4 ms·
> "I am an old time Debian admin, I don't want to learn another way to configure my system that is not a bunch of shell scripts, so I am gonna bitch about this
by progman 12y ago
> "I am an old time Debian admin, I don't want to learn another way to configure my system that is not a bunch of shell scripts, so I am gonna bitch about this decision and create a fork".
Even if this claim were actually true -- what's wrong about that? Why should someone move to a new immature system if his current one works perfectly for him? If an Apache server works perfectly for me why should I invest time and effort to switch to nginx just to get the same thing?
I consider a fork a good idea because it would split Debian development into a safe area of old-fashioned reliable technology, and a testing area of new technologies like systemd. If those new technologies have proven their reliability _then_ the moment has come to think about exchanging old stuff. It is too risky to throw a reliable system overboard and to force all people into an immature new technology.
I wonder what's the problem with the systemd proponents. If other people prefer SystemV why don't they simply let them go?
- mateuszf 12y ago> If other people prefer SystemV why don't they simply let them go? You are free to fork Debian and modify it as you wish.
- digi_owl 12y agoCompare that mentality to trying to get a big new subsystem into the kernel. Torvalds is likely to require you to hammer out all the details and debugging in a separate tree. This even more so if it is replacing a tested, stable and maintained subsystem. As such, it is the Systemd proponents that should be doing a fork. And run it alongside stable for a time to demonstrate that it works. Then people can move over at their own pace.