On dv., ag. 09 2019, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 9 août 2019 09:22 +02, Martin Steigerwald
<mar...@lichtvoll.de>:
Reality seems different. Almost nothing was using inetd (tftpd
is the
I note that you wrote "seems". But still:
As if there would just be *one* reality. Actually there is. But
I never
saw any human being being able to express it in words. So I'd
rather
not. I believe it can be experienced at any time. But for me it
is
beyond words and so much else.
With arguing about what reality might be and claiming it is
this or
such… the trouble starts. Cause then people who somehow dare to
manage
to experience a different reality can easily be made wrong. I
think this
has been one of the core issues around the conflicts regarding
Systemd.
How dare you see things different than me? But you just need to
talk to
ten people to recall a situation they experienced together and
you will
receive ten different story. Now: which one would be right?
The one which provides real-world examples. One says "socket
activation
is not used for decades, let's just not use it", I say "it is
used right
now, see the following examples". You come and you say "I don't
use it
with dovecot". Sorry, but upstream did implement socket
activation for a
reason, not out of the blue of nothing.
Not that it's too relevant, but most of this sub-thread already
isn't:
Socket activation was used in low end embedded devices running
Debian, precisely as Simon described, already 10-15 years ago.
Those devices just didn't have the RAM (32M!) to have the
processes running all the time, but they could afford swapping and
starting the services on-demand for shorts period of time.
That one hasn't first-hand experienced (or noticed) certain things
doesn't mean they were/are not there.
In any case, and this bit *may* be relevant, but that's for each
person to judge and my understanding / perception may be wrong:
it'd look as if lately on this ML many technical topics derive in
some bits of the Debian community pushing for "let's drop
sysvinit" or (wrongly) claiming that "sysvinit is bit rotting and
nobody is using it" and that in turn results in long discussions
like this.
My theory on this is: those that were very vocal against systemd
in a non-constructive way moved away from Debian, those who were
vocal *for alternatives* in a constructive way are trying to do
what they can where they can (which is not always directly
Debian); I perceive systemd-bashing to be mostly not a thing
*here* (and that's good!); but it looks like this kind of threads,
discussing details of wildly different use-cases for Debian or how
"systemd can do X and Y can't > but you also can do it without it
in a perceived simpler way" are more of a magnet for quick
postings than those actually tackling issues, which usually have
very good points and different perspectives.
Basically: the Debian community has been able to make the change a
big part of it wanted to make (adopting systemd by default), but
that means the other bits of that process should also be
respected.
That is: sysvinit is supposed to be supported and that's not going
to be always in the same way; sometimes that will require not
blindly adopting systemd's upstream's way of doing things for
everything, but talking things through and seeing what would be
best for Debian as a whole, sometimes supporting other init's will
be a bit of an after-thought, sometimes just having different
init's be possible in the same OS it will help find hard-to-spot
bugs.
If that's accepted and respected, it's not a thing to argue about
or waste brain-cycles in, in the meantime things are getting both
calmer and better.
--
Evilham