something that is at the very core of the OS. This is why most distros support multiple kernels, file systems, etc. but only one init system.

toast0 12y ago
Debian lets choose between the Linux, FreeBSD, and Hurd kernels, but choosing an init system is too much? P.S. What happens for packages in Debian for FreeBSD and Hurd where systemd isn't available?
- LeonidasXIV 12y ago
  > Debian lets choose between the Linux, FreeBSD, and Hurd kernels, but choosing an init system is too much? Unless you actually want to use one of these kernels that are not Linux. Hurd has nerver made it into a stable release and kFreeBSD is on the verge of being dropped as well. There is only so much manpower and supporting every possible init system on every possible architecture on every possible kernel is getting out of hand.

zanny 12y ago

There needs to be a distinction between Linux distros for us, and Linux distros for everyone else. For us, we care about all that stuff, because we are engrossed in it daily. For everyone else, they will never touch or understand and / or should never need to understand what a kernel, filesystem, sound system, or desktop environment is. To them, the computer is a tool, not an environment, and to use it is to press buttons to get some tangible result you want from it, and the buttons you have are not buttons you are going to know how to change. So I want a choice in kernel, filesystem, etc because I care about the semantics, performance, ethics, and implementation of these things because I interact with, code for, and code against, them on a near daily basis. Everyone else does not know they exist, and thus don't care, so choice is irrelevant to them, in the same way the existence of Linux as an OS "choice" does not matter to them - if it is not on the notebook on the shelf at Best Buy, it might as well not exist.

icebraining 12y ago
There might or might not have to be a division between distros - personally, I think you can serve both demographics by having choice and good defaults - but I don't think Debian has ever been the distro for the "inner workings don't matter" crowd. That's why Ubuntu was made.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
To them, the computer is a tool, not an environment, and to use it is to press buttons to get some tangible result you want from it, and the buttons you have are not buttons you are going to know how to change. Your general point is correct, but the analogy you're using is incorrect. It's not tool/environment, but rather, it's tool/appliance. The fundamental cultural shift going on between many anti-systemd and pro-systemd people is that the former want the computer to be a tool, something that with proper discipline and skill can yield great things, whereas the latter want it to be an appliance - something that you fire and forget, and is meant to be inflexible and that "just works". The problems, as always, are that tools have learning curves and often need to be composed into more complex configurations to yield more powerful results. Whereas appliances, although they "just work", they work only for predictable and formulaic configurations that the appliance explicitly expects, and proceed to break down and reveal their opaque innards when used for more esoteric or unusual situations. In summary, the anti-systemd side wants to do things with their computer, and the pro-systemd side wants their computer to do things for them. This is why there will never be a consensus. It's also why systemd opponents will often resort to stupidity like defending the messy hairball of SysV initscripts, while proponents will just casually look at unit file configuration being outwardly simpler and not think of the bigger picture.
- LaSombra 12y ago
  What's the big picture on this case?
nullymcnull 12y ago
Thing is, Debian is already effectively (since Ubuntu) a Linux distro that's supposed to be for us. People who want a nice desktop experience go with Ubuntu, people who want a server reach for Debian. If the higher ups at Debian really think they're going to be a player in desktop and are making decisions along those lines, then they must be seriously oblivious to the niche that Debian has actually settled into post-Ubuntu.